Key Testimony in the Civil Trial

[tv]

What Bruno Magli dress shoes did Petrocelli introduce that Simpson wore on the night of the murders or did he produce some alleged pictures of shoes similar to the ones claimed to have been worn by Simpson?

He produced pictures of Simpson wearing Bruno Maglis the same style that the killer of Ron and Nicole wore while killing them.

[weezer]

You want to talk about irony?

This photo was published eight months

earlier in a Buffalo Bills Report, commemorating him

(counsel indicates to Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Leonard -- and you know I give him A

for effort -- he says, well, Mr. Richards didn't look

at the print that appears in there.

What he didn't tell you, of course -- I'm

sure it's in your notes -- is that Mr. Richards looked

at the negative. He looked at this negative, negative

7A, and that negative is unaltered. Negative 7A is

unaltered. That's the negative that was used to print

that photo showing O.J. Simpson wearing Bruno Magli

shoes, Lorenzo Silga sole.

[weezer]

But in any event, that's not the point,

because Mr. Simpson says, his lawyers say those are

Bruno Maglis. They don't dispute that.

Remember the position that they've now

cornered themselves into? They say these are Bruno

Magli shoes, and they say the killer wore them. And

all they have left is for you to believe that every

single one of these photos, despite what you see, you

don't see -- that's where they are on this.

[tv]

You want to talk about irony?

This photo was published eight months

earlier in a Buffalo Bills Report, commemorating him

(counsel indicates to Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Leonard -- and you know I give him A

for effort -- he says, well, Mr. Richards didn't look

at the print that appears in there.

What he didn't tell you, of course -- I'm

sure it's in your notes -- is that Mr. Richards looked

at the negative. He looked at this negative, negative

7A, and that negative is unaltered. Negative 7A is

unaltered. That's the negative that was used to print

that photo showing O.J. Simpson wearing Bruno Magli

shoes, Lorenzo Silga sole.

Thank you, weezer. :) Now, perhaps William understands the photo wasn't altered.

[William Anthony]

He produced pictures of Simpson wearing Bruno Maglis the same style that the killer of Ron and Nicole wore while killing them.

I would venture an educated guess that both you and I have worn the same style of shoes that killers have worn but not the same shoes.

[William Anthony]

Thank you, weezer. :) Now, perhaps William understands the photo wasn't altered.

Ms. Tvdinner,

Perhaps, you need to look at my post again, as I never claimed the photos were altered. :)

[tv]

I would venture an educated guess that both you and I have worn the same style of shoes that killers have worn but not the same shoes.

I would venture an educated guess that neither you nor I have ever been accused of murder with no alibi and a mountain of evidence pointing our guilt.

[tv]

Ms. Tvdinner,

Perhaps, you need to look at my post again, as I never claimed the photos were altered. :)

True, you didn't. I took the phrase 'alleged pictures' to mean pictures that weren't authentic. I'm glad you acknowledge the pictures are genuine.

[weezer]

I would venture an educated guess that neither you nor I have ever been accused of murder with no alibi and a mountain of evidence pointing our guilt.

now tv, you may be assuming facts not in evidence! :eek:

[tv]

now tv, you may be assuming facts not in evidence! :eek:

Very true! :D

[William Anthony]

I would venture an educated guess that neither you nor I have ever been accused of murder with no alibi and a mountain of evidence pointing our guilt.

I would venture an educated guess that, if we were, we would want a team of lawyers like the dream team and led by the magnificent one, who were able to turn the alleged mountain into a molehill.

[weezer]

Because Mr. Simpson testified in this

case, in January of 1996, with great bravado, "I would

never wear those ugly-ass shoes."

And he said that with confidence, because

for two years, he lived -- he lived with the -- with

the confidence that no shoe pictures would emerge.

You know the glove pictures had come up.

No shoe pictures had come up. So he felt pretty

secure; nobody was going to come up with these photos.

So he told me, under oath, in his

deposition, "I'd never wear those ugly-ass shoes."

And, you know, the media picks up on all these things.

