Key Testimony in the Civil Trial

[William Anthony]

that's what I thought --

I guess I've lost the argument here. I posted baden's testimony where he said his standard is 95% to a medical certainty EXCEPT when he was caught slanting his testimony in favor of the defense.

so, are we all in agreement that both experts gave opinions?

Yes, I agree that both experts gave opinions and, of the subject that is currently being discussed (I believe there is only one (pun intended, :)), neither expert testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty on that issue.

[martin II]

Yes, I agree that both experts gave opinions and, of the subject that is currently being discussed (I believe there is only one (pun intended, :)), neither expert testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty on that issue.

I hope tv will read your post and be informed.:read:

[martin II]

martin, it won't be possible to post Dr. Baden saying there were two killers to a reasonable medical certainty. I think you should try to keep up with the discussion a little closer. A little chocoloate ice cream might help with your concentration. Here is the testimony which has been posted several times. Please don't ask me to post it again because it isn't going to change.

Q. Are you telling this jury, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, more than 95 percent, that it's your opinion there were two assailants that slaughtered Ms. Brown and Ron Goldman; is that what you're saying, yes or no, sir?

A. That opinion was not to a reasonable degree of -- reasonable degree of medical certainty, it was more likely than not.

So i guess you see that Baden did not testify to a reasonable medical certainty that there were two assaliants.

[weezer]

So i guess you see that Baden did not testify to a reasonable medical certainty that there were two assaliants.

dang martin! I think everyone -- but you -- has agreed that the two experts gave their opinions.

[tv]

So i guess you see that Baden did not testify to a reasonable medical certainty that there were two assaliants.That's what I've been saying all along, martin. I think you need to lay off the cookies and pepsi. Something's not agreeing with you. :)

[martin II]

dang martin! I think everyone -- but you -- has agreed that the two experts gave their opinions.

If you posted the pigeon toed link required of you, i missed it.Can you direct me to it.

[martin II]

Dr Spitz.

I think the comments about fingernails scratches turned out to be pin head size.



CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BAKER:

Q. Those are -- all of those marks that you've circled, Dr. Spitz, are about
the size of the head of a pin or less, right?

(Exhibit 2165 displayed.)

THE WITNESS: Well, they're not very large, though.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) About the size of a head of a pin, right?

A. I don't know. I can't tell you whether they're the size of a head of a pin
or less, depending on the pin. I suppose there are pins with little heads and
big heads.

There's no scale on this. I could say that they are small, but I cannot tell
you how small they are.

Q. And in virtually -- as I understand your testimony, virtually every cut,
abrasion that you saw on Mr. Simpson's hand, it's your opinion, was caused by a
fingernail, correct?

A. Well, those I saw are, in my opinion, fingernail marks.

Q. And this obviously was a sharp fingernail because they're very little cuts
and they're not broad-base cuts, right?



--------------------------------------



Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You have -- while they're looking at that, you have -- you
have given a lot of interviews to various media relative to the O.J. Simpson
case, have you not, Dr. Spitz?

A. I've given some, yes.

Q. And you have been quoted in the L.A. Times?

A. I've been quoted in the Detroit paper.

Q. And others, true?

A. I don't know where I've been quoted. Those I read, I can tell you, but then,
many I didn't read.

Q. All right.

Now, in terms of this case, you would agree that you were taking sides relative
to the plaintiffs' position in the case, correct?

A. No.

Q. All right.

And you wouldn't be taking sides, correct?

You just, in looking at the evidence, giving your best independent judgment of
what that is, true?

A. I believe that I looked at the evidence in this case and interpreted it the
best way I know how.

Q. Fair enough.

Now, you told the -- let me get the name of the paper correct -- The Detroit
News --

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me.

MR. BAKER: -- October 17 --

MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, this is out of context. The two sentences before --
put it in context. It's unfair to ask it this way. The witness says --

MR. BAKER: Don't need an argument.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. BAKER: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Excuse me. You may rehabilitate your witness at a later time if you
wish.

MR. MEDVENE: But he's reading from a document unfairly. He's -- if you could
look at the document.

THE COURT: Excuse me. This is cross-examination. And let's proceed.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You told the Detroit News on October 17, 1994, in talking
about the O.J. Simpson case, "Invariably, forensic pathologists will take
sides, who are not part of the prosecution at all. We work in an adversarial
system. Some other expert is going to come in and try to challenge us."

That's what you told the Detroit News, correct?

A. I couldn't tell you; I don't know. Maybe I did tell them that; maybe I did
not.

Q. Have you ever written to -- the Detroit News is a paper in

----------------------------------



Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, let's talk just a little bit about you were retained in
January, February of this year?

A. I think it was January.

Q. And from that day to this day, have you prepared a single note relative to
this case, Dr. Spitz?

A. No, I have not.

Q. Not one single piece of paper, you will agree, that you have prepared
relative to this case, correct?

A. That's correct.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, Doctor, how much blood is contained in the average human
body?

A. I don't know. I suppose it varies. And there is no complete agreement, I
don't believe, in that regard. I would say, I would estimate maybe eight
quarts.

Q. Doctor, isn't it true that there's eight to ten quarts of blood in a human
body?

A. That may be.

Q. So, eight quarts is two gallons?

------------------------





A. I think that it is evidence that, with everything else I reviewed to get it
such in my mind that I would see totally clear, I also called Dr. Golden and --
who did the autopsies and talked it over with me.

Q. When we took your deposition, you hadn't talked to Dr. Golden?

A. No, I didn't. I talked to him afterwards.

Q. I want to talk to you about -- a little bit about, you didn't review any
physical piece of evidence. I mean, you looked at the reports. You looked at
the photographs. But as far as reviewing, for example, the tissue that you
showed us in one of the photographs, you didn't review that tissue, did you?

A. No. I saw the piece of tissue on the picture and then I spoke to Golden
about it.

Q. Okay. All right.

[William Anthony]

You just, in looking at the evidence, giving your best independent judgment of
what that is, true?

A. I believe that I looked at the evidence in this case and interpreted it the
best way I know how.

Q. Fair enough.

Now, you told the -- let me get the name of the paper correct -- The Detroit
News --

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me.

MR. BAKER: -- October 17 --

MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, this is out of context. The two sentences before --
put it in context. It's unfair to ask it this way. The witness says --

MR. BAKER: Don't need an argument.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. BAKER: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Excuse me. You may rehabilitate your witness at a later time if you
wish.

MR. MEDVENE: But he's reading from a document unfairly. He's -- if you could
look at the document.

THE COURT: Excuse me. This is cross-examination. And let's proceed.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You told the Detroit News on October 17, 1994, in talking
about the O.J. Simpson case, "Invariably, forensic pathologists will take
sides, who are not part of the prosecution at all. We work in an adversarial
system. Some other expert is going to come in and try to challenge us."

That's what you told the Detroit News, correct?

A. I couldn't tell you; I don't know. Maybe I did tell them that; maybe I did
not.

Thanks Martin. The witness seems to be saying that the only proper side is the side of the prosecution, imho.

[Kate Sachel]

You just, in looking at the evidence, giving your best independent judgment of
what that is, true?

A. I believe that I looked at the evidence in this case and interpreted it the
best way I know how.

Q. Fair enough.

Now, you told the -- let me get the name of the paper correct -- The Detroit
News --

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me.

MR. BAKER: -- October 17 --

MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, this is out of context. The two sentences before --
put it in context. It's unfair to ask it this way. The witness says --

MR. BAKER: Don't need an argument.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. BAKER: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Excuse me. You may rehabilitate your witness at a later time if you
wish.

MR. MEDVENE: But he's reading from a document unfairly. He's -- if you could
look at the document.

THE COURT: Excuse me. This is cross-examination. And let's proceed.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You told the Detroit News on October 17, 1994, in talking
about the O.J. Simpson case, "Invariably, forensic pathologists will take
sides, who are not part of the prosecution at all. We work in an adversarial
system. Some other expert is going to come in and try to challenge us."

That's what you told the Detroit News, correct?

A. I couldn't tell you; I don't know. Maybe I did tell them that; maybe I did
not.

Thanks Martin. The witness seems to be saying that the only proper side is the side of the prosecution, imho.

I think that, if Dr. Spitz believed that the only proper side is that of the prosecution, he would not ever testify for the defense. But he has, in many cases, done so.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I think that, if Dr. Spitz believed that the only proper side is that of the prosecution, he would not ever testify for the defense. But he has, in many cases, done so.

Kate

A point well taken, imho. I did not mean to imply that he was above acting in a manner he thought improper. I think money may cause one, including those for the defense, to slant their testimony.:)

[Kate Sachel]

A point well taken, imho. I did not mean to imply that he was above acting in a manner he thought improper. I think money may cause one, including those for the defense, to slant their testimony.:)

It may, but I don't believe it always does.

Kate

[William Anthony]

It may, but I don't believe it always does.

Kate

Agreed but we must allow for consideration of that possibility. Would you agree with that?

[Kate Sachel]

Agreed but we must allow for consideration of that possibility. Would you agree with that?

Absolutely, no question that there is always that possibility. Dollar signs have the ability to make people do very unethical and immoral things.

Kate

[martin II]

A point well taken, imho. I did not mean to imply that he was above acting in a manner he thought improper. I think money may cause one, including those for the defense, to slant their testimony.:)

William
I have not finished reading Spitz but i think he was asked by the prosecution to be a witness and he refused waiting instead for the civil trial.
He did bill the plaintiff $3,000.00 per day in office and more at trial.i will go back and check that but i know the $3,000.00 per day is correct.
There was a interesting exchange between Spitz and Baker about the killer standing in front of nicole when she was killed.imo

[martin II]

You just, in looking at the evidence, giving your best independent judgment of
what that is, true?

A. I believe that I looked at the evidence in this case and interpreted it the
best way I know how.

Q. Fair enough.

Now, you told the -- let me get the name of the paper correct -- The Detroit
News --

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me.

MR. BAKER: -- October 17 --

MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, this is out of context. The two sentences before --
put it in context. It's unfair to ask it this way. The witness says --

MR. BAKER: Don't need an argument.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. BAKER: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Excuse me. You may rehabilitate your witness at a later time if you
wish.

MR. MEDVENE: But he's reading from a document unfairly. He's -- if you could
look at the document.

THE COURT: Excuse me. This is cross-examination. And let's proceed.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You told the Detroit News on October 17, 1994, in talking
about the O.J. Simpson case, "Invariably, forensic pathologists will take
sides, who are not part of the prosecution at all. We work in an adversarial
system. Some other expert is going to come in and try to challenge us."

That's what you told the Detroit News, correct?

A. I couldn't tell you; I don't know. Maybe I did tell them that; maybe I did
not.

Thanks Martin. The witness seems to be saying that the only proper side is the side of the prosecution, imho.

The guy was giving media interviews/opinions about the oj trial and then testified in the civil trial against oj.He also testified that when Rons neck jugular vein was cut, very little blood came out

[martin II]

You just, in looking at the evidence, giving your best independent judgment of
what that is, true?

A. I believe that I looked at the evidence in this case and interpreted it the
best way I know how.

Q. Fair enough.

Now, you told the -- let me get the name of the paper correct -- The Detroit
News --

MR. MEDVENE: Excuse me.

MR. BAKER: -- October 17 --

MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, this is out of context. The two sentences before --
put it in context. It's unfair to ask it this way. The witness says --

MR. BAKER: Don't need an argument.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. BAKER: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Excuse me. You may rehabilitate your witness at a later time if you
wish.

MR. MEDVENE: But he's reading from a document unfairly. He's -- if you could
look at the document.

THE COURT: Excuse me. This is cross-examination. And let's proceed.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You told the Detroit News on October 17, 1994, in talking
about the O.J. Simpson case, "Invariably, forensic pathologists will take
sides, who are not part of the prosecution at all. We work in an adversarial
system. Some other expert is going to come in and try to challenge us."

That's what you told the Detroit News, correct?

A. I couldn't tell you; I don't know. Maybe I did tell them that; maybe I did
not.

Thanks Martin. The witness seems to be saying that the only proper side is the side of the prosecution, imho.

What did he mean by 'TRY TO CHALLENGE US" That does not sound like he is just looking at the evidence.Sound like he has interjected himself as being a part of the prosecutions team.

[William Anthony]

Absolutely, no question that there is always that possibility. Dollar signs have the ability to make people do very unethical and immoral things.

Kate

Let's not be too cynical about dollar signs. I sometimes wear one around my neck.:)

[tv]

The guy was giving media interviews/opinions about the oj trial and then testified in the civil trial against oj.He also testified that when Rons neck jugular vein was cut, very little blood came outAt least he didn't give media interviews while the civil trial was going on like Dr. Baden did. Here's what he said about the jugular.


Q. Now, Mr. Baker talked in a hypothetical about bleeding for five
minutes or more from a cut in the jugular vein. And can you fight, or
couldn't you fight? Is there any evidence that you found that that
jugular vein was bleeding for five minutes or more before death?

A. No. There's no -- no five minute jugular vein bleeding, not before
death. Maybe after, after Goldman was in the -- collapsed in the four
by six area that the jugular vein still oozed out some blood. But the
jugular vein -- but it's nature is a vein, not an artery.

Veins don't bleed like arteries. The aorta bleeds with great force,
very extensive. As I described on Friday, would hit -- a severed
artery would hit a 12-foot ceiling. A vein wouldn't do that, whether
it's a jugular vein or any other vein.

[William Anthony]

William
I have not finished reading Spitz but i think he was asked by the prosecution to be a witness and he refused waiting instead for the civil trial.
He did bill the plaintiff $3,000.00 per day in office and more at trial.i will go back and check that but i know the $3,000.00 per day is correct.
There was a interesting exchange between Spitz and Baker about the killer standing in front of nicole when she was killed.imo

I think that the testimony about the amount he was paid may be enlightening and may allow strong evidence and for an agreement between you, Kate and me. :)

[martin II]

At least he didn't give media interviews while the civil trial was going on like Dr. Baden did. Here's what he said about the jugular.


Q. Now, Mr. Baker talked in a hypothetical about bleeding for five
minutes or more from a cut in the jugular vein. And can you fight, or
couldn't you fight? Is there any evidence that you found that that
jugular vein was bleeding for five minutes or more before death?

A. No. There's no -- no five minute jugular vein bleeding, not before
death. Maybe after, after Goldman was in the -- collapsed in the four
by six area that the jugular vein still oozed out some blood. But the
jugular vein -- but it's nature is a vein, not an artery.

Veins don't bleed like arteries. The aorta bleeds with great force,
very extensive. As I described on Friday, would hit -- a severed
artery would hit a 12-foot ceiling. A vein wouldn't do that, whether
it's a jugular vein or any other vein.

I will have to check but i thought the neck jugular was cut before the flank injury happened. hmmmm

[tv]

I think that the testimony about the amount he was paid may be enlightening and may allow strong evidence and for an agreement between you, Kate and me. :)
I know that Dr. Baden was paid over $100,000.

[William Anthony]

At least he didn't give media interviews while the civil trial was going on like Dr. Baden did. Here's what he said about the jugular.


Q. Now, Mr. Baker talked in a hypothetical about bleeding for five
minutes or more from a cut in the jugular vein. And can you fight, or
couldn't you fight? Is there any evidence that you found that that
jugular vein was bleeding for five minutes or more before death?

A. No. There's no -- no five minute jugular vein bleeding, not before
death. Maybe after, after Goldman was in the -- collapsed in the four
by six area that the jugular vein still oozed out some blood. But the
jugular vein -- but it's nature is a vein, not an artery.

Veins don't bleed like arteries. The aorta bleeds with great force,
very extensive. As I described on Friday, would hit -- a severed
artery would hit a 12-foot ceiling. A vein wouldn't do that, whether
it's a jugular vein or any other vein.

Here is a link that may be informative on how long a jugular vein would bleed, depending on whether or not the jugular vein was the external or internal one and the position of the person whose vein was cut.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_does_it_take_to_die_after_the_jugular_vei n_is_cut

[martin II]

I know that Dr. Baden was paid over $100,000.

I believe Dr Baden was on the case much longer and HE DID MAKE NOTES of his work i believe. Spitz made none before his initial testimony.It all came from his head.Every single detail.imo

[William Anthony]

I know that Dr. Baden was paid over $100,000.

Am I correctly interpreting that we can not automatically except as valid the opinions offered by experts and should take into account the amount of money they were paid?

[tv]

I believe Dr Baden was on the case much longer and HE DID MAKE NOTES of his work i believe. Spitz made none before his initial testimony.It all came from his head.Every single detail.imo


If you say so, martin. I don't know if your statement is true or not. You have stated several times that Dr. Baden had 20,000 autopsies under his belt. I'm much more impressed with Dr. Sptiz's experience of having done 60,000 autopsies.

[William Anthony]

If you say so, martin. I don't know if your statement is true or not. You have stated several times that Dr. Baden had 20,000 autopsies under his belt. I'm much more impressed with Dr. Sptiz's experience of having done 60,000 autopsies.

As some here are fond of saying, what a lawyer says is not evidence. I could not find where Spitz testified to doing 60, 000 autopsies.

THE COURT: What's the next page?

There's no authorship to this thing.

Go up to help and about --

There we go.

MR. PETROCELLI: Stop it right there.

It says it's not warranted to be medically correct.

MR. BAKER: Oh, no.

MR. BLASIER: We can't back it up; we have to start it again.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. P. BAKER: You want me to run it again, Judge?

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. BAKER: Anatomically correct.

MR. MEDVENE: It says, "This product not warranted to be medically accurate."

MR. GELBLUM: For general --

MR. MEDVENE: Purposes.

MR. BLASIER: Dr. Spitz can say if the stomach is in the wrong place; it's not
rocket science. Dr. Spitz has done 60,000 autopsies. He should know when it's
anatomically incorrect.

(Pause in proceedings.)

[tv]

Whatever, William. If you want to say the defense attorneys were liars that's okay with me. I could research it but it really doesn't seem worth the effort.

[William Anthony]

Whatever, William. If you want to say the defense attorneys were liars that's okay with me. I could research it but it really doesn't seem worth the effort.

I am not so quick to call someone a liar. He may have misspoke. The point is that there is no testimony from Spitz that he preformed 60,000 autopsies; only a statement from a defense attorney, which some say is not evidence. I think you posted as a fact that Spitz performed 60,000 autopsies (and I thought I grew up in a tough town, :)).

[Kate Sachel]

Am I correctly interpreting that we can not automatically except as valid the opinions offered by experts and should take into account the amount of money they were paid?

It was my impression that was your opinion.

It seems also that martin believes money plays a part since he posted the amount he believes Spitzer was paid.

I do not share the opinion that you questioned above.

Kate

[martin II]

Here is a link that may be informative on how long a jugular vein would bleed, depending on whether or not the jugular vein was the external or internal one and the position of the person whose vein was cut.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_does_it_take_to_die_after_the_jugular_vei n_is_cut

Rons jugular that was cut, was in his left neck so i assume it would be called the external jugular. 2 minutes.hhhmmmmm

[tv]

I am not so quick to call someone a liar. He may have misspoke. The point is that there is no testimony from Spitz that he preformed 60,000 autopsies; only a statement from a defense attorney, which some say is not evidence. I think you posted as a fact that Spitz performed 60,000 autopsies (and I thought I grew up in a tough town, :)).The money these experts were paid isn't important to me. I believe that Dr. Baden testified he didn't charge his usual rate for some reason or another. I've read the 60,000 estimate in other places but can't recall where so asking me for a link won't help. IMO, after so many autopsies what difference does it make between 20,000 and 60,000? They are both respected in their fields and gave expert, but differing, opinions. We have the individual right to make up our minds as to which one we believe. I side with Dr. Spitz in there being one assailant. You don't. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

It was my impression that was your opinion.