And all of a sudden, that got widely reported. And

boom, people start looking through their basements for

photographs. That's what you see, the photographs.

And then he gets on the witness stand

here and says, when the Scull photograph emerged,

well, that's a fraud. And that got widely reported.

And then someone looks again and finds more

photographs.

He's done in by his own lies; that's why

these things came out. When they did, he made a big

issue of trying to say he never wore those shoes, and

then all these pictures are frauds.

And people started rummaging through the

basements. These are freelance photographers; their

job is to take pictures that -- they take hundreds and

thousands of them. They don't even develop them.

They sell them.

[William Anthony]

True, you didn't. I took the phrase 'alleged pictures' to mean pictures that weren't authentic. I'm glad you acknowledge the pictures are genuine.

Ah, Ain't understanding mellow-alleged picture of similar shoes, when I should have said pictures purported to be authentic of allegedly similar shoes to those allegedly worn by the killer.:)

[tv]

I would venture an educated guess that, if we were, we would want a team of lawyers like the dream team and led by the magnificent one, who were able to turn the alleged mountain into a molehill.

If I wanted a group of lawyers willing to do any dirty deed, speculate endlessly, and outright lie about people that were only doing their jobs then I suppose Johnnie and associates would fit that description. But remember, this is the civil trial thread -- if you feel compelled to sing Johnnie's praises it belongs in the other thread.

BTW, it never turned into a molehill. It remained a mountain that some people, including the jury, refused to acknowledge.

[William Anthony]

If I wanted a group of lawyers willing to do any dirty deed, speculate endlessly, and outright lie about people that were only doing their jobs then I suppose Johnnie and associates would fit that description. But remember, this is the civil trial thread -- if you feel compelled to sing Johnnie's praises it belongs in the other thread.

BTW, it never turned into a molehill. It remained a mountain that some people, including the jury, refused to acknowledge.

There were no lies told about people doing their jobs, or speculations or dirty deeds done by the defense; they only exposed those things and the dirty deeds that were done by LE, imho. perhaps, you need to remind your self of what thread this is.

Originally Posted by tvdinner View Post
I would venture an educated guess that neither you nor I have ever been accused of murder with no alibi and a mountain of evidence pointing our guilt.

Murder is not a civil cause of action.

[tv]

Please post testimony that supports your claim that dirty deeds by LE was exposed in the civil trial.

On the word murder -- you used it first. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Please post testimony that supports your claim that dirty deeds by LE was exposed in the civil trial.

On the word murder -- you used it first. :shrug:

Your post is misleading as it implies I used it first in connection to the recent posts. What I asked was to show what shoes were produced that Petrocelli claimed Simpson wore on the night of the murders. There is no doubt that Ms. NBS and Mr. RG were murdered, so my use was in context of an event, whereas you used in in the context of a cause of action when you stated if you were accused of murder, a crime.

[William Anthony]

Please post testimony that supports your claim that dirty deeds by LE was exposed in the civil trial.

On the word murder -- you used it first. :shrug:

they only exposed those things and the dirty deeds that were done by LE, imho.


I know of no requirement to post a link to one's opinion. You see, if you don't post the entire thing, one's posts become misleading.:)

[tv]

I know of no requirement to post a link to one's opinion. You see, if you don't post the entire thing, one's posts become misleading.:)

You didn't state it was your opinion. This is the civil trial thread so I was asking for a link to your claim of exposing dirty deeds by LE in the civil trial. Since it's only your opinion and not in evidence then we'll just let it go. :)

[William Anthony]

You didn't state it was your opinion. This is the civil trial thread so I was asking for a link to your claim of exposing dirty deeds by LE in the civil trial. Since it's only your opinion and not in evidence then we'll just let it go. :)

What, pray tell, Ms. Tvdinner, do you think imho stands for?:) I think the judge's rulings prevented much of the exposure in the criminal trial.

[William Anthony]

"Q. Okay. Now, in terms of your search warrant, let's talk a little bit about
the search warrant.

MR. KELLY: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: I like to be heard on that, Your'Honor.

THE COURT: No. I've already made my ruling."