It seems also that martin believes money plays a part since he posted the amount he believes Spitzer was paid.

I do not share the opinion that you questioned above.

Kate

I am at a loss here. My opinion is that we should consider money as a motive to slant testimony.

I will have to allow Martin to answer that.

This is where I am lost; which opinion.

[martin II]

Q. Let me read what you --

A. I mean, if I did not do a full reconstruction in encompassing other disciplines. I'm a forensic pathologist. I did a full reconstruction from my angle?

Q. Let me read what you told us on Friday afternoon on page 126 of volume 11 of your testimony on Friday. Starting at line 14 (Reading:)

" ... You did a full reconstruction of how these murders took place in your mind, and you're willing to sit here and tell us about them?

"A. Yes."

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you didn't qualify anything about your area of expertise when we asked you the question about full reconstruction, true?

A. I don't know that that's true because I don't know what comes in the sentences before and what comes in the sentences after.

If the question is fingerprint analysis or shoe print analysis or hair and fibers or DNA, I'm no expert in those -- in those areas. It goes without saying. There's a lot of things people say when they talk that isn't qualified. But it is certainly evident that I'm not an expert in areas in which I haven't had training.

Q. Now, have you had training, sir, in how assailants inflict knife wounds on human beings?

A. Yes. In that area, I think I have had training.

Q. And you've had training, I take it, sir, then in timing of the infliction of wounds and reviewing a murder scene, to determine whether or not the estimate -- Strike that.

Whether or not your time periods would fit within the parameters of what actually occurred at the time the murder took place, true?

A. No. The main reason why I --

Q. Can you answer my question, sir?

Can I ask the Court to --

A. No. That's not the only reason why I go to a crime scene.

Q. Didn't ask you whether it was the only reason you go to a crime scene, sir. I said, have you had training where you attempt to assimilate all of the information of the crime scene to determine whether or not these estimates or -- strike that.

Not these estimate, these absolute timeframes you gave this jury were, in fact, accurate when pragmatically compared to what occurred at the crime scene. You had training in that, sir?

A. I wish I could answer you. I did not understand your question.

Q. Well, in other words, sir, you gave this jury, on direct examination Friday morning, some pretty concrete timeframes within which all of these wounds were inflicted to these two human beings, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And my question to you, sir, is: Have you had any training in looking at all of the elements of a crime scene, so that these absolute timeframes that you gave this jury on Friday can be compared to the crime scene and what actually occurred to determine whether or not your time periods are, in fact, accurate in --

MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence that you have to go to the crime scene.

THE COURT: Okay. Sustained. That's a multifaceted compound question that is starting off on one track and ending on another.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, let me ask you this question in terms of the injuries. We were talking about Ron Goldman on Friday in doing the accident, the -- not the accident, the reconstruction of the crime scene, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you -- I -- you have not seen any of the photos that were of the closed-in area, correct?

A. I had not seen these pictures. I'd seen other pictures of the same areas but these pictures, I had not seen. The other pictures, I would say, show the same area. But these very pictures, I have not seen.

Q. Okay. Now, I showed you a picture in the upper right-hand corner, and -- on Friday and you couldn't tell us whether or not you thought that that was blood 'cause you just didn't know, correct?

The upper right-hand corner -- what's that chart number, please, Phil.

MR. P. BAKER: 1342.

MR. BAKER: 1342?

THE WITNESS: May we -- may I approach the board?

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, I put that, Monday, on the monitor, put a close-up picture of that on the monitor and you can tell us whether you believe that this is, in fact, blood of Mr. Goldman?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Relevance, outside the scope of the direct, "what's on the fence."

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Can you see that, sir?

A. Yes.

[weezer]

RIP Ron :rose:
RIP Nicole :rose:

[William Anthony]

The money these experts were paid isn't important to me. I believe that Dr. Baden testified he didn't charge his usual rate for some reason or another. I've read the 60,000 estimate in other places but can't recall where so asking me for a link won't help. IMO, after so many autopsies what difference does it make between 20,000 and 60,000? They are both respected in their fields and gave expert, but differing, opinions. We have the individual right to make up our minds as to which one we believe. I side with Dr. Spitz in there being one assailant. You don't. :shrug:

Please, do not say I am nit-picking. You have previously said that you side with Spitz, because of his experience. You now say that the number of autopsies makes no difference. If we do not know the number of autopsies, then we do not know his experience, imho. However, let's let that drop. I do not side with either. I look at the evidence and ask myself does it favor one position more than the other. In this case, judging solely on the experts' testimonies, I can say that it does not favor either side. I do not want to discuss this now but I am asking was the unidentified Caucasian hair introduced in the civil trial.

[martin II]

Q. I'm talking about dripping down off of that horizontal bar into the dirt area in front of the concrete stone, whatever it is?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you would agree that's blood, correct?

A. I would agree that that looks like blood, yes.

Q. All right. And for a person to have bled in that particular manner, the person has to be above it, correct?

Bled down on that horizontal bar, true?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Lack of foundation, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I --

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You can answer.

A. It looks to me --

Q. Can you answer my question. I didn't ask --

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please --

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I didn't ask what it looks like to you.

A. I'm not a blood splatter expert.

Q. Would you agree that the person who left the blood there, had to be above the area where the blood is dropped on the horizontal rail of the fence and then puddles into the dirt area.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Asked and answered. The witness said he's not a blood splatter expert and he wasn't put on for that purpose.

THE COURT: You can answer yes or no. He testified in direct examination with regards to blood flow.

THE WITNESS: The origin of this blood could be from a higher level. It could be from the same level.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) It's going to take some period of time for that blood to accumulate on the horizontal bar as well as to accumulate in the puddle areas that are about -- in the center of the TV monitor. You would agree with that?

A. You mean that it takes time for this blood to accumulate here?

Q. Yes, sir. That's what I mean.

A. Everything takes time. There's nothing in life that doesn't take time. The question is: How much time, but it takes time. It takes time. Everything we do takes time.

Q. Now, if you would come over, I want to point out on 1342, the middle picture on the left-hand side and ask you if you have looked at that area where there is a hole that is approximately 12 inches by 12 inches, maybe 8 to 10 inches deep?

A. Yes. There is a hole.

Q. And I want you to further assume that Detective Lange came into this courtroom and said that hole, more likely or not, in his opinion, was made during the struggle that culminated in the death of Ron Goldman. Now --

A. He said that this hole was made during the struggle.

Q. That's what he said.

A. Okay.

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, do you have an opinion as to whether or not you can dig that hole, and you can have the blood that is indicated on the TV monitor, now, would that take over five seconds?

A. I don't know how big the hole is. I don't know. I'm not an expert in hole digging. I don't base an opinion on the hole digging. I have really no opinion about whether that hole existed -- preexisted, existed or was done after the fact. I have never seen the hole. I don't know what it is.

Q. Well, but you never took that into account in asking, for your opinion and conclusion, that within 60 seconds, the first wound was inflicted on Ron Goldman and until the last wound was inflicted on Ron Goldman, correct?

A. My opinion is --

Q. Did you take --

A. Has been --

Q. Did you take it into consideration, was the question, Doctor, not what your opinion is.

THE COURT: Did you take that into consideration, the hole?

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The hole and the blood splatters and the -- that are on the photo on the monitor, did you take those, just those two elements into consideration in arriving at your opinions and conclusion that it was 60 seconds from the first wound to the last on Ron Goldman?

A. Can I answer, Your Honor?

Q. You may.

THE COURT: You may.

THE WITNESS: I took into consideration, the blood that I saw. I did not take into consideration the hole.

[tv]

Please, do not say I am nit-picking. You have previously said that you side with Spitz, because of his experience. You now say that the number of autopsies makes no difference. If we do not know the number of autopsies, then we do not know his experience, imho. However, let's let that drop. I do not side with either. I look at the evidence and ask myself does it favor one position more than the other. In this case, judging solely on the experts' testimonies, I can say that it does not favor either side. I do not want to discuss this now but I am asking was the unidentified Caucasian hair introduced in the civil trial.I don't believe I said it was only his experience that makes me more confident in his judgement in this case. They both have vast experience in autopsies but I've always found Dr. Baden to be a little dithering in his testimony, not just in this case but in others also. To me, Dr. Spitz's theory is more consistent with the evidence. I'm not sure about the hair.

[tv]

RIP Ron :rose:
RIP Nicole :rose:
I'm glad you remembered. So sad. :(

[William Anthony]

RIP Ron :rose:
RIP Nicole :rose:

Agreed.

[martin II]

I am at a loss here. My opinion is that we should consider money as a motive to slant testimony.

I will have to allow Martin to answer that.

This is where I am lost; which opinion.

William
i am reading and posting testimony as i find it.When i feel the need to comment on the testimony i will. Both Dr Baden and Dr Spitz are high end guys and charge a lot of money. I believe someone had posted Dr Badens total fee at $100,000 or close to that. i have not read what Spitzs total fee was but when i see $3,000.00 per day and see that he seemed to consider himself a part of the prosecutions team along with some of his responses
i think it is reasonable to consider he would tailor his testimony to help whoever was paying that tab.

Spitz did testify that he had no problem with anything/findings in the autopsy report.But the Dr that testified to the autposy report in court stated that the Dr that conducted the autopsy made about 30 mistakes in his autopsy/report.

was Spitz saying he agreed with the mistakes also.imo

[William Anthony]

sniped

I do not share the opinion that you questioned above.

Kate

I suspect you could answer, "most of them". :)

[weezer]

William
i am reading and posting testimony as i find it.When i feel the need to comment on the testimony i will. Both Dr Baden and Dr Spitz are high end guys and charge a lot of money. I believe someone had posted Dr Badens total fee at $100,000 or close to that. i have not read what Spitzs total fee was but when i see $3,000.00 per day and see that he seemed to consider himself a part of the prosecutions team along with some of his responses
i think it is reasonable to consider he would tailor his testimony to help whoever was paying that tab.

Spitz did testify that he had no problem with anything/findings in the autopsy report.But the Dr that testified to the autposy report in court stated that the Dr that conducted the autopsy made about 30 mistakes in his autopsy/report.

was Spitz saying he agreed with the mistakes also.imo

and baden said he charges $2500 a day EXCEPT he had quit charging orenthal because orenthal couldn't pay and besides, baden had worked a deal with the state so he passed along the savings to orenthal. wonder if he was so kind to anyone else?

RIP Ron :rose:
RIP Nicole :rose:

[William Anthony]

I don't believe I said it was only his experience that makes me more confident in his judgement in this case. They both have vast experience in autopsies but I've always found Dr. Baden to be a little dithering in his testimony, not just in this case but in others also. To me, Dr. Spitz's theory is more consistent with the evidence. I'm not sure about the hair.

I think I understand. You mentioned the number, saying you were more impressed with his experience, although it made no difference. I think Baden's dithering may have been in regard to questions asking him for his opinion and consistent with (no pun intended). I think that he, like I, would enjoy questions that included to a reasonable degree of certainty as it relates to experts' area of expertise.

[William Anthony]

William
i am reading and posting testimony as i find it.When i feel the need to comment on the testimony i will. Both Dr Baden and Dr Spitz are high end guys and charge a lot of money. I believe someone had posted Dr Badens total fee at $100,000 or close to that. i have not read what Spitzs total fee was but when i see $3,000.00 per day and see that he seemed to consider himself a part of the prosecutions team along with some of his responses
i think it is reasonable to consider he would tailor his testimony to help whoever was paying that tab.

Spitz did testify that he had no problem with anything/findings in the autopsy report.But the Dr that testified to the autposy report in court stated that the Dr that conducted the autopsy made about 30 mistakes in his autopsy/report.

was Spitz saying he agreed with the mistakes also.imo

If there was no testimony about the alleged mistakes, then were there really any mistakes made.

[William Anthony]

Perhaps, out of respect for Ronald and Nicole. We should not be posting, today.

[martin II]

If there was no testimony about the alleged mistakes, then were there really any mistakes made.

The chief medical examiner that spoke of the 30 mistakes did not testify in this trial for some reason.

[fgump2]

I owe you an apology Martin. I thought that OJS said h e ‘bled all over the place’ in his statement to the police. He didn’t say that. He did admit to dripping blood in his house and on the driveway.’ If it’s dripped, it’s what I dripped running around trying to leave’. Not as incriminating as I thought.
I also made a mistake when I wrote that I had tried scratching myself with short fingernails to test Dr. Baden’s theory that Ron’s fingernails were too short to scratch. My test was, I think, on my forearm. The scratches on OJS were on his left hand.
There was at least one video made of OJS before or after the recital before the murders. This is mentioned on page 148 of the book by V. Bugliosi, which is described as after the recital and on page 432 of the book by D. Petrocelli, which is described as being before the recital. During the criminal trial this video (assuming there was just one video, probably after the recital) this video was brought up because it showed OJS in a good mood.
There is another point in Bugliosi’s book that is important. There was evidence that police racial abuse is common, but frame-ups are not.
Mr Bugliosi talked to a black man named Michael Zincun who was chairman of a group called Coalition Against Police Abuse in Los Angeles. This group had documented 35,000 cases since 1976. At the time the book was written, the group was averaging over 2,000 cases per year. Mr Zincun said that the only frame up he knew about was in 1976. This definition of frame up excluded cases in which the police beat up or killed someone, and then planted a weapon or lied about the situation to justify the violence.
The case in 1976 involved framing two black men for killing an LA deputy sheriff. This was wrong, and the men were eventually freed, but I think everyone knows that police overeat to the murder of a lawman. I don’t know if anyone was convicted for this frame-up.
Bugliosi said that on a nationwide basis, frame-ups are quite rare, and usually involves suspected drug dealers being framed. I am aware of the fact that there were some cocaine frame-ups in a small town in Texas a few years ago.
Since framing innocent men was rare in the LA police force, it would seem quite unlikely that MF, or Lange, or Vanneter would start with OJS. After all, OJS was a rich, popular celebrity. People like that can fight back. If MF, or anyone else, had experience framing low income people, and had gotten away with it, they might have tried a rich celebrity. It would be quite strange for any copy to refrain from framing people for almost their whole career, and then frame someone just before retirement; especially a frame-up victim who can fight back. To frame a rich celebrity without practicing or easier marks would be like a boxer challenging for the heavyweight boxing championship without building his skills up on easier matches.
I believe that when we use someone as a scapegoat, we harm this person in question, but also harm the cause of justice. Some years ago a man named Henry Lucas had over 100 murders blamed on him. Some people later on found that Mr. Lucas was innocent of most of these murders and the police were using Henry Lucas as a device to clear the books. The cause of truth is not well served when people or institutions become scapegoats. This is true whether the scapegoat is Henry Lucas, Mark Fuhrman, or the LA Police dept.

[William Anthony]

I owe you an apology Martin. I thought that OJS said h e ‘bled all over the place’ in his statement to the police. He didn’t say that. He did admit to dripping blood in his house and on the driveway.’ If it’s dripped, it’s what I dripped running around trying to leave’. Not as incriminating as I thought.
I also made a mistake when I wrote that I had tried scratching myself with short fingernails to test Dr. Baden’s theory that Ron’s fingernails were too short to scratch. My test was, I think, on my forearm. The scratches on OJS were on his left hand.
There was at least one video made of OJS before or after the recital before the murders. This is mentioned on page 148 of the book by V. Bugliosi, which is described as after the recital and on page 432 of the book by D. Petrocelli, which is described as being before the recital. During the criminal trial this video (assuming there was just one video, probably after the recital) this video was brought up because it showed OJS in a good mood.
There is another point in Bugliosi’s book that is important. There was evidence that police racial abuse is common, but frame-ups are not.
Mr Bugliosi talked to a black man named Michael Zincun who was chairman of a group called Coalition Against Police Abuse in Los Angeles. This group had documented 35,000 cases since 1976. At the time the book was written, the group was averaging over 2,000 cases per year. Mr Zincun said that the only frame up he knew about was in 1976. This definition of frame up excluded cases in which the police beat up or killed someone, and then planted a weapon or lied about the situation to justify the violence.
The case in 1976 involved framing two black men for killing an LA deputy sheriff. This was wrong, and the men were eventually freed, but I think everyone knows that police overeat to the murder of a lawman. I don’t know if anyone was convicted for this frame-up.
Bugliosi said that on a nationwide basis, frame-ups are quite rare, and usually involves suspected drug dealers being framed. I am aware of the fact that there were some cocaine frame-ups in a small town in Texas a few years ago.
Since framing innocent men was rare in the LA police force, it would seem quite unlikely that MF, or Lange, or Vanneter would start with OJS. After all, OJS was a rich, popular celebrity. People like that can fight back. If MF, or anyone else, had experience framing low income people, and had gotten away with it, they might have tried a rich celebrity. It would be quite strange for any copy to refrain from framing people for almost their whole career, and then frame someone just before retirement; especially a frame-up victim who can fight back. To frame a rich celebrity without practicing or easier marks would be like a boxer challenging for the heavyweight boxing championship without building his skills up on easier matches.
I believe that when we use someone as a scapegoat, we harm this person in question, but also harm the cause of justice. Some years ago a man named Henry Lucas had over 100 murders blamed on him. Some people later on found that Mr. Lucas was innocent of most of these murders and the police were using Henry Lucas as a device to clear the books. The cause of truth is not well served when people or institutions become scapegoats. This is true whether the scapegoat is Henry Lucas, Mark Fuhrman, or the LA Police dept.

I see that some members desire to post. I think that we might be able to respect the victims and still post. I feel very strongly about some issues, including the ethical duty to uphold oaths.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jan2000/lapd-j28.shtml

I am not sure that we are on the right thread, since evidence of planting/frame up was excluded from the civil trial to my understanding.

[martin II]

I owe you an apology Martin. I thought that OJS said h e ‘bled all over the place’ in his statement to the police. He didn’t say that. He did admit to dripping blood in his house and on the driveway.’ If it’s dripped, it’s what I dripped running around trying to leave’. Not as incriminating as I thought.
I also made a mistake when I wrote that I had tried scratching myself with short fingernails to test Dr. Baden’s theory that Ron’s fingernails were too short to scratch. My test was, I think, on my forearm. The scratches on OJS were on his left hand.
There was at least one video made of OJS before or after the recital before the murders. This is mentioned on page 148 of the book by V. Bugliosi, which is described as after the recital and on page 432 of the book by D. Petrocelli, which is described as being before the recital. During the criminal trial this video (assuming there was just one video, probably after the recital) this video was brought up because it showed OJS in a good mood.
There is another point in Bugliosi’s book that is important. There was evidence that police racial abuse is common, but frame-ups are not.
Mr Bugliosi talked to a black man named Michael Zincun who was chairman of a group called Coalition Against Police Abuse in Los Angeles. This group had documented 35,000 cases since 1976. At the time the book was written, the group was averaging over 2,000 cases per year. Mr Zincun said that the only frame up he knew about was in 1976. This definition of frame up excluded cases in which the police beat up or killed someone, and then planted a weapon or lied about the situation to justify the violence.
The case in 1976 involved framing two black men for killing an LA deputy sheriff. This was wrong, and the men were eventually freed, but I think everyone knows that police overeat to the murder of a lawman. I don’t know if anyone was convicted for this frame-up.
Bugliosi said that on a nationwide basis, frame-ups are quite rare, and usually involves suspected drug dealers being framed. I am aware of the fact that there were some cocaine frame-ups in a small town in Texas a few years ago.
Since framing innocent men was rare in the LA police force, it would seem quite unlikely that MF, or Lange, or Vanneter would start with OJS. After all, OJS was a rich, popular celebrity. People like that can fight back. If MF, or anyone else, had experience framing low income people, and had gotten away with it, they might have tried a rich celebrity. It would be quite strange for any copy to refrain from framing people for almost their whole career, and then frame someone just before retirement; especially a frame-up victim who can fight back. To frame a rich celebrity without practicing or easier marks would be like a boxer challenging for the heavyweight boxing championship without building his skills up on easier matches.
I believe that when we use someone as a scapegoat, we harm this person in question, but also harm the cause of justice. Some years ago a man named Henry Lucas had over 100 murders blamed on him. Some people later on found that Mr. Lucas was innocent of most of these murders and the police were using Henry Lucas as a device to clear the books. The cause of truth is not well served when people or institutions become scapegoats. This is true whether the scapegoat is Henry Lucas, Mark Fuhrman, or the LA Police dept.

thanks
I gave you the name Rampart scandal and the fact that the justice department took over the management of lapd because of abuse and officer misconduct so something was wrong. When le lie about events or mishandle evidence or remain silent in the face of these kind of wrong acts, that is citizen abuse.imo

[William Anthony]

thanks
I gave you the name Rampart scandle and the fact that the justice department took over the management of lapd because of abuse and officer misconduct so something was wrong. When le lie about events or mishandle evidence or remain silent in the face of these kind of wrong acts, that is citizen abuse.imo

A diplomatic response, Martin. I call it corruption.

[martin II]

fgump2

you may want to read williams link at post 305

[martin II]

A diplomatic response, Martin. I call it corruption.

evil is better.

[martin II]

fgump2
I read someplace that the conviction rate a la da office was something like 95-98% that sounds unusally high for me unless the system is stacked against defendants.imo

[martin II]

fgump2
I read someplace that the conviction rate a la da office was something like 95-98% that sounds unusally high for me unless the system is stacked against defendants.imo

[Big Ben]

I don't believe I said it was only his experience that makes me more confident in his judgement in this case. They both have vast experience in autopsies but I've always found Dr. Baden to be a little dithering in his testimony, not just in this case but in others also. To me, Dr. Spitz's theory is more consistent with the evidence. I'm not sure about the hair.

Dr. Spitz' theory is more consistent with what evidence? It certainly is not consistent with the determination of the medical examiner who actually performed the autopsies (94-05136 Brown and 94-05135 Goldman) on the murdered victims, Dr. Irwin Golden.

I will agree with you that Dr. Baden came across dithering in his testimony during the civil trial and that is more than likely do to the fact that he was attempting to assert a theory that he had not mentioned during the criminal trial. Although it is the belief of the Ocean Medical Investigative Group that, according to Dr. Henry S. Johnson, both autopsy reports were quite straightforward and simple enough that any competent doctor should have been able to read what Dr. Golden had written in the report, and further, what he had testified on the witness stand during the 8th day of the preliminary hearings.

This theory of there being multiple assailants involved was presented by Dr. Johnson to Baker, Baker, and Blasier in late December '96 during an A.M. meeting in Santa Monica near the beginning of the civil trial.

The interpretation of Dr. Golden's reports was aggressively demonstrated by Dr. Johnson however, instead of calling Dr. Johnson to give his presentation in the civil trial they called on Dr. Baden, exclusively, and as you can see in the transcript it was a tepid presentation at best of a multiple assailant theory.

Dr. Johnson subsequently filed an Amicus Curiae brief and had it served on Judge Fugisaki while trial was in session on January 8, 1997 to appear in Judge Fugisaki's courtroom. Defense attorney Baker argued adamently for Fugisaki to allow Dr. Johnson to testify, as seen in the court transcripts for that day. Judge Fugisaki denied the request, and brought the jury back in to the courtroom and resumed the trial.

I do believe that the inevitability of the outcome of this trial was nothing more than a political quid pro quo offering to a media inflamed American public. Judge Fugisaki, imo, was simply the opposite side of the Judge Ito coin who was soon to retire and certainly not in need of racial hostility following him into retirement.

The substance of the content of Dr. Johnson's Amicus:

1. It appears that decedent Nicole Brown was attacked and killed by an asailant wielding a single edge knife in their left hand.

2. It appears highly probable that Goldman was attacked by two assailants wielding two distinguishable knives.

3. It appears that Goldman fought a prolonged fight and took several minutes to succumb to his injuries.

"It is my (Dr. Johnson's) respected opinion that a visualization as to the orientation of the knife wounds would add credibility to these points and should be promulgated to the jury to improve their insight...""

Dr. Johnson states on Page 100 of his book Double Crossed For Blood published in 2002, that "Rather than focus on the mortal wounds and how they were inflicted, Dr. Baden and Medvene got into a pissing contest about how much blood spilled on the ground".

[tv]

Big Ben, this is the only reference I see to Henry Johnson on January 8 -- why didn't the defense retain him as the judge suggested?



THE COURT: For the record, the petition filed

by Henry Johnson is denied.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, we think that this

ought to be received and this man out to be

testifying.

THE COURT: You can always retain him.

MR. PETROCELLI: And pay him, too. Yes, on

the --

[Big Ben]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9103828] why didn't the defense retain him as the judge suggested?


TV, we at OMIG, at that time, had no clue. Blasier seemed very interested, and took Dr. Johnson's report and according to Page 98 of Doc Johnson's book Double Crossed For Blood.

Dr. Johnson Pg 98: "I remembered O.J.'s attorney Blasier told me he sent my work to Dr. Baden, and I was overjoyed with the fact that a renowned pathologist was boasting my two assailant theory. It felt like a major break through in this corrupt and illegal trial, I was on cloud nine."

Dr. Johnson Pg 98: "One morning , I'm lying in bed with my wife waking up to the "Today Show". ....."I watched to see what issue would make the news of the day. In the opening segment, [Bryant] Gumbel announced that Dr. Michael Baden,...., testified he believes that two killers were involved in the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Roanld Goldman. I sat straight up in bed....finally someone has publicly agreed with what I have been touting. Gumbel even sounded excited".


Dr. Johnson Pg 98: "Not much came out in the media reporting throughout the day as to why Dr. Baden felt this way, yet no mention was made of the southpaw theory. Dr. Baden never discussed the pattern of tissue damage in his reasoning to suggest a two killer theory, only that he never heard of one guy subduing two people, keeping them quiet at the same time".


Now looking back eleven and a half years, with all the depositions and trial testimony that I've read, I've come to the conclusion that Baker was given his marching orders too. Do not attempt to win this trial, if you know what's goof for you! When Doc J and his brother returned from the meeting with Baker, Baker and Blasier, Dr. Johnson's brother commented that he did not see any enthusiasm in the demeanor of the senior Baker, who was the lead attorney for Simpson in the civil matter.

[martin II]

Since autopsy results is being discussed i have wondered why Dr Golden (sp)
did the autopsy, wrote the report, testified in grand jury or hearing to his findings and then was not allowed to testify to his findings in the criminal trial. His boss Dr L testified to what Golden said he found when he did the autposy.

[tv]

Since autopsy results is being discussed i have wondered why Dr Golden (sp)
did the autopsy, wrote the report, testified in grand jury or hearing to his findings and then was not allowed to testify to his findings in the criminal trial. His boss Dr L testified to what Golden said he found when he did the autposy.The prosecution thought Dr. Golden wouldn't come across well on the stand so they called his superior to testify instead. Dr. Sathyavageswarn testified that he'd never heard of someone other than the person who performed the autopsy being called to the stand by the DA's office. IMO, one of the dumb moves on the part of the prosecution.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution thought Dr. Golden wouldn't come across well on the stand so they called his superior to testify instead. Dr. Sathyavageswarn testified that he'd never heard of someone other than the person who performed the autopsy being called to the stand by the DA's office. IMO, one of the dumb moves on the part of the prosecution.

Please, Stevie Wonder could see what was going on. The prosecution needed someone to say that Golden's results were wrong, sort of like the ghost in the machine as it relates to Martz's results, whom they did not call, also. It seems that anyone who did not agree or found results that were inconsistent with the prosecution's theory was abandoned. Maybe, the prosecution was more interested in winning than truth. :)

[Big Ben]

IMO, one of the dumb moves on the part of the prosecution.


Not necessarily one of the dumb moves on the part of the prosecution, TV. IMO, the prosecution had little choice. Dr. Golden had previously testified based upon his findings of his examination on the victims' bodies. Since a murder trial officially begins with a doctor's testimony of the cause of death, the prosecution's case against Simpson had to be ressurrected from the adverse testimony that the deputy medical examiner's, Dr. Irwin Golden, testimony had done to their case during pre-tiral examination in July of 1994.

1. One could clearly see in the video tape of his pre-trial testimony that Dr. Golden was clearly uncomfortable in attempting to go against his initial discoveries and bend them towards the interpretation of the LADA prosecution's assertion.

2. In his pre-trial testimony while attempting to concoct his testimony to follow the LADA's scenario he could not get away from his personal observation of the exit wounds that he "morphologically" noted, indicated that there were two distinctive type of knife wounds found on the victims' bodies. He described the first exit wounds to be charateristic of an attack and stabbing by a single edge knife. Then he described the characteristics of the exit wounds with tapered edges on both sides of the wounds as occurring as a result of an attack by a double edge knife or a dagger, particularly the two dozen wounds on the right side of Ron Goldman's face and neck.

3. And his very strong affirmative response that two knives could have been used to murder the victims.

This continuance of testimony would have made the prosecution's case extremely vulnerable, so if destroying this long term veteran's credibility to put on this celebrity trial is what it would take, then so be it!

[martin II]

The prosecution thought Dr. Golden wouldn't come across well on the stand so they called his superior to testify instead. Dr. Sathyavageswarn testified that he'd never heard of someone other than the person who performed the autopsy being called to the stand by the DA's office. IMO, one of the dumb moves on the part of the prosecution.

What do you mean 'Wouldn't come across well on the stand"
That his findings did not support the prosecutions claims.So they substituded
someone that would change Dr Goldens findings?

[martin II]

The prosecution thought Dr. Golden wouldn't come across well on the stand so they called his superior to testify instead. Dr. Sathyavageswarn testified that he'd never heard of someone other than the person who performed the autopsy being called to the stand by the DA's office. IMO, one of the dumb moves on the part of the prosecution.

Didn't D. Fung testify that he had never had anyone bring him blood evidence
TO a crime scene(Rockingham) as Vanhatter did and that he had never been directed to bring evidence (glove) from one crime scene Rockingham to another Bundy.IMO

[tv]

Didn't D. Fung testify that he had never had anyone bring him blood evidence
TO a crime scene(Rockingham) as Vanhatter did and that he had never been directed to bring evidence (glove) from one crime scene Rockingham to another Bundy.IMOI don't know, did he? If you're talking about the criminal trial we're off topic.

[William Anthony]

I don't know, did he? If you're talking about the criminal trial we're off topic.

Was that testimony excluded from, imho, the political production?

[weezer]

Was that testimony excluded from, imho, the political production?

do you not know?

[William Anthony]

do you not know?

I know this, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[weezer]

I know this, :seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

that's what I figured --- :chicken:

[William Anthony]

that's what I figured --- :chicken:

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya: :cool:

[weezer]

12/01/96 - 04:42 PM ET -
Day of denials for Simpson

SANTA MONICA, Calif. - O.J. Simpson responded with a string of denials Monday when confronted with his statements, lie detector test results and key evidence at his civil trial.

But the most stunning moment in Simpson's second day of testimony: plaintiffs' lawyer Daniel Petrocelli's revelation to jurors that Simpson had failed a lie detector test.

At first, Simpson denied taking a lie-detector test. Then he said he only had a test run the week after the June 12, 1994, murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

"They wired me up to something, and they got to where they explained to me how it works," Simpson said.

But Petrocelli said Simpson took the test and had a "minus-22" score. He asked if Simpson realized that represented "extreme deception." Simpson said he didn't know.

Simpson has said he did not kill his ex-wife and Goldman.

Also Monday:

Simpson denied he had a series of small, fingernail-shaped cuts on his hands the day after the murders despite police photos to the contrary.
Simpson said he had no idea how his blood and that of the victims got into his house, his Bronco or the murder scene.

Simpson called a "fraud" photos of him in shoes like those linked to the murders.

Shown pictures of him wearing gloves similar to those found at the murder scene, he denied they were his.

Shown pictures of him wearing a dark sweatsuit for an exercise video, he denied it was his. Fibers from such a suit were found on the bodies.

He again denied picking up a "Dear John" phone message on the day of the murders by ex-girlfriend Paula Barbieri. The families believe the call was the emotional trigger for Nicole's murder.

The denial conflicted with phone records and statements to police and domestic violence expert Lenore Walker, all cited by Petrocelli.

[tv]

12/01/96 - 04:42 PM ET -
Day of denials for Simpson

SANTA MONICA, Calif. - *Snipped* But the most stunning moment in Simpson's second day of testimony: plaintiffs' lawyer Daniel Petrocelli's revelation to jurors that Simpson had failed a lie detector test.

At first, Simpson denied taking a lie-detector test. Then he said he only had a test run the week after the June 12, 1994, murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

"They wired me up to something, and they got to where they explained to me how it works," Simpson said.

But Petrocelli said Simpson took the test and had a "minus-22" score. He asked if Simpson realized that represented "extreme deception." Simpson said he didn't know.



This always cracks me up. Who would believe such outrageous claims?

[Big Ben]

This always cracks me up. Who would believe such outrageous claims?

What is so shocking about the absurdity and ignorance of the rich and famous in all walks of life not comprehending the most basic things that one would expect that they would comprehend, TV.

In politics, I remember George Bush, Sr. involved in one of those campaign PR photo ops standing in, I believe, a New York department store, i.e. Macy's, etc. attempting to pretend that he understood what normal people's lives are about. He said that he needed to purchase some socks then after making his selection then turned and asked, now what should I do.

I remember John McCain giving one of his 'If I'm elected President I've got the Iraq solution' speeches but not knowing the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims and their geographic areas of influence in Iraq.

And where do we start and end with the ignorance of George Herbert Walker Bush.

I even saw on the news where a pilot and co-pilot of a jetliner landed at the right destination city but the wrong airport. How do you do that?

I've seen countless Hollywood celebrities go right back out in the street and immediately ignore a Court order not do a certain action as if the Court did not even exist. Go figure!

So your attempt to waste time pointing out that Simpson suffers from the same degree of Hollywood ignorance and pomposity of the rich and worthless seems to be for your own personal titillation. It certainly doesn't shed any worthwhile light on this whole bizarre and sordid murder case, given its preponderence of irregularities.

Even though lie detector tests are inadmissable, and thus worthless anywhere except this biased court of public opinion, whose to say that the operator wasn't one of the conspirators' bought off cronies anyway.

[tv]

What is so shocking about the absurdity and ignorance of the rich and famous in all walks of life not comprehending the most basic things that one would expect that they would comprehend, TV.

In politics, I remember George Bush, Sr. involved in one of those campaign PR photo ops standing in, I believe, a New York department store, i.e. Macy's, etc. attempting to pretend that he understood what normal people's lives are about. He said that he needed to purchase some socks then after making his selection then turned and asked, now what should I do.

I remember John McCain giving one of his 'If I'm elected President I've got the Iraq solution' speeches but not knowing the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims and their geographic areas of influence in Iraq.

And where do we start and end with the ignorance of George Herbert Walker Bush.

I even saw on the news where a pilot and co-pilot of a jetliner landed at the right destination city but the wrong airport. How do you do that?

I've seen countless Hollywood celebrities go right back out in the street and immediately ignore a Court order not do a certain action as if the Court did not even exist. Go figure!

So your attempt to waste time pointing out that Simpson suffers from the same degree of Hollywood ignorance and pomposity of the rich and worthless seems to be for your own personal titillation. It certainly doesn't shed any worthwhile light on this whole bizarre and sordid murder case, given its preponderence of irregularities.

Even though lie detector tests are inadmissable, and thus worthless anywhere except this biased court of public opinion, whose to say that the operator wasn't one of the conspirators' bought off cronies anyway.

I've never seen such a compilation of irrelevant ramblings in my life. You even managed to put the polygraph examiner hired by the defense on the list of imaginary conspirators. I thought your tendency to insult other posters that you address had improved from when I first encountered you on this board but I was mistaken. With that said, you'll no longer be bothered by my wasting your time with my personal titillation as you call it. You misuse words more than Archie Bunker.

[Kayleighjo]

What is so shocking about the absurdity and ignorance of the rich and famous in all walks of life not comprehending the most basic things that one would expect that they would comprehend, TV.

In politics, I remember George Bush, Sr. involved in one of those campaign PR photo ops standing in, I believe, a New York department store, i.e. Macy's, etc. attempting to pretend that he understood what normal people's lives are about. He said that he needed to purchase some socks then after making his selection then turned and asked, now what should I do.

I remember John McCain giving one of his 'If I'm elected President I've got the Iraq solution' speeches but not knowing the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims and their geographic areas of influence in Iraq.

And where do we start and end with the ignorance of George Herbert Walker Bush.

I even saw on the news where a pilot and co-pilot of a jetliner landed at the right destination city but the wrong airport. How do you do that?

I've seen countless Hollywood celebrities go right back out in the street and immediately ignore a Court order not do a certain action as if the Court did not even exist. Go figure!

So your attempt to waste time pointing out that Simpson suffers from the same degree of Hollywood ignorance and pomposity of the rich and worthless seems to be for your own personal titillation. It certainly doesn't shed any worthwhile light on this whole bizarre and sordid murder case, given its preponderence of irregularities.

Even though lie detector tests are inadmissable, and thus worthless anywhere except this biased court of public opinion, whose to say that the operator wasn't one of the conspirators' bought off cronies anyway.

OMG, I totally stand corrected - I stated that William had given me the best laugh when he said that martin is informed, but this ... this is even better.

[weezer]

What is so shocking about the absurdity and ignorance of the rich and famous in all walks of life not comprehending the most basic things that one would expect that they would comprehend, TV.

In politics, I remember George Bush, Sr. involved in one of those campaign PR photo ops standing in, I believe, a New York department store, i.e. Macy's, etc. attempting to pretend that he understood what normal people's lives are about. He said that he needed to purchase some socks then after making his selection then turned and asked, now what should I do.

I remember John McCain giving one of his 'If I'm elected President I've got the Iraq solution' speeches but not knowing the difference between Shiite and Sunni Muslims and their geographic areas of influence in Iraq.

And where do we start and end with the ignorance of George Herbert Walker Bush.

I even saw on the news where a pilot and co-pilot of a jetliner landed at the right destination city but the wrong airport. How do you do that?

I've seen countless Hollywood celebrities go right back out in the street and immediately ignore a Court order not do a certain action as if the Court did not even exist. Go figure!

So your attempt to waste time pointing out that Simpson suffers from the same degree of Hollywood ignorance and pomposity of the rich and worthless seems to be for your own personal titillation. It certainly doesn't shed any worthwhile light on this whole bizarre and sordid murder case, given its preponderence of irregularities.

Even though lie detector tests are inadmissable, and thus worthless anywhere except this biased court of public opinion, whose to say that the operator wasn't one of the conspirators' bought off cronies anyway.

OMG --

but just to keep the records straight, you forgot obama's '57 states' that he traveled -- LOL

[Big Ben]

This always cracks me up. Who would believe such outrageous claims?

Yeah, you are right TV, I momentarily forgot who and what I was dealing with.

I'll just make it simple, I can believe such outrageous claims as you have asked, given all of the other madness that comes out of California. Does that help you?


You seem to want to measure everything by some set in concrete standard when it comes to villfying Simpson, but any other thought that is certainly within reason given this abnormality of a trial is off limits to consider, based upon your set of rules. There's no boundaries of deceit here, especially when your statement is premised on a procedure that you are well aware is totally inadmissable in a court of law. If you fail to realize that you do a disservice to any attempt to uncover the mysteries of this so called "trial of the century".

[Big Ben]

This always cracks me up. Who would believe such outrageous claims?

Yeah, you are right TV, I momentarily forgot what I was dealing with here.

I'll just make it simple, I can believe such outrageous claims, as you' ve inquired, given all of the other madness that comes out of California.


You seem to want to measure everything by some set in concrete standard when it comes to villfying Simpson, but any other thought that is certainly within reason, given this abnormality of a trial, is off limits to consider, based upon your set of rules. There's no boundaries of deceit here, especially when your statement is premised on a procedure that you are well aware is totally inadmissable in a court of law. You fail to realize that you do a disservice to any attempt to uncover the mysteries of this so called "trial of the century" and take us down a senseless trail. The question being for what purposes?
The issue regarding Simpson's lie detector escapade has no relevance to whether he did or did not commit these murders. Does that help you?

[tv]

Yeah, you are right TV, I momentarily forgot what I was dealing with here.

I'll just make it simple, I can believe such outrageous claims, as you' ve inquired, given all of the other madness that comes out of California.


You seem to want to measure everything by some set in concrete standard when it comes to villfying Simpson, but any other thought that is certainly within reason, given this abnormality of a trial, is off limits to consider, based upon your set of rules. There's no boundaries of deceit here, especially when your statement is premised on a procedure that you are well aware is totally inadmissable in a court of law. You fail to realize that you do a disservice to any attempt to uncover the mysteries of this so called "trial of the century" and take us down a senseless trail. The question being for what purposes?
The issue regarding Simpson's lie detector escapade has no relevance to whether he did or did not commit these murders. Does that help you?

Big Ben, there are no mysteries here. This is a cut and dried simple case of double-murder. The only mystery is the one that was falsely created by the defense when they presented innuendo, character assassination and rampant distortion of the facts. This isn't a who-dun-it; it's a why-did-he-get-away-with-it.

The only thing you've helped me with is remembering what an obnoxious person you are.

[Big Ben]

Big Ben, there are no mysteries here. This is a cut and dried simple case of double-murder. The only mystery is the one that was falsely created by the defense when they presented innuendo, character assassination and rampant distortion of the facts. This isn't a who-dun-it; it's a why-did-he-get-away-with-it.

The only thing you've helped me with is remembering what an obnoxious person you are.

Well I want you to continue this line of silliness so that I can measure why this crazy organization loves to rush and remind me about casting aspersions on others and yet they allow you to get away this madness. So just suffice it to say that I'm allowing you to get away with it for research purposes, TV.

[William Anthony]

OMG --

but just to keep the records straight, you forgot obama's '57 states' that he traveled -- LOL

Or Hilary being shot at as she attempted to board a helicopter, IIRC. Was it 3 or 4 times she repeated that tale?

[tv]

Well I want you to continue this line of silliness so that I can measure why this crazy organization loves to rush and remind me about casting aspersions on others and yet they allow you to get away this madness. So just suffice it to say that I'm allowing you to get away with it for research purposes, TV.You're not in a position to allow or disallow me anything. If you think I'm inappropriate or out of line your only recourse is to report me to the administration of this forum. Please feel free to do so. I couldn't care less about your measurements or research because IMO most of what you post amounts to nothing more than comic relief.

[William Anthony]

As I believe that a recent dispute on this thread is getting out of hand and my desire to see the level of posting improve in this community and my expressed willingness to take a stand, I would ask that cooler heads prevail in this situation. I am not pointing fingers as to who is to blame or not to blame. It is simply my request to calm a situation that I see that has been progressing negatively. Thanks.

[tv]

As I believe that a recent dispute on this thread is getting out of hand and my desire to see the level of posting improve in this community and my expressed willingness to take a stand, I would ask that cooler heads prevail in this situation. I am not pointing fingers as to who is to blame or not to blame. It is simply my request to calm a situation that I see that has been progressing negatively. Thanks.

Willliam, I appreciate your desire to end the negativity but you'll be happy to know I'm finished discussing anything with Big Ben. Obviously, he and I have a personality conflict so it's best we steer clear of each other. :)

[William Anthony]

Willliam, I appreciate your desire to end the negativity but you'll be happy to know I'm finished discussing anything with Big Ben. Obviously, he and I have a personality conflict so it's best we steer clear of each other. :)

Thanks for appreciating my desire. I personally hate to see a break down in communications between anyone. With that said, I will respect your desire.

[Big Ben]

You're not in a position to allow or disallow me anything. If you think I'm inappropriate or out of line your only recourse is to report me to the administration of this forum. Please feel free to do so. I couldn't care less about your measurements or research because IMO most of what you post amounts to nothing more than comic relief.


The message wasn't for you per se, TV. I know that you are too wild and wooly for me to do anything with, you are your own, whatever.
I'm sending a message to those who monitor and then want to send me a gaggle of cautionary comments.

Personally I'm not offended by anything you have to say. Being called obnoxious by you; so what!

The only thing that I truly think is obnoxious is this concoction that you keep trying to serve to others about how straight forward the Simpson case was. The level of dereliction and corruption on the part of LE, both the LAPD and LADA, is off the charts, and I believe you honestly know that.

As the old saying goes, it doesn't matter how long or how hard you try to sell it, you can't call it Chicken Soup when you start out with Chicken S***!

There is nothing about this case that is as straight forward as you want to make people believe.

The LE of LA knowingly leaked the 911 tapes, and circulated false information relative to them, and undermined the grand jury process in the Simpson matter.

The LE of LA, LADA, intentionally removed a deputy medical examiner who had conducted twice as many autopsies than the chief medical examiner(over 5,000) and testified in over 700 murder trials in his career, which was even mored than the chief medical examiner that they used as a substitute to testify for the first time in the history of L.A. County.


The LE of LA, like Furhman, had become accustomed to coming into court on many occasions and lying about their abuse of its citizenry over the years.

The LE of LA, LAPD, LADA, has had a history of planting phony evidence on innocent individuals and attaining long prison sentences with false police testimony going back to their direct participation in the COINTELPRO TRIALS during the early '70's. The Ramparts scandal, again, has shown us how comfortable they had gotten with providing false testimony and planted evidence.

The LE agencies of LA, namely the LADA, removed the crucial telephone records from the Simpson Case Exhibit file for no plausible reason, leaving us to believe that the Brown family traveled home fourteen minutes sooner in 1994, the night that Nicole was murdered, faster (1 Hour 5 Minutes) than they could travel today in 2008 on a brand new, sparsely traveled toll road. A toll road that is even much closer to their home (1 Hour 19 Minutes by Mapquest)


The LE of LA have continued to protect Ron Goldman and Faye Resnick's criminal record under a 'snitch protection law', Cal. Gov't Code sec. 6254(f). Goldman's conduct as well as Resnicks could be at the center of this whole sordid affair.

I'm certain that I could list several more irregularities but for now this is enough for anyone with a minimum of common sense to realize that all is not right with this matter, and it is certainly not as straight forward as you continue to preach.

[weezer]

tv is right -- the case is straight forward and orenthal james simpson did murder Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. the fertile imaginations and ridiculous, unsubstantiated musings by a few does not change the credible evidence.

[William Anthony]

tv is right -- the case is straight forward and orenthal james simpson did murder Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. the fertile imaginations and ridiculous, unsubstantiated musings by a few does not change the credible evidence.

With all due respect, if the evidence was credible there would not have been a not guilty verdict. Most in the legal field state that the prosecution failed to present the evidence in a way that made it credible. That was their responsibility. Of course you are entitled to disagree with the legal professionals. I, on the other hand, tend to agree with their position. If the evidence was not presented in a manner that made it credible, the jury had no choice, imho, but to uphold their oath and vote not guilty.

[William Anthony]

Ah William, this thread is on the civil not the criminal trial. Usually it's me being told this but I point it out, not just to you but since you're the last poster I'll reply to you.:)

Good evening, Mr. Bell

Congratulations.

[SlowHandSam]

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1996
9:10 A.M.
OJ testimony

Q. And there were also physical altercations, true, Mr. Simpson?

MR. BAKER: Vague as to time. All these questions are vague as to time, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Time.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) I'm referring to the time when the two of you began a relationship in 1977, up until the time you stopped that relationship.

MR. BAKER: It's over broad, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, we had a physical altercation.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Well, there was more than one physical altercation, true?

A. I think you'd have to define that. There was one very physical altercation, and there were other times when they were not so physical.

Q. What do you mean by "not so physical," Mr. Simpson?

A. Well, Nicole hit me a few times, and I didn't consider that too physical.

Q. So the ones that were not so physical are the times when you say Nicole hit you, true?

A. Yes.

And one time I grabbed her at a door and pushed her outside the door. That -- if you call that physical, that's physical, yes.

Q. And how many times did Nicole hit you, as you say?

A. Numerous times.

Q. Okay.

And how many times, Mr. Simpson, in the course of these physical alterations, did you hit Nicole?

A. Never.

Q. How many times did you strike Nicole?

A. Never.

Q. How many times did you slap Nicole?

A. Never.

Q. How many times did you kick her?

A. Never.

Q. How many times did you beat her, sir?

A. Never.

so if he never hit her, struck her, slap her, kick her etc ... then just what was the "one very physical altercation" ??

[SlowHandSam]

oh wait, I think I answered my own question.

I'm guessing the "one very physical" altercation was the one where he beat the crap out of her, no?

Sorry for the big post -- I should have kept reading.

[SlowHandSam]

civil testimony November 22, 96

A. As I told you, I had her in a head lock at one point, in trying to get her out of the door, so I would assume that my hand was somewhere around her -- her face.

Q. When you say "head lock," you said in the deposition that you had her head in kind of a head lock to get her out of the room, true?

A. At one point, yes.

Hmm, seems he's found of the head lock as a means to control someone. Isn't this one of the ways that the NGs say Ron was controlled before being butchered?

[martin II]

civil testimony November 22, 96



Hmm, seems he's found of the head lock as a means to control someone. Isn't this one of the ways that the NGs say Ron was controlled before being butchered?

nicole said he hit her only once.

[martin II]

civil testimony November 22, 96



Hmm, seems he's found of the head lock as a means to control someone. Isn't this one of the ways that the NGs say Ron was controlled before being butchered?

It is suggested that k2 did that to ron to keep him in a sitting position.

[William Anthony]

civil testimony November 22, 96



Hmm, seems he's found of the head lock as a means to control someone. Isn't this one of the ways that the NGs say Ron was controlled before being butchered?

I was not there and do not know what happened but a headlock is a way of controlling someone in an effort to stop them from hitting you. Of course, we all know that a woman never hits a man.

[Big Ben]

civil testimony November 22, 96



Hmm, seems he's found of the head lock as a means to control someone. Isn't this one of the ways that the NGs say Ron was controlled before being butchered?

After all of your rambling, What's your point?

[SlowHandSam]

After all of your rambling, What's your point?

ok, 1. don't yell at me. There was absolutely no reason for the font increase - which for net etiquette indicates yelling.

My point is that it shows a history of how OJ liked to physically control and/or manipulate another person's physical presence. I believe this is how Ron was controlled that night before he was butchered.

And this "it's been suggested that k2 did so ..." nonsense is that same poster's belief in the wild theories of Mr. Kook and company -- which for the record, (again) I put absolutely no merit or marginal belief in.

[William Anthony]

You have made a very pertinent point. It should be addressed, if posters disagree, in a 'civil' manner.;)

True or not the testimony is that they were both physically abusive, i.e. hit each other. I find it is sometimes a way of controlling or protecting yourself when someone strikes you to place them in a head lock. I would find this to be true, if the person did not want to hurt the person who is striking them. I have been involved in some fights and saw others between men. It is usually that a man will strike back after being hit by a man and only resorts to a head lock when he is losing the fisticuffs battle or is becoming tired. I say that, because it is the consensus of opinion that Ronald lost the pugilistic portion of the struggle early on and there was no bruising on Simpson, IIRC. The evidence seems to negate the fact that Ronald was placed in a head lock by Simpson to control him, but that someone else, whose bruises went undetected because they were never properly investigated, may have tried to control Ronald. It is possible by the found but unidentified Caucasian hair and blood type that did not belong to Simpson, Nicole or Ronald that the person was the one seen crouching in the bushes outside Nicole's condo or the four non Blacks that were seen around 10 o'clock by another witness. I think it is a rather common practice to use a headlock. Don't you?

[William Anthony]

William, the 1st part of your post appears to discuss Simpson and Nicole's relationship which has nothing to do with this.

Sure, I agree with you about using a headlock especially when you are tired. It's a way of attempting to control another person and that's the point that is being made. That was what Simpson did to control other people and that's what happened to Goldman. You're in a brawl - you're being punched and the bigger bloke gets you in a headlock and continues to beat the ..out of you.

Make that not a punch but a knife into you over and over and over again and you're still in the headlock held by the bigger bloke. Goldman was a fit bloke but compared with Simpson? Goldman had no hope in hell.

With all due respect this is the post that started the headlock conversation.


Quote:
A. As I told you, I had her in a head lock at one point, in trying to get her out of the door, so I would assume that my hand was somewhere around her -- her face.

Q. When you say "head lock," you said in the deposition that you had her head in kind of a head lock to get her out of the room, true?

A. At one point, yes.

Hmm, seems he's found of the head lock as a means to control someone. Isn't this one of the ways that the NGs say Ron was controlled before being butchered?

The poster used the relationship to speculate that Simpson had Ronald in a headlock. You then speculated that he did and stabbed Ronald. However, there is no evidence by bruising on Simpson's body that he was the person involved in a prolonged struggle with Ronald or that would have caused Simpson to tire. There is evidence that an unidentified Caucasian was at the scene. Since you agree that a headlock is commonly used in altercations, the attempt to say that Simpson used a headlock on Nicole is evidence that he used a headlock on Ronald is far too tenuous a connection to make, imho.

[martin II]

12/01/96 - 04:42 PM ET -
Day of denials for Simpson

SANTA MONICA, Calif. - O.J. Simpson responded with a string of denials Monday when confronted with his statements, lie detector test results and key evidence at his civil trial.

But the most stunning moment in Simpson's second day of testimony: plaintiffs' lawyer Daniel Petrocelli's revelation to jurors that Simpson had failed a lie detector test.

At first, Simpson denied taking a lie-detector test. Then he said he only had a test run the week after the June 12, 1994, murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

"They wired me up to something, and they got to where they explained to me how it works," Simpson said.

But Petrocelli said Simpson took the test and had a "minus-22" score. He asked if Simpson realized that represented "extreme deception." Simpson said he didn't know.

Simpson has said he did not kill his ex-wife and Goldman.

Also Monday:

Simpson denied he had a series of small, fingernail-shaped cuts on his hands the day after the murders despite police photos to the contrary.
Simpson said he had no idea how his blood and that of the victims got into his house, his Bronco or the murder scene.

Simpson called a "fraud" photos of him in shoes like those linked to the murders.

Shown pictures of him wearing gloves similar to those found at the murder scene, he denied they were his.

Shown pictures of him wearing a dark sweatsuit for an exercise video, he denied it was his. Fibers from such a suit were found on the bodies.

He again denied picking up a "Dear John" phone message on the day of the murders by ex-girlfriend Paula Barbieri. The families believe the call was the emotional trigger for Nicole's murder.

The denial conflicted with phone records and statements to police and domestic violence expert Lenore Walker, all cited by Petrocelli.


No sweat suite was ever tested by any lab to compare its fiber content to any fibers collected anyplace.

Alleged photos is more correct.

Oj receiving a call from Paula and decides to kill Nicole makes absolutely no sense.

Oj was wired for a lie detector test and it was shut down by F LEE BAILEY
after only 1/4 of the test had been completed . So there was no complete test done by him regardless of what Petrocelli said.imo

[SlowHandSam]

With all due respect this is the post that started the headlock conversation.






The poster used the relationship to speculate that Simpson had Ronald in a headlock. You then speculated that he did and stabbed Ronald. However, there is no evidence by bruising on Simpson's body that he was the person involved in a prolonged struggle with Ronald or that would have caused Simpson to tire. There is evidence that an unidentified Caucasian was at the scene. Since you agree that a headlock is commonly used in altercations, the attempt to say that Simpson used a headlock on Nicole is evidence that he used a headlock on Ronald is far too tenuous a connection to make, imho.

I recall that it was either you are the other poster that claimed the struggle with Ron took less than 1 minute. I recall that it was also stated that y'all believed it was not a prolonged struggle. Do you now change your opinion?

[martin II]

I was not there and do not know what happened but a headlock is a way of controlling someone in an effort to stop them from hitting you. Of course, we all know that a woman never hits a man.

Actually this 'FIGHT' was caused by Nicole waking oj up and arguing about some diamond earings she thought he had baught for her and not given to her.He insisted he had no diamonds for her and she insisted he had baught some.He asked her to leave and she refused.He removed her from the bedroom and locked the door. She got a key and returned to the bedroom with the same complaint and it got physical.imo

[martin II]

I recall that it was either you are the other poster that claimed the struggle with Ron took less than 1 minute. I recall that it was also stated that y'all believed it was not a prolonged struggle. Do you now change your opinion?

Wrong
It was the prosecutions witness that gave a opinion that the murders took only 1 to 1 1/2 minutes.

[tv]

Actually this 'FIGHT' was caused by Nicole waking oj up and arguing about some diamond earings she thought he had baught for her and not given to her.He insisted he had no diamonds for her and she insisted he had baught some.He asked her to leave and she refused.He removed her from the bedroom and locked the door. She got a key and returned to the bedroom with the same complaint and it got physical.imo
You don't think it became physical when he 'removed' her from their bedroom?

[Big Ben]

ok, 1. don't yell at me. There was absolutely no reason for the font increase - which for net etiquette indicates yelling.

My point is that it shows a history of how OJ liked to physically control and/or manipulate another person's physical presence. I believe this is how Ron was controlled that night before he was butchered.

And this "it's been suggested that k2 did so ..." nonsense is that same poster's belief in the wild theories of Mr. Kook and company -- which for the record, (again) I put absolutely no merit or marginal belief in.


Why don't you discuss what you actually know about the deaths of Ron and Nicole that may lend some objectivity to your discussion? Since you are discussing how Ron was "butchered".

1. Why not, for example, examine the actual knife exit wounds on the victims' bodies in order to determine the probability of what type of knives were involved in the murders.

And/Or,

2. The measurement of the blade on one of the knives and the directional placement of the exit wounds on the victims' bodies in order to determine whether the assailant(s) was/were right or left handed.


I reject your further premature presumption that larger font is indicative of someone yelling at you. I think that that is simply an invention of your own paranoia. Larger font can also be used, as in my case, to highlight a particular area of concern. My concern is that you are not talking about anything that you actually objectively know, in regard to how these individuals were murdered. Other than the one actual arrest in '88 for assault you don't actually have proof of a history of Simpson's involvement in domestic abuse. Your posts sound like some necessity you require to work yourself into a lather about something.

Why not attempt to be more objective rather than feed into the same old hearsay that only serves to fuel the many stereotypes, and prolong the cover up in this abnormality, i.e. the so called "Trial of The Century"?

[martin II]

You don't think it became physical when he 'removed' her from their bedroom?

He said she was swinging at him and would not leave so he pushed her out of the door and locked it to evade more confrontation and went back to sleep. Marcus Allen had given his girl friend some diamond earrings at that evenings party and told Nicole she thought oj may have baught a pair for her. She was up set as oj told her had no earrings for her.

Nicole then went downstairs to the maid i believe and got a key, opened the door and the confrontation was restarted.
So If true who do you believe was the aggressor?

[martin II]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9106658]With all due respect this is the post that started the headlock conversation.






The poster used the relationship to speculate that Simpson had Ronald in a headlock. You then speculated that he did and stabbed Ronald. However, there is no evidence by bruising on Simpson's body that he was the person involved in a prolonged struggle with Ronald or that would have caused Simpson to tire. There is evidence that an unidentified Caucasian was at the scene. Since you agree that a headlock is commonly used in altercations, the attempt to say that Simpson used a headlock on Nicole is evidence that he used a headlock on Ronald is far too tenuous a connection to make, imho.


How long after the murders was Simpson given a physical?


You can find the answer to your question in testimony if you don't mind reading.:read:

[martin II]

Why don't you discuss what you actually know about the deaths of Ron and Nicole that may lend some objectivity to your discussion? Since you are discussing how Ron was "butchered".

1. Why not, for example, examine the actual knife exit wounds on the victims' bodies in order to determine the probability of what type of knives were involved in the murders.

And/Or,

2. The measurement of the blade on one of the knives and the directional placement of the exit wounds on the victims' bodies in order to determine whether the assailant(s) was/were right or left handed.


I reject your further premature presumption that larger font is indicative of someone yelling at you. I think that that is simply an invention of your own paranoia. Larger font can also be used, as in my case, to highlight a particular area of concern. My concern is that you are not talking about anything that you actually objectively know, in regard to how these individuals were murdered. Other than the one actual arrest in '88 for assault you don't actually have proof of a history of Simpson's involvement in domestic abuse. Your posts sound like some necessity you require to work yourself into a lather about something.

Why not attempt to be more objective rather than feed into the same old hearsay that only serves to fuel the many stereotypes, and prolong the cover up in this abnormality, i.e. the so called "Trial of The Century"?

BIG BEN

That was a great suggestion.:cool:

[martin II]

William, the 1st part of your post appears to discuss Simpson and Nicole's relationship which has nothing to do with this.

Sure, I agree with you about using a headlock especially when you are tired. It's a way of attempting to control another person and that's the point that is being made. That was what Simpson did to control other people and that's what happened to Goldman. You're in a brawl - you're being punched and the bigger bloke gets you in a headlock and continues to beat the ..out of you.

Make that not a punch but a knife into you over and over and over again and you're still in the headlock held by the bigger bloke. Goldman was a fit bloke but compared with Simpson? Goldman had no hope in hell.

wagner suggest that ron was grabbed from behind and put into a head lock
when his jugular was cut.Do you agree?

[William Anthony]

I recall that it was either you are the other poster that claimed the struggle with Ron took less than 1 minute. I recall that it was also stated that y'all believed it was not a prolonged struggle. Do you now change your opinion?

I think you have me confused with the prosecution's expert. I do not know what other poster to whom you refer. I have always been of the opinion that, if it was one killer it took longer than a minute. However, if there were more than one, I guess it could have taken a minute.

[limakey]

William,

In regards to how long the struggle took. Dr. Baden in both trials believed the struggle was much longer then the DA's theory/Petrocelli's theory. However, Petrocelli was able to get Dr. Baden to admit, that in spite of his beliefs, could the struggle taken less then a minute and half. Dr. Baden, did say that it was possible.

[William Anthony]

William,

In regards to how long the struggle took. Dr. Baden in both trials believed the struggle was much longer then the DA's theory/Petrocelli's theory. However, Petrocelli was able to get Dr. Baden to admit, that in spite of his beliefs, could the struggle taken less then a minute and half. Dr. Baden, did say that it was possible.

I think Dr. Baden was talking generally as to the time that it would have taken from the autopsy to estimate how long it would have taken a person to kill two people and Dr. Baden explained the difference between possible and testifying to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. I am of the opinion that it would have taken someone of Simpson's age, physical condition and medical conditions longer than a minute and a half.

[weezer]

William,

In regards to how long the struggle took. Dr. Baden in both trials believed the struggle was much longer then the DA's theory/Petrocelli's theory. However, Petrocelli was able to get Dr. Baden to admit, that in spite of his beliefs, could the struggle taken less then a minute and half. Dr. Baden, did say that it was possible.

so that means the struggle could have taken less than a minute and a half as testified to by the defense expert.

[William Anthony]

so that means the struggle could have taken less than a minute and a half as testified to by the defense expert.

Not quite true but if you want to find that testimony and provide it be my guest.
I found this.

"Q. Do you have an opinion on how long it would take from the time, given the rate at which that wound would bleed, between that wound and the wound to the aorta?

A. Yes, I have an opinion.

Q. What is that opinion?

A. And I've expressed it previously.

My opinion is that, once this wound was inflicted in the neck, causing complete transection of the internal jugular vein, Mr. Goldman was able to stand up at the -- and to continue struggling for perhaps up to five minutes, until he lost enough blood to lose -- to get dizzy and to collapse because not enough oxygen and blood was going to the brain.

This is supported by the path of the blood down the -- the left side of the clothing to the shoe. It takes time. It would take that much time for the oozing blood from the neck to reach the shoe that Mr. Goldman was wearing.

At that point, at some point, about five minutes or perhaps a little longer, he would collapse, would not be able to stand up. And at that point, any blood coming out would go sideways, wouldn't go down anymore, either from his neck or from the thigh.

He also had a stab wound in the left thigh, blood from that stab wound could have contributed to the blood adherent to the blue jeans, but again, as long as he was standing up, because it has -- blood goes down by gravity.

At that point, when Mr. Goldman would collapse, he would then -- the heart would still be beating. He'd still be alive. And if he were stabbed at that point, there would be very little bleeding from the lungs and from the aorta.

Q. So what is your estimate of the total time that it would take from -- forgetting whether he was struggling all this time -- but how much time would it take between the neck wound and the last wound, if that's the wounded aorta?

A. My opinion would be that once the neck wound was incurred and he started bleeding, he would be able to stand up for a few minutes, plus or minus five minutes, maybe three minutes or four minutes, or five minutes, and then he would collapse. And he would stay that way for five or ten minutes longer, until the heart would stop beating completely.

During that time period, if he were stabbed, then there would just be a trickle of blood, as was present in the lungs or the aorta, as found in Mr. Goldman's autopsy.

Q. So as best you can opine, what is the range of time that we're talking about in terms of the time between the neck wound and the aorta wound?

A. I think between the first neck wound and the final aortic wound, I think the aorta -- my interpretation is that the wound to the flank and aorta was the last wound, because it matches the final position he was in, that he was found lying on his right side, with the left side exposed upwards. And if somebody stabbed him in that position, the stab wound would go from the left flank down into the -- to the aorta. And the time interval between the jugular vein until the aorta would not have bled anymore, is at least five or ten minutes, possibly a little longer.

Q. Now, you're not saying that he was struggling all that time?

A. No, he's not struggling the whole time. He stopped struggling, effectively, pretty quickly after a few minutes -- after a few minutes of bleeding. But he can stand up until -- he did manage to stand up until the blood from the jugular vein got down to his shoes, because once he collapses, the blood no longer goes down to his shoes.

Q. So is it accurate that this interval you've given, this five- to ten-minute, does not count how much time the perpetrator or perpetrators might have been on the scene before the next wound was inflicted, as well as after the wound to the aorta?

A. That's right. I can't factor into this with the information I have, how long the perpetrator or perpetrators were there before the neck wound was -- was inflicted. And I can't factor in how long the perpetrator or perpetrators remained there after the stab wound in the flank.

But somehow, there had to be a delay between the jugular vein cut and the stab wound to the flank of at least five or ten minutes -- at least five or ten minutes, so that when the aorta was stabbed, it did not bleed very much."

[weezer]

*Snipped*Not quite true but if you want to find that testimony and provide it be my guest. . ."

are you asking limakey for that link?

[William Anthony]

*Snipped*

are you asking limakey for that link?

No, I am asking you since this was your statement and not a question.


Originally Posted by fbgweezer View Post
so that means the struggle could have taken less than a minute and a half as testified to by the defense expert.

[SlowHandSam]

Why don't you discuss what you actually know about the deaths of Ron and Nicole that may lend some objectivity to your discussion? Since you are discussing how Ron was "butchered".

1. Why not, for example, examine the actual knife exit wounds on the victims' bodies in order to determine the probability of what type of knives were involved in the murders.

And/Or,

2. The measurement of the blade on one of the knives and the directional placement of the exit wounds on the victims' bodies in order to determine whether the assailant(s) was/were right or left handed.


I reject your further premature presumption that larger font is indicative of someone yelling at you. I think that that is simply an invention of your own paranoia. Larger font can also be used, as in my case, to highlight a particular area of concern. My concern is that you are not talking about anything that you actually objectively know, in regard to how these individuals were murdered. Other than the one actual arrest in '88 for assault you don't actually have proof of a history of Simpson's involvement in domestic abuse. Your posts sound like some necessity you require to work yourself into a lather about something.

Why not attempt to be more objective rather than feed into the same old hearsay that only serves to fuel the many stereotypes, and prolong the cover up in this abnormality, i.e. the so called "Trial of The Century"?

Tell me, Ben, how do you propose I examine the "actual knife exit wounds" this many years later?

I do have proof that he was abusive to Nicole as I posted previously. These were his own words -- hard to claim it isn't accurate considering it came from the horse's mouth.

As for the netiquette, perhaps you'd like to do some research and become familiar with what is acceptable and how increasing font, all caps etc indicates different intonations.

[weezer]

No, I am asking you since this was your statement and not a question.

it wasn't a statement -- why do you always have to screw with everything? limakey posted a statement and I responded.


"Quote:
Originally Posted by limakey
William,

In regards to how long the struggle took. Dr. Baden in both trials believed the struggle was much longer then the DA's theory/Petrocelli's theory. However, Petrocelli was able to get Dr. Baden to admit, that in spite of his beliefs, could the struggle taken less then a minute and half. Dr. Baden, did say that it was possible."

"fbgweezer
Criime Library Supreme Member Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,005

so that means the struggle could have taken less than a minute and a half as testified to by the defense expert."

[martin II]

it wasn't a statement -- why do you always have to screw with everything? limakey posted a statement and I responded.


"Quote:
Originally Posted by limakey
William,

In regards to how long the struggle took. Dr. Baden in both trials believed the struggle was much longer then the DA's theory/Petrocelli's theory. However, Petrocelli was able to get Dr. Baden to admit, that in spite of his beliefs, could the struggle taken less then a minute and half. Dr. Baden, did say that it was possible."

"fbgweezer
Criime Library Supreme Member Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,005

so that means the struggle could have taken less than a minute and a half as testified to by the defense expert."

Or twenty minutes as was testified to.

[martin II]

Tell me, Ben, how do you propose I examine the "actual knife exit wounds" this many years later?

I do have proof that he was abusive to Nicole as I posted previously. These were his own words -- hard to claim it isn't accurate considering it came from the horse's mouth.

As for the netiquette, perhaps you'd like to do some research and become familiar with what is acceptable and how increasing font, all caps etc indicates different intonations.

Abuse had nothing to do with this trial. It was a murder trial and oj was not charged with abuse.

[William Anthony]

it wasn't a statement -- why do you always have to screw with everything? limakey posted a statement and I responded.


"Quote:
Originally Posted by limakey
William,

In regards to how long the struggle took. Dr. Baden in both trials believed the struggle was much longer then the DA's theory/Petrocelli's theory. However, Petrocelli was able to get Dr. Baden to admit, that in spite of his beliefs, could the struggle taken less then a minute and half. Dr. Baden, did say that it was possible."

"fbgweezer
Criime Library Supreme Member Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,005

so that means the struggle could have taken less than a minute and a half as testified to by the defense expert."

Come on, now. You are the appointed resident English language expert or, at least, on these threads. What type of sentence ends with a period, albeit a response? :)

[SlowHandSam]

Abuse had nothing to do with this trial. It was a murder trial and oj was not charged with abuse.

IMO, it was relevant because it shows a history of violence. IMO, murder is the pinnacle of violence against another person.

Had Nicole and Ron not died that night, it would have been some charge of violence instead of murder. Unfortunately, that wasn't their fate.

oj admitted to previous violence against Nicole, so for me, it adds to the picture that he had little respect for Nicole or her well-being and therefore the idea that he could escalate that previous violence (arrested or not) is not that far a stretch, for me.

[martin II]

IMO, it was relevant because it shows a history of violence. IMO, murder is the pinnacle of violence against another person.

Had Nicole and Ron not died that night, it would have been some charge of violence instead of murder. Unfortunately, that wasn't their fate.

oj admitted to previous violence against Nicole, so for me, it adds to the picture that he had little respect for Nicole or her well-being and therefore the idea that he could escalate that previous violence (arrested or not) is not that far a stretch, for me.

1989 is a long time before the trial. Your ideas are not supported by the facts. they are your personal opinions.

[SlowHandSam]

1989 is a long time before the trial. Your ideas are not supported by the facts. they are your personal opinions.

the testimony supports my opinion. oj's testimony is fact.

thanks.

[socaldiva]

Abuse had nothing to do with this trial. It was a murder trial and oj was not charged with abuse.

Have you been talking to those idiot criminal jurors again? :o

[SlowHandSam]

Have you been talking to those idiot criminal jurors again? :o

hey socal! so good to see you!

[socaldiva]

hey socal! so good to see you!

Aw, thanks. Good to see you as well :seeya:

[limakey]

FBG,

The plaintiffs did to Dr. Baden what the defense did to Dr. L. in the criminal trial. Dr. L said that it was possible that two knives were used, however, he did not personally believe that theory. He could not with any medical degree of certainty rule out the two knife theory.

[martin II]

FBG,

The plaintiffs did to Dr. Baden what the defense did to Dr. L. in the criminal trial. Dr. L said that it was possible that two knives were used, however, he did not personally believe that theory. He could not with any medical degree of certainty rule out the two knife theory.

The prosecution in their efforts to manipulate the Autopsy report created more problems for themselves and may have caused the jury to discount DR L account as he attacked Dr Golden, his employee , that actually did the autopsy.

[socaldiva]

The prosecution in their efforts to manipulate the Autopsy report created more problems for themselves and may have caused the jury to discount DR L account as he attacked Dr Golden, his employee , that actually did the autopsy.

:confused: :shrug:

[weezer]

1989 is a long time before the trial. Your ideas are not supported by the facts. they are your personal opinions.

you do realize this is the same timeline as Fuhrman's screenplay tapes and Nicole's diary entries -- right?

[William Anthony]

you do realize this is the same timeline as Fuhrman's screenplay tapes and Nicole's diary entries -- right?

OFF TOPIC.

[weezer]

OFF TOPIC.

:confused: -- abuse and diaries were discussed in the civil trial

[William Anthony]

:confused: -- abuse and diaries were discussed in the civil trial

I apologize. I did not realize that there was testimony of MF's abuse of certain citizens in the civil trial.

[weezer]

I apologize. I did not realize that there was testimony of MF's abuse of certain citizens in the civil trial.

no such testimony in either trial.

[William Anthony]

no such testimony in either trial.

Not quite true. Did you forget the testimony about stopping interracial couples and then finding a reason to have stopped them? Did you forget the testimony, recognizing his voice on the tapes, saying he would pull the scab off the arm of a junkie making it appear fresh? Did you forget the testimony, recognizing his voice on the tapes, saying that they beat Black suspects and that Hollenbeck still had the stench of dead Ns? However, this is off topic and belongs on the Issues thread, imho.

[weezer]

Not quite true. Did you forget the testimony about stopping interracial couples and then finding a reason to have stopped them? Did you forget the testimony, recognizing his voice on the tapes, saying he would pull the scab off the arm of a junkie making it appear fresh? Did you forget the testimony, recognizing his voice on the tapes, saying that they beat Black suspects and that Hollenbeck still had the stench of dead Ns? However, this is off topic and belongs on the Issues thread, imho.

nope -- there was no testimony AND since Furhman wasn't an issue int he civil trial -- any reference to him is off topic.

[William Anthony]

nope -- there was no testimony AND since Furhman wasn't an issue int he civil trial -- any reference to him is off topic.

Then why did you mention him after another poster and I agreed MF was off topic? Here is your post.

Originally Posted by fbgweezer View Post
you do realize this is the same timeline as Fuhrman's screenplay tapes and Nicole's diary entries -- right?

[weezer]

Then why did you mention him after another poster and I agreed MF was off topic? Here is your post.

he's still off topic on this thread AND there was no testimony in either trial to back up your statement.

[William Anthony]

he's still off topic on this thread AND there was no testimony in either trial to back up your statement.

The discussion has been moved and my statement backed up. :)

[weezer]

The discussion has been moved and my statement backed up. :)

statement can't be backed up.

[William Anthony]

statement can't be backed up.

Already has been but thanks to you bobaugust can't back his up. Thanks again.

[martin II]

DR. RONALD FISCHMAN, longtime Simpson friend: Simpson was "tired, fatigued and slightly withdrawn" at dance recital; never saw Simpson that way before.

PAULA BARBIERI, model, Simpson's ex-girlfriend: (VT, RT) Left message on Simpson's answering system morning of killings saying relationship was over; messages he left later led her to believe he got message.

LESLIE GARDNER, exercise video wardrobe stylist: At Simpson's request, purchased a black cashmere designer sweatsuit; he told her he'd had one in past but it wore out; clothes weren't returned and she believed Simpson kept them.

JOSEPHINE "GIGI" GUARIN, Simpson housekeeper: Away from house night of killings; saw fake goatee and beard on Simpson's desk week before killings; dog Chachi never ran off the property.

RANDALL PETEE, private investigator: Test trip times between estate and condo ranged from 6 minutes, 37 seconds, at speed limit, to 4 minutes, 2 seconds, if speeding; followed instructions given by plaintiffs; could probably made trip faster going his own way. Dec. 5, 1996:

DR. LENORE WALKER, psychiatrist retained by Simpson defense: (RT) Spent 60 hours interviewing Simpson in jail; her notes suggested Simpson did retrieve Barbieri's "Dear John" message.

The lapd lab switched the blood samples that MAZZOLA collected and put her initials on.TAMPERING WITH THE ROCKINGHAM BLOOD SAMPLES.

[weezer]

The lapd lab switched the blood samples that MAZZOLA collected and put her initials on.TAMPERING WITH THE ROCKINGHAM BLOOD SAMPLES.

didn't happen.

[martin II]

didn't happen.

You can continue to deny the reality if you like.

[weezer]

You can continue to deny the reality if you like.

if you are stating this as fact, you need to give a link to ANY credible proof to support the statement.

reality check: on the night he murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, orenthal james simpson left his hair, fiber, blood, hat, glove, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the murder scene.

[martin II]

if you are stating this as fact, you need to give a link to ANY credible proof to support the statement.

reality check: on the night he murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, orenthal james simpson left his hair, fiber, blood, hat, glove, and size 12 pigeon-toed BM footprints at the murder scene.

Mazzolas testimony has been posted and that is all the proof that is needed.

[weezer]

Mazzolas testimony has been posted and that is all the proof that is needed.

you still don't understand that testimony do you?

[tv]

you still don't understand that testimony do you?Nope, he really doesn't.

[martin II]

you still don't understand that testimony do you?

Mazolla testimony is quite clear Unless one rejects reality that the bindels
presented to her in court had her initials on them.

[weezer]

Mazolla testimony is quite clear Unless one rejects reality that the bindels
presented to her in court had her initials on them.

martin, you obviously still do not understand the issue or her testimony.

[martin II]

The lapd lab switched the blood samples that MAZZOLA collected and put her initials on.TAMPERING WITH THE ROCKINGHAM BLOOD SAMPLES.

[martin II]

martin, you obviously still do not understand the issue or her testimony.

I am sure for you it is quite easy to just ignore the testimony and pretend it never happened.

[weezer]

The lapd lab switched the blood samples that MAZZOLA collected and put her initials on.TAMPERING WITH THE ROCKINGHAM BLOOD SAMPLES.

didn't happen except in the fertile imagination of the conspiracy theory folks.

[martin II]

It seems like you may not care who you have a argument with as long as it is a argument.

I have made the testimony clear.
:punch:

[weezer]

It seems like you may not care who you have a argument with as long as it is a argument.

I have made the testimony clear.
:punch:

I'm not wanting to argue with anyone. I'm simply trying to keep you as close to the truth as I can and sometimes that can be very, very difficult. There is no evidence that LE planted blood.

[bobaugust]

Mazolla testimony is quite clear Unless one rejects reality that the bindels
presented to her in court had her initials on them.

martin II, Mazzola testified that she was mistaken about initialing the coin envelopes. She testified that she recognized her and Dennis Fung's handwriting on all the bindles contained in the coin envelopes as the original bindles she and Fung created when they processed the samples. She testified that the item numbers on the bindles are important because the item number ties the bindle to the item number of the blood stain that was collected.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

martin II, Mazzola testified that she was mistaken about initialing the coin envelopes. She testified that she recognized her and Dennis Fung's handwriting on all the bindles contained in the coin envelopes as the original bindles she and Fung created when they processed the samples. She testified that the item numbers on the bindles are important because the item number ties the bindle to the item number of the blood stain that was collected.

bobaugust

Corn Oil was a trainee at the time of the murders, soon to be promoted. This was not the first scene she processed. Don't forget her other testimony that she was told not it did not matter if she did not put her initials on the envelope because she was working as part of a team. She certainly was with that outrageous testimony. The team charged with covering up. Least we forget, MF was part of that team, running around using the scoop method.

[weezer]

Corn Oil was a trainee at the time of the murders, soon to be promoted. This was not the first scene she processed. Don't forget her other testimony that she was told not it did not matter if she did not put her initials on the envelope because she was working as part of a team. She certainly was with that outrageous testimony. The team charged with covering up. Least we forget, MF was part of that team, running around using the scoop method.

nope -- no one was charged with covering up. :no: :no:

well, that's not completely true -- IIRC, there were members of the scheme team that were sanctioned for covering up witness testimony.

[William Anthony]

nope -- no one was charged with covering up. :no: :no:

well, that's not completely true -- IIRC, there were members of the scheme team that were sanctioned for covering up witness testimony.

I was speaking of police corruption and the responsibility of covering that up. Link to the sanctions for the dream team covering up witness testimony? IIRC, I posted a post with the request for sanctions for the prosecution (scheme team) covering up a witness, who saw four non-black men near Ms. Nicole's condo at about 10 pm on the night of the murders. That prosecution team had all types of clandestine schemes, didn't they? Wonder how Clark and Darden would have celebrated if the won? Don't answer, I think I we are off topic for this thread.

[martin II]

martin II, Mazzola testified that she was mistaken about initialing the coin envelopes. She testified that she recognized her and Dennis Fung's handwriting on all the bindles contained in the coin envelopes as the original bindles she and Fung created when they processed the samples. She testified that the item numbers on the bindles are important because the item number ties the bindle to the item number of the blood stain that was collected.

bobaugust

bob
Mazzola testified in the hearing that she DID put her initials on the bindels/envelopes. I believe she stated this more than once.On the stand when asked if she knew why her initials were not where she testified she had placed them she said 'I DON'T KNOW" After more prompting by the prosecution she finally adopted their excuse that she just had to say she made a "mistake" There was no other answer she could have given other than tampering had taken place and she was not prepared to do that.

You can acept her EXCUSE as just another mistake on a vital piece of evidence if you like. I believe she took her place on the blue wall of silence.imo
martin II

[martin II]

nope -- no one was charged with covering up. :no: :no:

well, that's not completely true -- IIRC, there were members of the scheme team that were sanctioned for covering up witness testimony.

weezer

Do you actually believe that the prosecution would have charged a copper with a crime and tanked their whole case? Or would they have manipulated their evidence and tried to work around the problem?

[weezer]

I was speaking of police corruption and the responsibility of covering that up. Link to the sanctions for the dream team covering up witness testimony? IIRC, I posted a post with the request for sanctions for the prosecution (scheme team) covering up a witness, who saw four non-black men near Ms. Nicole's condo at about 10 pm on the night of the murders. That prosecution team had all types of clandestine schemes, didn't they? Wonder how Clark and Darden would have celebrated if the won? Don't answer, I think I we are off topic for this thread.

Corruption is corruption and while you continue to insist there was wrongdoing by LE, I feel the need to point out that it was members of orenthal's scheme team that was sanctioned:

"In March, judge Lance Ito sanctioned and fined Simpson lawyers Johnnie L. Cochran and Carl Douglas $950 each for failing to provide the defense with an audio recording of an interview with López made by an investigator hired by Simpson. Judge Ito also informed them that if they chose to play the Lopez tape the jury would be instructed that the defense violated the law.

Ultimately, the defense decided not to present her testimony to the jury despite many references in opening statements and the large interruption to the trial."

[William Anthony]

Corruption is corruption and while you continue to insist there was wrongdoing by LE, I feel the need to point out that it was members of orenthal's scheme team that was sanctioned:

"In March, judge Lance Ito sanctioned and fined Simpson lawyers Johnnie L. Cochran and Carl Douglas $950 each for failing to provide the defense with an audio recording of an interview with López made by an investigator hired by Simpson. Judge Ito also informed them that if they chose to play the Lopez tape the jury would be instructed that the defense violated the law.

Ultimately, the defense decided not to present her testimony to the jury despite many references in opening statements and the large interruption to the trial."

Both sides were sanctioned for covering up witnesses. What's you point?

[weezer]

Both sides were sanctioned for covering up witnesses. What's you point?

when was the prosecution sanctioned?

My point was your insistence that cockroach and the scheme team was above reproach.

Duh -- the point was your false post that LE was charged with covering up.

[William Anthony]

when was the prosecution sanctioned?

My point was your insistence that cockroach and the scheme team was above reproach.

Duh -- the point was your false post that LE was charged with covering up.

charge (chärj)
v. charged, charg·ing, charg·es
v.tr.
1. To impose a duty, responsibility, or obligation on: charged him with the task of watching the young swimmers.

DUH

[weezer]

charge (chärj)
v. charged, charg·ing, charg·es
v.tr.
1. To impose a duty, responsibility, or obligation on: charged him with the task of watching the young swimmers.

DUH

like I said, LE was never charged with covering up OR planting OR hiding witness statements in the simpson trial -- only cockroach and scheme team.

[martin II]

Corruption is corruption and while you continue to insist there was wrongdoing by LE, I feel the need to point out that it was members of orenthal's scheme team that was sanctioned:

"In March, judge Lance Ito sanctioned and fined Simpson lawyers Johnnie L. Cochran and Carl Douglas $950 each for failing to provide the defense with an audio recording of an interview with López made by an investigator hired by Simpson. Judge Ito also informed them that if they chose to play the Lopez tape the jury would be instructed that the defense violated the law.

Ultimately, the defense decided not to present her testimony to the jury despite many references in opening statements and the large interruption to the trial."

And the jury found oj NOT GUILTY.

[martin II]

like I said, LE was never charged with covering up OR planting OR hiding witness statements in the simpson trial -- only cockroach and scheme team.

They should have put Mazzola in handcuffs for her lie.

[William Anthony]

like I said, LE was never charged with covering up OR planting OR hiding witness statements in the simpson trial -- only cockroach and scheme team.

Oh yes, I forgot, Vanatter hurried MF to Bundy to make a visual comparison of the glove MF allegedly found at Rockingham and then said go home MF. :)

[tv]

They should have put Mazzola in handcuffs for her lie.It's just too bad that OJ Simpson wasn't eligible to be put in jail for the rest of his life for lying on the stand for days. After his civil trial testimony it's obvious why he wasn't put on the stand for the criminal trial. Even Alan Dershowitz said after seeing him in the civil trial he knows for sure it would have been a mistake to put him on the stand in the criminal trial. In other words he's a big liar in additon to being a murderer.

[William Anthony]

It's just too bad that OJ Simpson wasn't eligible to be put in jail for the rest of his life for lying on the stand for days. After his civil trial testimony it's obvious why he wasn't put on the stand for the criminal trial. Even Alan Dershowitz said after seeing him in the civil trial he knows for sure it would have been a mistake to put him on the stand in the criminal trial. In other words he's a big liar in additon to being a murderer.

Corn Oil might have slipped through the cuffs and escaped, but, if she was in a jail cell, she would have knocked herself out, because she can't see gates.

[tv]

Corn Oil might have slipped through the cuffs and escaped, but, if she was in a jail cell, she would have knocked herself out, because she can't see gates.

Good lord.

[William Anthony]

Good lord.

So, I'm not one of the Kings of Comedy.

[martin II]

Good lord.

Stop calling the lords name in vain.

[martin II]

Oh yes, I forgot, Vanatter hurried MF to Bundy to make a visual comparison of the glove MF allegedly found at Rockingham and then said go home MF. :)

Wait
vanhatter also had fung to bring the rockingham glove to him at bundy to make a "comparison".Maby to add hairs, blood and stuff.:cool:

[William Anthony]

Wait
vanhatter also had fung to bring the rockingham glove to him at bundy to make a "comparison".Maby to add hairs, blood and stuff.:cool:

He must have know MF was not to be trusted.:)

[tv]

Stop calling the lords name in vain.

Find something else to complain about


1: one having power and authority over others: a: a ruler by hereditary right or preeminence to whom service and obedience are due b: one of whom a fee or estate is held in feudal tenure c: an owner of land or other real property dobsolete : the male head of a household e: husband f: one that has achieved mastery or that exercises leadership or great power in some area <a drug lord>
2capitalized a: god 1 b: jesus
3: a man of rank or high position: as a: a feudal tenant whose right or title comes directly from the king b: a British nobleman: as (1): baron 2a (2): a hereditary peer of the rank of marquess, earl, or viscount (3): the son of a duke or a marquess or the eldest son of an earl (4): a bishop of the Church of England cplural capitalized : house of lords
4 —used as a British title: as a—used as part of an official title <Lord Advocate><Lord Mayor> b—used informally in place of the full title for a marquess, earl, or viscount c—used for a baron d—used by courtesy before the name and surname of a younger son of a duke or a marquess
5: a person chosen to preside over a festival

[William Anthony]

Find something else to complain about


1: one having power and authority over others: a: a ruler by hereditary right or preeminence to whom service and obedience are due b: one of whom a fee or estate is held in feudal tenure c: an owner of land or other real property dobsolete : the male head of a household e: husband f: one that has achieved mastery or that exercises leadership or great power in some area <a drug lord>
2capitalized a: god 1 b: jesus
3: a man of rank or high position: as a: a feudal tenant whose right or title comes directly from the king b: a British nobleman: as (1): baron 2a (2): a hereditary peer of the rank of marquess, earl, or viscount (3): the son of a duke or a marquess or the eldest son of an earl (4): a bishop of the Church of England cplural capitalized : house of lords
4 —used as a British title: as a—used as part of an official title <Lord Advocate><Lord Mayor> b—used informally in place of the full title for a marquess, earl, or viscount c—used for a baron d—used by courtesy before the name and surname of a younger son of a duke or a marquess
5: a person chosen to preside over a festival

Thanks for the recognition.

[tv]

Thanks for the recognition.You've been chosen to preside over a festival? Congratulations! :)

[William Anthony]

You've been chosen to preside over a festival? Congratulations! :)

Don't forget to bring your hood and sheet. It might rain and you may need to cover up, unless you have a hooded rain coat. I tried but your post on the other thread showed me the level of communication you appreciate.

[martin II]

You've been chosen to preside over a festival? Congratulations! :)

By the authority of a tvdinner.

[weezer]

Don't forget to bring your hood and sheet. It might rain and you may need to cover up, unless you have a hooded rain coat. I tried but your post on the other thread showed me the level of communication you appreciate.

wow -- you boys don't mind what vile, racist attack you participate in do you?

[weezer]

Hi Completely off topic. If you receive a PM from someone called Patricia or maybe jesse saying 'I.m new here blah blah' be warned. it's a hacker.

I received this email:

"Dear fbgweezer,

Your account on Crime Library Message Boards has been locked because
someone has tried to log into the account with the wrong password more
than 5 times. You will be able to attempt to log in again in another 15
minutes.

The person trying to log into your account had the following IP address:
212.143.129.233"

I believe someone is trying to hack into the boards -- that may explain the difficulties posting we've have the last few days.

[tv]

Someone has too much time on their hands that's for sure. Maybe if it's the hacker(s) the posting glitch will get resolved -- it's getting annoying.

[martin II]

wow -- you boys don't mind what vile, racist attack you participate in do you?

I have no idea as to who you are talking to.

[William Anthony]

wow -- you boys don't mind what vile, racist attack you participate in do you?

I thought you had to be an adult to post. I was obviously mistaken by this post, to which I responded.

[William Anthony]

I have no idea as to who you are talking to.

Must be MF and his companions.

[martin II]

I thought you had to be an adult to post. I was obviously mistaken by this post, to which I responded.

Maby to some neighborhood kids networking with her.

[martin II]

I thought you had to be an adult to post. I was obviously mistaken by this post, to which I responded.

Maby it was directed to some neighborhood kids networking with her.

[William Anthony]

Maby it was directed to some neighborhood kids networking with her.

I would hope she would reprimand the neighborhood kids for those type of remarks. However, I have not been to Texas in years and do not know southern etiquette.

[tv]

I would hope she would reprimand the neighborhood kids for those type of remarks. However, I have not been to Texas in years and do not know southern etiquette.I'm sure they practice southern etiquette in Alta Vista, Va.

[William Anthony]

I'm sure they practice southern etiquette in Alta Vista, Va.

I haven't been there in quite some time but it was after being in Texas. If things haven't changed, then I am certainly glad to be away from both places. If they haven't changed, then fbgweezer was not reprimanding the neighborhood kids, imho.

[tv]

I haven't been there in quite some time but it was after being in Texas. If things haven't changed, then I am certainly glad to be away from both places. If they haven't changed, then fbgweezer was not reprimanding the neighborhood kids, imho.Altavista, as I remember it, is a lovely little town with nice people.

[William Anthony]

Altavista, as I remember it, is a lovely little town with nice people.

YOU might think that. It was a little different when I was there. I mean a lot different. I was briefly also in Lynchburg. If you know was that city named after Willie Lynch?

[tv]

YOU might think that. It was a little different when I was there. I mean a lot different. I was briefly also in Lynchburg. If you know was that city named after Willie Lynch?

I really have no idea but you're not accomplishing board harmony by making a reference to a slave owner from the 1700's. I would say that Lynch is a fairly common name. I'll see if I can find out the origin of the name of the town.

[tv]

No mention of Willie. I don't think he was mentioned in the civil trial either.


John Lynch, son of land-owner Charles Lynch and Quaker Sarah Clark Lynch, in 1757, established a ferry service on the James a few hundred yards upstream from the ford, on property owned by his father. The ferry service remained profitable for many years, and by the end of the American Revolution, the village at Lynch's Ferry had itself become an important center of trade. Lynch saw the possibilities of establishing a town on the hill overlooking the ferry site, and in late 1784 petitioned the General Assembly of Virginia for a town charter. In October, 1786, the charter was granted, founding the town of Lynchburg.

[William Anthony]

I really have no idea but you're not accomplishing board harmony by making a reference to a slave owner from the 1700's. I would say that Lynch is a fairly common name. I'll see if I can find out the origin of the name of the town.

Neither were boys, nor Alta Vista, Va., nor fried chicken nor MF's vile racist verbal and physical attacks, nor movies with the wrong racial type. Harmony requires the participation of two or more parties. Thanks for the info. on Lynchburg.

[tv]

Neither were boys, nor Alta Vista, Va., nor fried chicken nor MF's vile racist verbal and physical attacks, nor movies with the wrong racial type. Harmony requires the participation of two or more parties. Thanks for the info. on Lynchburg.You're welcome.

[martin II]

In 1700, when newly arriving slaves were being taken to the slave market at Jamestown, this is the scene they witnessed. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then the sight of a hook in the body of an African sent the message in the strongest possible way. Slave owners were not joking and enslaved Africans had better take them seriously! The term "lynching" is said to have derived from Charles Lynch, a slave owner at Lynchburg, Virginia during the latter part of the 1600s and early part of the 1700s. It is reported that during that period of Colonial history, Charles Lynch and other Virginia planters were driving themselves into bankruptcy by torturing and killing so many Africans, in their attempts to force Africans to submit to slavery.

http://henryburke1010.tripod.com/id4.html

[William Anthony]

In 1700, when newly arriving slaves were being taken to the slave market at Jamestown, this is the scene they witnessed. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then the sight of a hook in the body of an African sent the message in the strongest possible way. Slave owners were not joking and enslaved Africans had better take them seriously! The term "lynching" is said to have derived from Charles Lynch, a slave owner at Lynchburg, Virginia during the latter part of the 1600s and early part of the 1700s. It is reported that during that period of Colonial history, Charles Lynch and other Virginia planters were driving themselves into bankruptcy by torturing and killing so many Africans, in their attempts to force Africans to submit to slavery.

http://henryburke1010.tripod.com/id4.html

Thank you for the additional information on Lynchburg.

[martin II]

Thank you for the additional information on Lynchburg.

There is more on the brother comming to lynchburg with slave controlling methods but it is hard to read. Seems like this is the origin of the word "lynch law" and "lynching".
I also think VA was the place after reconstruction of large scale taking of black owned land.imo

[martin II]

I watched today. 'Nightline'. It was about buying 'slaves' in Haiti. The slaves are all children. Mostly female it appears to be. They were being bought or being given to black families who would not give them a life or an educaton.



Australia is a destination country for women from Southeast Asia, South Korea, Taiwan, and the People’s Republic of China (P.R.C.) trafficked for the purpose of commercial sexual exploitation. Prostitution is legal except for in the states of Western Australia and South Australia. Many trafficking victims were women who traveled to Australia voluntarily to work in both legal and illegal brothels, but were subject to conditions of debt bondage or involuntary servitude. There were reports of several men and women from India, the P.R.C., South Korea, the Philippines, and Ireland migrating to Australia temporarily for work, but subsequently subjected to conditions of forced labor, including fraudulent recruitment, confiscation of travel documents, confinement, and debt bondage. - U.S. State Dept Trafficking in Persons Report, June, 2008 [full country report]



http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Australia.htm

[tv]

I'm not denying the history of slavery in Virginia or any other state. Your continued posting on the subject is for what reason? It was wrong and it is no longer legal. There is hardly a country or region of the world that hasn't particpated in or been victimized by slavery at some time in history. Perhaps if you are so concerned with slavery you should speak out and be active against the slavery that is going on today in 2008. You speak about Australia being a destination for sex slavery victims but you are still talking about slavery that ended almost 200 hundred years ago.

[tv]

There is more on the brother comming to lynchburg with slave controlling methods but it is hard to read. Seems like this is the origin of the word "lynch law" and "lynching".
I also think VA was the place after reconstruction of large scale taking of black owned land.imomartin, I've already posted the origin of the name of Lynchburg, Va. Please don't start making things up. It was named after John Lynch. The word 'lynch' came from Charles Lynch, most likely his brother. It referred to the Lynch Law, a method of punishing criminals. I know you'd like to think only blacks were lynched but it refers to anyone killed by hanging.

Could we get back to the civil trial where no one was lynched?

[martin II]

martin, I've already posted the origin of the name of Lynchburg, Va. Please don't start making things up. It was named after John Lynch. The word 'lynch' came from Charles Lynch, most likely his brother. It referred to the Lynch Law, a method of punishing criminals. I know you'd like to think only blacks were lynched but it refers to anyone killed by hanging.

Could we get back to the civil trial where no one was lynched?

TV

I posted a article non of which i wrote.It speaks to lynch owning slaves in lynchburg so what have i made up. John lynchj the son of charles lynch a laege plantaiton slave owner.So unless john lynch was not raised by his family he was part of a slave plantation when lynchburg was incorporated by slave owners. You left this part out when you posted about lynchburg.

[martin II]

martin, I've already posted the origin of the name of Lynchburg, Va. Please don't start making things up. It was named after John Lynch. The word 'lynch' came from Charles Lynch, most likely his brother. It referred to the Lynch Law, a method of punishing criminals. I know you'd like to think only blacks were lynched but it refers to anyone killed by hanging.

Could we get back to the civil trial where no one was lynched?

tv
Wrong ;Willie lynch was the brother of charles Lynch. John lynch's uncle.
If we are talking about lynchburg va. no need not to talk about lunchburg va.

I have his speech also.

William Lynch (Willie), a brother of Charles Lynch, who owned a plantation on the Island of Barbados, West Indies, was invited to come to Jamestown advise slave owners about his methods of controling slaves.

[tv]

tv
Wrong ;Willie lynch was the brother of charles Lynch. John lynch's uncle.
If we are talking about lynchburg va. no need not to talk about lunchburg va.

I have his speech also.

William Lynch (Willie), a brother of Charles Lynch, who owned a plantation on the Island of Barbados, West Indies, was invited to come to Jamestown advise slave owners about his methods of controling slaves.
Martin, Willie Lynch was a slave owner who had a method for controlling slaves which of course was WRONG as was slavery itself. No one is disputing this. I don't see what this has to do with this thread which is about the civil trial of OJ Simpson. If you don't like the southern part of the US that's your right. It's my right to love the south. This subject is completely off-topic to this discussion.

[martin II]

I'm not denying the history of slavery in Virginia or any other state. Your continued posting on the subject is for what reason? It was wrong and it is no longer legal. There is hardly a country or region of the world that hasn't particpated in or been victimized by slavery at some time in history. Perhaps if you are so concerned with slavery you should speak out and be active against the slavery that is going on today in 2008. You speak about Australia being a destination for sex slavery victims but you are still talking about slavery that ended almost 200 hundred years ago.

tv

Would you deny the value of history. Why do you seem to become upset at the mention of one of Americas worse time in its history.It is a history that should not be ignored and our youth should be informed and the older ones reminded. So i am not sure why you seem to be of the opinion that it should be overlooked and that people should move on.The civil war has not been ignored, reconstruction has not been ingored, the value of free slave labor
to the u.s. industrial revolution has not been ignored so why should slavery be ingored. The gall of some that say forget it and move on is pure nonsense.imo

[martin II]

Martin, Willie Lynch was a slave owner who had a method for controlling slaves which of course was WRONG as was slavery itself. No one is disputing this. I don't see what this has to do with this thread which is about the civil trial of OJ Simpson. If you don't like the southern part of the US that's your right. It's my right to love the south. This subject is completely off-topic to this discussion.

tv
I was born and raised in the deep south so i know what southern is and what it is not.Thank you very much.

[martin II]

Martin, Willie Lynch was a slave owner who had a method for controlling slaves which of course was WRONG as was slavery itself. No one is disputing this. I don't see what this has to do with this thread which is about the civil trial of OJ Simpson. If you don't like the southern part of the US that's your right. It's my right to love the south. This subject is completely off-topic to this discussion.

Willie lynch the uncle to john and the brother of chares.All one family of racistr slave owners in lynchburg va.The city was named after 'Lynch" family.
So you posted about lynchburg but failed to give all the history of the family
the city is named after.So i thougt the truth should be told.
After posting about lynchburg you now tell me it is ot.nonsense.imo

The posting about current slavery in Australia was posted in response to The bells post about Haiti. So if you have a problem about my Australian post give the same advice to bell about his post about Haiti. See how that works.
my post about Australian slavery was about women. but i guess that is of no concern to you.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

Martin, Willie Lynch was a slave owner who had a method for controlling slaves which of course was WRONG as was slavery itself. No one is disputing this. I don't see what this has to do with this thread which is about the civil trial of OJ Simpson. If you don't like the southern part of the US that's your right. It's my right to love the south. This subject is completely off-topic to this discussion.

Willie lynch the uncle to john and the brother of chares.All one family of racistr slave owners in lynchburg va.The city was named after 'Lynch" family.
So you posted about lynchburg but failed to give all the history of the family
the city is named after.So i thougt the truth should be told.
After posting about lynchburg you now tell me it is ot.nonsense.imo

The posting about current slavery in Australia was posted in response to The bells post about Haiti. So if you have a problem about my Australian post give the same advice to bell about his post about Haiti. See how that works.
my post about Australian slavery was about women. but i guess that is of no concern to you.
imo
martin II

[tv]

Willie lynch the uncle to john and the brother of chares.All one family of racistr slave owners in lynchburg va.The city was named after 'Lynch" family.
So you posted about lynchburg but failed to give all the history of the family
the city is named after.So i thougt the truth should be told.
After posting about lynchburg you now tell me it is ot.nonsense.imo

The posting about current slavery in Australia was posted in response to The bells post about Haiti. So if you have a problem about my Australian post give the same advice to bell about his post about Haiti. See how that works.
my post about Australian slavery was about women. but i guess that is of no concern to you.
imo
martin IIWilliam asked me if Lynchburg is named after Willie Lynch. I gave him the answer. It was named after John Lynch. I didn't give the whole history of Lynchburg because I didn't research it and no one cares. This thread is about the civil trial of OJ Simpson. If you want to keep going on about slavery in Lynchburg, Va in the 1700's please find some other forum. Everyone gets the fact that I live in a former slave state if that is your point. Can we now move on?

[martin II]

William asked me if Lynchburg is named after Willie Lynch. I gave him the answer. It was named after John Lynch. I didn't give the whole history of Lynchburg because I didn't research it and no one cares. This thread is about the civil trial of OJ Simpson. If you want to keep going on about slavery in Lynchburg, Va in the 1700's please find some other forum. Everyone gets the fact that I live in a former slave state if that is your point. Can we now move on?

tv
you posted about lynchburg founder but failed to post the info of this failmy
salve ownership which was only part of the story of the founding family of lynchburg va. I decided to give some info that you left out.JOHN CHARLES
and WILLE were part of a racist family slave owning cartel in lynchburg va.
So he was not some innocent do goodie person that incorporated lynchburg va as your post seem to indicate.I added the slave ownership of that family so you would not be ingnorant to the real facts of the lynch family.
martin II

[martin II]

William asked me if Lynchburg is named after Willie Lynch. I gave him the answer. It was named after John Lynch. I didn't give the whole history of Lynchburg because I didn't research it and no one cares. This thread is about the civil trial of OJ Simpson. If you want to keep going on about slavery in Lynchburg, Va in the 1700's please find some other forum. Everyone gets the fact that I live in a former slave state if that is your point. Can we now move on?

tv
when it comes to black issues your standard rap is move on.Do you believe you have the power to tell others when it is time to move on.

[tv]

tv
when it comes to black issues your standard rap is move on.Do you believe you have the power to tell others when it is time to move on.


Then keep on yakking about slavery in the 1700's. If you want to talk about black issues relating to OJ Simpson that's one thing but why are you dragging up the history of the Lynch family from 300 years ago? I only said that the town was named after John Lynch. I didn't know of any connection to Willie Lynch. Boycott Lynchburg if you want but please get back on topic.

[martin II]

Then keep on yakking about slavery in the 1700's. If you want to talk about black issues relating to OJ Simpson that's one thing but why are you dragging up the history of the Lynch family from 300 years ago? I only said that the town was named after John Lynch. I didn't know of any connection to Willie Lynch. Boycott Lynchburg if you want but please get back on topic.

You were ot when you posted about lynchburg by posting only part of that story.
You tried to sugar coat lynchburg va as some sweet virginia town incorporated by some regular person when it was a racist slave owning town incorporated by a plantation slave owning bunch of people that inflictred great harn to other humans.No one should suggest that this history be ignored or not discussed at every opportunity.

If you don't want others to see what kind of worms you have in your cans then stop opening them here.imo

martin II

[martin II]

Then keep on yakking about slavery in the 1700's. If you want to talk about black issues relating to OJ Simpson that's one thing but why are you dragging up the history of the Lynch family from 300 years ago? I only said that the town was named after John Lynch. I didn't know of any connection to Willie Lynch. Boycott Lynchburg if you want but please get back on topic.

willie lynch was charles lynchs brother.john lynch was charles lynchs son.a family of lynches if you will.Or a family of slave owners.
You have been yakking as much as i have in your efforts to ignore history.imo
martin II

[tv]

You were ot when you posted about lynchburg by posting only part of that story.
You tried to sugar coat lynchburg va as some sweet virginia town incorporated by some regular person when it was a racist slave owning town incorporated by a plantation slave owning bunch of people that inflictred great harn to other humans.No one should suggest that this history be ignored or not discussed at every opportunity.

If you don't want others to see what kind of worms you have in your cans then stop opening them here.imo

martin IIGo to a history forum or a slave history forum if you want to discuss this. I'm not ignoring history. I've denounced slavery. Lynchburg today is a nice town whether it was founded by the Lynch family or Mary Poppins. You are talking about the state of things 300 years ago. Let's talk about the murders of Ron and Nicole that happened in 1994 not the early 1700's. What is it about Lynchburg today that you find so objectionable? I'm sure it will continue to prosper whether you patronize it or not. This has to be the silliest discussion we've ever had on here.

[limakey]

TV,

I personally believe that it should be a law that defendant's can't take the stand. The reason why I believe this is because any word, any facial expression, any body movement can be interpeted as a sign of guilt. I also believe that it does not take much for a juror or juror to actually hate the defendant and focus on that hate rather then the evidence, or in this case, hate what type of person he is.

How many times have you heard a juror in an interview give comments about the defendant just sitting in the chair? He showed no remorse, well how do you show remorse if you are not guilty of the crime? Or if the defendant shows remorse--is it because the person is dead or because the person is dead and he killed them? How many times have you heard jurors comment on a defendant's tears? How they were fake or they were planned, etc.

Don't get me wrong, it is only natural to make these types of judgements, but as we well know, how many people have gotten out of prison or off of death row in recent years because of DNA? I bet if you went back and read about the juror's comments, many would have made these types of comments.

IMO, I don't think the civil trial jurors even believed Mr. Simpson when he told them his name.

Also, IMO, I do believe that Mr. Simpson did play a huge role in Nicole's death, even though I believe he is innocent of the crime. I believe had he been a faithful husband, that Nicole would have been living at Rockingham that night. I believe he took the warning from Cora F. seriously, Nicole would not have been living on Bundy. I believe that Simpson knew Nicole's "new" circle of friends were going to be her downfall and instead of expressing his fears and his experiences, he probably came off like a jerk and made it seem like he was trying to control her or tell her what to do. I do not believe that he thought Nicole's life was in danger, but I do believe he knew that something just wasn't right that the changes in Nicole in the last six of her months of her life was such a drastic change that she was in way over her head.

I do remember what some of the jurors said about his denying that he never hit Nicole. I often wondered why he never just said that they were both really drunk and he does not remember hitting her something like that. Yet, it appears to me that every time Simpson has talked about this one incident, it has always been the same.

I would love to read both Nicole's and OJ's statements regarding that incident. I know he pleaded no contest, but I wonder what the words the judge used. For example: On or about 1 Jan 89, did you hit Nicole Simpson? Did you throw her out of your bedroom? Did you throw her out the door?

To the best of my knowledge, I don't think Nicole's statements regarding this incident has ever been published as it pertained to Simpson's plea.

Just to be clear, if I was a lawyer and my client was the Pope, I wouldn't put him on the stand either!

[limakey]

I did not follow the civil trial very closely because of a very private matter. However, I think the civil trial raised even more questions about the case as well as wonder why the DA's didn't use at least one witness, Dr. Jennifer Ameli.

She called Nicole shortly before the murders. She said Nicole was very upset and was convinced Simpson was going to see at that night. In fact, Dr. A told her that she should have a friend come and sit with her until Simpson left that night for LAX. If she is telling the truth, then it makes no sense to me that Nicole was so worried about OJ that the only protection she took was to run a bath?

[martin II]

I did not follow the civil trial very closely because of a very private matter. However, I think the civil trial raised even more questions about the case as well as wonder why the DA's didn't use at least one witness, Dr. Jennifer Ameli.

She called Nicole shortly before the murders. She said Nicole was very upset and was convinced Simpson was going to see at that night. In fact, Dr. A told her that she should have a friend come and sit with her until Simpson left that night for LAX. If she is telling the truth, then it makes no sense to me that Nicole was so worried about OJ that the only protection she took was to run a bath?

i have also wondered why the da never called the one adult that saw nicole alive aftyer she got home from the dinner. That Dr that came to her house to pick up his daughter after nicole and these kids had arrived at nicoles house. The daughter was suppose to spend the night but after arriving at nicoles the Dr came and picked up his daughter.

[martin II]

Go to a history forum or a slave history forum if you want to discuss this. I'm not ignoring history. I've denounced slavery. Lynchburg today is a nice town whether it was founded by the Lynch family or Mary Poppins. You are talking about the state of things 300 years ago. Let's talk about the murders of Ron and Nicole that happened in 1994 not the early 1700's. What is it about Lynchburg today that you find so objectionable? I'm sure it will continue to prosper whether you patronize it or not. This has to be the silliest discussion we've ever had on here.

tv

you chose to describe lynchburg for a single event of a lynch.I decided to describe lynchburg as the kind of place it was before and when it was incorporated by a FAMILYof racist slave owners.

You opened the can of worms and now that i have posted on what they looked like you want to tell me i am ot. History is important 300 400 500 years ago.The length of time does not matter.

Seems like discussing issues that effected blacks then and now seems to cause you to talk about it is in the past. talk about now. get over it move on.

You are entitled to your opinion on these subjects and i an entitled to speak on them.imo

[martin II]

TV,

I personally believe that it should be a law that defendant's can't take the stand. The reason why I believe this is because any word, any facial expression, any body movement can be interpeted as a sign of guilt. I also believe that it does not take much for a juror or juror to actually hate the defendant and focus on that hate rather then the evidence, or in this case, hate what type of person he is.

How many times have you heard a juror in an interview give comments about the defendant just sitting in the chair? He showed no remorse, well how do you show remorse if you are not guilty of the crime? Or if the defendant shows remorse--is it because the person is dead or because the person is dead and he killed them? How many times have you heard jurors comment on a defendant's tears? How they were fake or they were planned, etc.

Don't get me wrong, it is only natural to make these types of judgements, but as we well know, how many people have gotten out of prison or off of death row in recent years because of DNA? I bet if you went back and read about the juror's comments, many would have made these types of comments.

IMO, I don't think the civil trial jurors even believed Mr. Simpson when he told them his name.

Also, IMO, I do believe that Mr. Simpson did play a huge role in Nicole's death, even though I believe he is innocent of the crime. I believe had he been a faithful husband, that Nicole would have been living at Rockingham that night. I believe he took the warning from Cora F. seriously, Nicole would not have been living on Bundy. I believe that Simpson knew Nicole's "new" circle of friends were going to be her downfall and instead of expressing his fears and his experiences, he probably came off like a jerk and made it seem like he was trying to control her or tell her what to do. I do not believe that he thought Nicole's life was in danger, but I do believe he knew that something just wasn't right that the changes in Nicole in the last six of her months of her life was such a drastic change that she was in way over her head.

I do remember what some of the jurors said about his denying that he never hit Nicole. I often wondered why he never just said that they were both really drunk and he does not remember hitting her something like that. Yet, it appears to me that every time Simpson has talked about this one incident, it has always been the same.

I would love to read both Nicole's and OJ's statements regarding that incident. I know he pleaded no contest, but I wonder what the words the judge used. For example: On or about 1 Jan 89, did you hit Nicole Simpson? Did you throw her out of your bedroom? Did you throw her out the door?

To the best of my knowledge, I don't think Nicole's statements regarding this incident has ever been published as it pertained to Simpson's plea.

Just to be clear, if I was a lawyer and my client was the Pope, I wouldn't put him on the stand either!

Cora fishman testified about Nicoles changing lifestyle that concerned her.
A letter to cora, think, was published where nicole talked about how she did not like the kind of people comming to her house to see fay Resnick. This was before fay ran to the rehab and a few days before nicole was killed.

[tv]

tv

you chose to describe lynchburg for a single event of a lynch.I decided to describe lynchburg as the kind of place it was before and when it was incorporated by a FAMILYof racist slave owners.

You opened the can of worms and now that i have posted on what they looked like you want to tell me i am ot. History is important 300 400 500 years ago.The length of time does not matter.

Seems like discussing issues that effected blacks then and now seems to cause you to talk about it is in the past. talk about now. get over it move on.

You are entitled to your opinion on these subjects and i an entitled to speak on them.imoThe founding of Lynchburg Va in the early 1700's has no place in this discussion. I didn't start the discussion. Your buddy, William Anthony, asked me if Lynchburg was named after Willie Lynch. No one had mentioned Lynchburg up to that point. I'm not sure why he asked me that question but I researched it and gave him the answer. Now I'm being accused of ignoring history. On second thought I do know why he asked me that. It was so once again you guys could put me on the defensive about slavery. Please give it a rest.

By the way, I don't live in Lynchburg, I don't know anyone that lives in Lynchburg and my last name is not, nor has it ever been, Lynch.

[tv]

Cora fishman testified about Nicoles changing lifestyle that concerned her.
A letter to cora, think, was published where nicole talked about how she did not like the kind of people comming to her house to see fay Resnick. This was before fay ran to the rehab and a few days before nicole was killed.

Cora Fischman is a snake in the grass. She wasn't a true friend to Nicole.

[martin II]

The founding of Lynchburg Va in the early 1700's has no place in this discussion. I didn't start the discussion. Your buddy, William Anthony, asked me if Lynchburg was named after Willie Lynch. No one had mentioned Lynchburg up to that point. I'm not sure why he asked me that question but I researched it and gave him the answer. Now I'm being accused of ignoring history. On second thought I do know why he asked me that. It was so once again you guys could put me on the defensive about slavery. Please give it a rest.

By the way, I don't live in Lynchburg, I don't know anyone that lives in Lynchburg and my last name is not, nor has it ever been, Lynch.

TV
I never said or suggested you lived in lynchburg.I have no idea.

[martin II]

Cora Fischman is a snake in the grass. She wasn't a true friend to Nicole.

I don't believe Nicole felt as you seem to feel.

[martin II]

Cora Fischman is a snake in the grass. She wasn't a true friend to Nicole.

That from someone that did not know either of them.

[tv]

I don't believe Nicole felt as you seem to feel.

Since Nicole is dead we'll never know for sure, will we?

[William Anthony]

I'm not denying the history of slavery in Virginia or any other state. Your continued posting on the subject is for what reason? It was wrong and it is no longer legal. There is hardly a country or region of the world that hasn't particpated in or been victimized by slavery at some time in history. Perhaps if you are so concerned with slavery you should speak out and be active against the slavery that is going on today in 2008. You speak about Australia being a destination for sex slavery victims but you are still talking about slavery that ended almost 200 hundred years ago.

Because the effects are long lasting and play a crucial part in understanding why there is a difference in how evidence is viewed, partially because of the race of the person interpreting the evidence.

[martin II]

Cora Fischman is a snake in the grass. She wasn't a true friend to Nicole.

Don't forget nicole wrote cora a very friendly and personal letter.

[William Anthony]

Not quite so lily white.10/18/96 - 07:41 PM ET - Click reload often for latest version
Friend of Nicole's tells of O.J.'s threats
NEW YORK - A close friend of Nicole Brown Simpson who has remained loyal to O.J. Simpson said in a deposition that Ms. Simpson once told her of a threat by her former husband.

Cora Fishman quoted Ms. Simpson as saying that Simpson warned, "If I ever see you with another man, I'll kill you," the New York Daily News said Thursday, citing unidentified sources.

Fishman, 41, was questioned privately by attorneys this week in preparation for the trial of a wrongful death suit against Simpson.

Fishman also said Simpson told her in the weeks before the June 12, 1994, killings of Ms. Simpson and friend Ronald Goldman that he was upset at his former wife "because she wouldn't make a commitment to him."

Fishman, who is separated, said she and Simpson are close friends and she brings her daughter to his home to play with his daughter, according to the sources. It was Fishman's husband, Ron, who took videos of Simpson at daughter Sydney's dance recital the day of the killings.

Sources told the News that Simpson, who attended Fishman's deposition, became agitated when she was questioned about reports linking her romantically to Simpson.

Fishman acknowledged accompanying Simpson on an overnight trip to Santa Barbara but said there was no romance. She also denied that hours before the killings she had a falling-out with Ms. Simpson.

By The Associated Press


Cora was the name of Lana Turner's murdering housewife in 'The Postman Always Rings Twice'. Just a bit of trivia for you.

However, Cora just going to Santa Barbara with Simpson was just platonic?
H'm let's see. How did they spend their time? How best to break into hotel rooms?

She had fallen out with Nicole hours before the killing? So where is Dr A in all of this?

OLD NEWS.

[martin II]

Not quite so lily white.10/18/96 - 07:41 PM ET - Click reload often for latest version
Friend of Nicole's tells of O.J.'s threats
NEW YORK - A close friend of Nicole Brown Simpson who has remained loyal to O.J. Simpson said in a deposition that Ms. Simpson once told her of a threat by her former husband.

Cora Fishman quoted Ms. Simpson as saying that Simpson warned, "If I ever see you with another man, I'll kill you," the New York Daily News said Thursday, citing unidentified sources.

Fishman, 41, was questioned privately by attorneys this week in preparation for the trial of a wrongful death suit against Simpson.

Fishman also said Simpson told her in the weeks before the June 12, 1994, killings of Ms. Simpson and friend Ronald Goldman that he was upset at his former wife "because she wouldn't make a commitment to him."

Fishman, who is separated, said she and Simpson are close friends and she brings her daughter to his home to play with his daughter, according to the sources. It was Fishman's husband, Ron, who took videos of Simpson at daughter Sydney's dance recital the day of the killings.

Sources told the News that Simpson, who attended Fishman's deposition, became agitated when she was questioned about reports linking her romantically to Simpson.

Fishman acknowledged accompanying Simpson on an overnight trip to Santa Barbara but said there was no romance. She also denied that hours before the killings she had a falling-out with Ms. Simpson.

By The Associated Press


Cora was the name of Lana Turner's murdering housewife in 'The Postman Always Rings Twice'. Just a bit of trivia for you.

However, Cora just going to Santa Barbara with Simpson was just platonic?
H'm let's see. How did they spend their time? How best to break into hotel rooms?

She had fallen out with Nicole hours before the killing? So where is Dr A in all of this?

Some weeks prior to Nicoles death Cora testified, that she had warned nicole about her relationship with faye and her 'DANGEROUS' life style of picking up strangers in various bars around LA. Nicole had written a letter to Cora about how she felt unconfortable with the kind of people that came to her house to see faye.
Cora took her children to Santa Barbara to be with ojs children as they were close friends and there was not strange relationship between them there.

You may want to read testimony.:read:

[martin II]

OLD NEWS.

12 years old news and been discussed herefor 12 years.So maby bell is 12 years late.

[William Anthony]

I am going to ask all posters to drop all past grudges and start posting anew in a civil and respectful manner.

[limakey]

TV,

Why or what are some of examples of Cora's "Snake in Grass" statements?

Mr. Bell, do really believe Cora believes in Simpson innocence because she always wanted to sleep with him?

[weezer]

TV,

Why or what are some of examples of Cora's "Snake in Grass" statements?

Mr. Bell, do really believe Cora believes in Simpson innocence because she always wanted to sleep with him?

do you not think it was a snake in the grass for cora to talk about Nicole and what she perceived as Nicole's 'wrong' lifestyle when all the while she was using Nicole's friendship to hide an adulterous affair she was having with the bag boy at the grocery store?

do you not think it was a snake in the grass for cora to talk about Nicole and her lifestyle when Nicole wasn't cold in the grave and cora spent an out-of-town weekend with orenthal?

[limakey]

Martin,

IMO, I think it is very possible that the DA's didn't call Rachel's parent or parents to the stand because their statements about that night might have hurt their case.

I think the defense may not have called them because Mr. Simpson did not want to take the chance that Rachel might be called to the stand or drag her and her parents through this mess.

Or both sides may have come to conclusion that this testimony was a "wash" and both sides agreed not to call them.

I'm still shaking my head why they used a dog to start their timeline rather then the most obvious human witness. But again, it is a tough call when the witness is a child, IMO.

It is really odd that the DA's failed horribly to provide the jurors with a "trigger" that night, yet they had a witness who came forward and yet they refused to provide her with police protection. I don't buy Petrocelli's reasons. Again, just MO.

[limakey]

FBG,

I'm sure Nicole had very strong opinons regarding cheating on a wife or a husband. However, it is important to remember that Nicole also had an affair with a married man---OJ Simpson. While I am not denying that Nicole was crushed by Simpson's cheating and cried a million tears over it, I am sure she did not cry any more tears or was more crushed then the first Mrs. Simpson.

While she may have disapproved of Cora's affair and expressed her concerns, Cora did not bring danger to her door step. Cora's affair posed no physical threat to Nicole and or her children. The same can't be said of Faye Resnick.

I will not go into the details of Faye's book because they have been posted before, however if you are going to use the "Snake In The Grass" rating system, Faye Resnick, Kris Jenner and a few others would have a much higher rating then Cora Fischman, IMO.

OJ and Cora spent a weekend together with their children in a different location then Brentwood how many years after Nicole had passed away? Cora, despite being exiled from Nicole's other "Snakes In the Grass" friend, stood by her convictions regarding the evidence in this case. She clearly believes Simpson is innocent. She loved Nicole and I see nothing wrong with OJ and Cora taking their children on a weekend outing. I see nothing wrong with OJ and Cora grieving over Nicole's death and discussing their good times together.

One last thing, can you honestly say that you never had a close friend or a close family member do something or say something that you didn't not agree with and made your feelings clear on the subject? Have you never hurt a good friend or a loved one by a careless comment or action? Have you never said or did something to a close a friend or a loved one, that even after you know you hurt them, you would not change a word in the statement you made or would repeat the same action?

Again, IMO.

[William Anthony]

I, for one, have no problem with the civil verdict based on the evidence that was included and excluded from that socio-political production. In fact, I have a new respect for the motion in limine and its effects upon a trial. I have never previously or thereafter heard a judge say that this is "Basically a civil murder trial." I have never previously heard a judge, who was not in a trial and not an appellate judge, say that the evidence in the criminal trial was improperly admitted, because the defense must provide evidence to prove evidence planting or that there was a rush to judgment, IIRC. In fact, the standard of proof in a civil trial is considerably less than in a criminal trial. For those socio-political reasons, the judge improperly held the defense to a higher standard than was imposed in the criminal trial, imho. Therefore, I have no problem with the verdict based on the evidence that was included and excluded.

[limakey]

Mr. Bell,

Nicole was not a trophy wife. A trophy wife does not last for 17 years. A trophy wife could care less how many affairs her husband had as long as the money kept coming in along with the gifts. Perhaps a trophy wife would ask her husband to be a tad discreet, but as long as she did not lose her title of wife or her position within their social circle then perhaps even being discreet didn't matter.

There is no evidence to suggest that Nicole was a trophy wife. She cared way, way too much about Mr. Simpson. She made his house into a home, trophy wives want a show place. Trophy wives don't get on roofs to hang Christmas lights. IMO.

I was reponding to a poster who claimed that a good friend of Nicole's was a "snake in the grass" because she was having an affair. I merely pointed out the truth, Nicole also had an affair with a married man. If you are going to put affairs on the "Snake In The Grass" list of charcteristics, then Nicole is also on that list---according to that poster.

However, regardless of what a person feels about affairs, Cora did not bring danger into Nicole's home.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=limakey;9109947]FBG,

I'm sure Nicole had very strong opinons regarding cheating on a wife or a husband. However, it is important to remember that Nicole also had an affair with a married man---OJ Simpson. While I am not denying that Nicole was crushed by Simpson's cheating and cried a million tears over it, I am sure she did not cry any more tears or was more crushed then the first Mrs. Simpson.I


H'm Limakey, you are sending out mixed signals. On July 9 you said: It was just as painful for the Simpson family as it was for the Goldmans and the Browns. I do not believe that they were unaffected by the manner these two people were murdered. I do not believe that just because Nicole is dead, she is no longer considered a member of the Simpson family. I do think it was very painful for both the Browns and the Simpsons to hear comments like OJ only married Nicole because she was white, that Simpson always denied his black skin. I continue from your previous comment:I don't think it was horrible that many members of the media basically came out and said that the Brown family pimped Nicole not only in death but in life as well. I think it was very painful to hear that Nicole was nothing but a trophy wife.


Make up your mind. One way or the other..


Talking about afairs,Nicole had a affair for some time with ojs second best friend Marcus Allen while she was a good friend with the woman Marcus was about to marry.As a matter of fact oj convienced Marcus girl to allow Nicole to redecorate their home as he was trying to help Nicole get a business for herself going. She did this while having a affair with Marcus.

Cora told Nicole on more that one ocasion that she should cut the relationship with Marcus as it would cause her big problems if oj found out she was doing this thing with Marcus.Nicole refused her advice and continued . oj did not find out until he was told after nicole murdered. Which may be why Marcus refused to come to la to testify in the criminal trial.

imo
martin II

[martin II]

No Limakey you have not replied to my post. Civil trial. Don't get side tracked.

I cannot believe you are asking someone to reply to your post when you have several outstanding request for you to post links to support you many false claims.
Just answer limakeys last question to you about cora. imo

[William Anthony]

Oh William. Read Weezy's fabulous and insightful posts again about what really happened and then come back here and post on the civil trial. No one here is interested in your usual conspiracy theories.

Mr. Bell, with all due respect, I have posted what was said and done in that socio-political event by the presiding officer. I know that you tend to post on what others say and really do not offer anything novel or original to the discussion and as a result posters tend to do nothing more than rehash discussions when responding to your posts. I am trying to raise the level of posting in this community and request your participation without the offensive and attacking posts. I think posters here are interested in seeing you politely add something of value that is your own to the discussions. I would appreciate it, if you can't do those things, then wait until you can. Thanks, in advance for your expected cooperation. If the facts lead you to believe there was a conspiracy, then I do not apologize.

[William Anthony]

"Q. What type of clothing did you acquire for Mr. Simpson?

A. Everything from sweat clothes, shoes, sport clothes, dress clothes.

Q. You said sweat clothing. Is that workout and exercise clothing?

A. Workout, exercise clothing and socks.

Q. Focusing on that exercise clothing, can you tell me what items did you acquire for Mr. Simpson?

A. I acquired everything from T-shirts, tank tops and shorts to sweat jackets, sweat pants, things like that.

Q. Focus on the sweat suit. Did you acquire a sweat suit for Mr. Simpson?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What color?

A. Black, mostly black, and gray."

[William Anthony]

"Now, you say that the talent normally keeps the clothing, is that what you're saying?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay.

You have no idea whether Mr. Simpson kept the clothing -- this clothing for his personal use, right?

A. Correct.

Q. You don't know that.

You don't know whether he gave it to any number of the, what, 20 or more people that were there on the crew, you have no idea?

A. I would say -- I wouldn't say I have no idea. I would say nobody came to me with clothing, I didn't see anybody walk off with clothing, I left it as his house.

Q. There were how many people there, 20?

A. 15, 20 member crew.

Q. You didn't see everybody when they left, did you?

A. I didn't see everybody when they left.

Q. You weren't paying attention to what they were carrying or where they went when they left, did you?

A. That's correct.

MR. LEONARD: Now, can we get the photographs up again.

That one, yeah.

MR. P. BAKER: 2219.

(Exhibit 2219 is displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) There's the sweat top you're talking about, right?

A. Right.

Q. By the way, that doesn't have any kind of white piping or any kind of white striping along the zipper, does it?

A. No, it doesn't."

[tv]

Mr. Bell,

Nicole was not a trophy wife. A trophy wife does not last for 17 years. A trophy wife could care less how many affairs her husband had as long as the money kept coming in along with the gifts. Perhaps a trophy wife would ask her husband to be a tad discreet, but as long as she did not lose her title of wife or her position within their social circle then perhaps even being discreet didn't matter.

There is no evidence to suggest that Nicole was a trophy wife. She cared way, way too much about Mr. Simpson. She made his house into a home, trophy wives want a show place. Trophy wives don't get on roofs to hang Christmas lights. IMO.

I was reponding to a poster who claimed that a good friend of Nicole's was a "snake in the grass" because she was having an affair. I merely pointed out the truth, Nicole also had an affair with a married man. If you are going to put affairs on the "Snake In The Grass" list of charcteristics, then Nicole is also on that list---according to that poster.

However, regardless of what a person feels about affairs, Cora did not bring danger into Nicole's home.limakey, once again you've offered a misinterpretation of what I posted. I never said that Cora Fischman was a snake in the grass because she was having an affair. Where in the world did you get that idea? I simply said she was a snake in the grass. I don't understand how you can change the meaning of other people's posts and why everyone just goes along with it.

[martin II]

"Now, you say that the talent normally keeps the clothing, is that what you're saying?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay.

You have no idea whether Mr. Simpson kept the clothing -- this clothing for his personal use, right?

A. Correct.

Q. You don't know that.

You don't know whether he gave it to any number of the, what, 20 or more people that were there on the crew, you have no idea?

A. I would say -- I wouldn't say I have no idea. I would say nobody came to me with clothing, I didn't see anybody walk off with clothing, I left it as his house.

Q. There were how many people there, 20?

A. 15, 20 member crew.

Q. You didn't see everybody when they left, did you?

A. I didn't see everybody when they left.

Q. You weren't paying attention to what they were carrying or where they went when they left, did you?

A. That's correct.

MR. LEONARD: Now, can we get the photographs up again.

That one, yeah.

MR. P. BAKER: 2219.

(Exhibit 2219 is displayed on the Elmo screen.)

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) There's the sweat top you're talking about, right?

A. Right.

Q. By the way, that doesn't have any kind of white piping or any kind of white striping along the zipper, does it?

A. No, it doesn't."

So now we understand that kato did not see,sweat suit description, that he claimed he saw oj wearing on 6/12. It is my belief that at some point Kato decided to assist the prosecution in some areas of his testimony which may be why it changed from time to time on certain issues.imo

[martin II]

limakey, once again you've offered a misinterpretation of what I posted. I never said that Cora Fischman was a snake in the grass because she was having an affair. Where in the world did you get that idea? I simply said she was a snake in the grass. I don't understand how you can change the meaning of other people's posts and why everyone just goes along with it.

TV
Exactly what did you mean by cora is a "snake in the grass". Was she expected to sugar coat her testimony about Nicole or was she expected to tell the truth if some of it was not flattering to nicole.

Because she was nicoles friend was she not suppose to testify that she had complained to nicole that she was drinking and partying too much with a person she felt was trouble for nicole mainly Faye and the kind of company fay brought to her house. Was she supposed to not testify about Nicoles relationship with oj good friend Marcus Allen.When asked about Nicoles dating
habits was she suppose to lie.

She and nicole were good friends. They jogged daily togeather and had coffee at starbucks daily and talked on the phone daily and brought their kids togeather on a regular basis. she cared about nicole and oj.
What makes her a 'SNAKE IN THE GRASS." IMO

[William Anthony]

So now we understand that kato did not see,sweat suit description, that he claimed he saw oj wearing on 6/12. It is my belief that at some point Kato decided to assist the prosecution in some areas of his testimony which may be why it changed from time to time on certain issues.imo

That maybe true but I think it cuts the other way. Although there was no testimony that she purchased a blue black sweat suit for Simpson, the testimony shows that she could not say he did not give the one she purchased away, and there is evidence that Simpson wore a sweat suit with white by Kato's testimony. The obvious implication, since the defense had knowledge given them by Simpson, is that he did not retain ownership of any sweat suit that remotely resembled the fibers found.