[tv]

What, pray tell, Ms. Tvdinner, do you think imho stands for?:) I think the judge's rulings prevented much of the exposure in the criminal trial.
The defense was allowed to question witnesses regarding alleged planting by the police, if appropriate. Sounds fair to me.

[William Anthony]

The defense was allowed to question witnesses regarding alleged planting by the police, if appropriate. Sounds fair to me.

I have no doubt in my mind that it sounds fair to you. :)

[weezer]

"As an alternative to his Motion in limine to Preclude Argument and Questioning Regarding Planting of Evidence (the "Planting Motion"), which seeks to preclude argument and questioning regarding planting of all evidence in this case, plaintiff Fredric Goldman submits this motion.

The Los Angeles Police Department designated as evidence item numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, and 14 the blood drops collected at the Rockingham estate of defendant Orenthal James Simpson. Testing established that this blood matched Simpson's blood. By this motion, Goldman asks this Court to enter an order precluding Simpson from presenting argument or questioning at trial to support his speculative contention the blood collected from Simpson's Rockingham estate was planted in an effort to frame Simpson for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

As set forth in the Planting Motion, Simpson will have the burden of proof in this case to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that each particular item of evidence was planted. Evid. Code 606, 660, 664. As also discussed in the Planting Motion, Simpson may not question witnesses or present argument regarding his planting theory unless he can present both "substantial evidence" that the particular item of evidence was planted and "direct or circumstantial evidence linking" a particular person to the planting of the evidence; evidence showing merely that a third person had a "motive or opportunity" to commit the act is not sufficient. People v. Ponce, 44 Cal. App. 4th 1380, 1389-90 (1996); People v. Kaurish, 52 Cal. 3d 648, 685 (1990).

Simpson's evidence, as revealed by his interrogatory responses, is such that no reasonable jury could find that Simpson has met his burden of proof on this issue. In special interrogatories, Goldman asked Simpson if he contended that certain of these blood drops (LAPD evidence items-6, 7,12, and 14) consisted, in whole or in part, of planted evidence, and, if so, to state all facts that supported this contention. After initially refusing to respond to these interrogatories, Simpson was ordered to do so by Judge Haber on June 25. At the June 25 hearing, Judge Haber made clear that, if Simpson elected to respond by simply referring to other documents such as criminal trial transcripts, he would be required to cite to the specific pages and lines of such documents where the facts on which his contention was based could be found.

In direct contravention of Judge Haber's order, Simpson responded to these interrogatories by "referring" Goldman to the entire closing argument of Johnnie Cochran and Barry Scheck from Simpson's murder trial; (2) the entire grand jury testimony of six different witnesses, the entire preliminary hearing testimony of eight different witnesses, the entire Griffin hearing testimony of six different witnesses, the entire testimony of seven different witnesses from the hearing on Simpson's motion to suppress evidence; the entire testimony of 40 different witnesses at the murder trial, and all of the deposition testimony taken in this case of any of the foregoing witnesses and of Gary Siglar./2 See Declaration of Daniel M. Petrocelli (filed concurrently herewith) Paragraph 3.

Simpson's responses do not cite to a single fact or piece of evidence upon which Simpson bases his contention that these items were planted. The reason for this is plain: Simpson has no evidence, and certainly no substantial evidence, that these items were planted. His attempt to hide this complete absence of evidence behind purported citations to the voluminous testimony of dozens of witnesses is transparent. . ."

[weezer]

". . .Indeed, three basic, undisputed facts render meritless any possible claim that the Rockingham blood drops were planted. (1) It is undisputed that the only even theoretical source of planted Simpson blood was the blood sample Simpson provided to the LAPD on June 13, 1994. (2) It is undisputed that Detective Phillip Vannatter promptly took possession of the vial containing this blood sample, and, at approximately 5:20 p.m., arrived at Rockingham and gave the vial to criminalist Dennis Fung to be booked. By the time Vannatter arrived at Rockingham with the vial, all of the Rockingham blood drops had already been collected. See Criminal Trial Testimony of Phillip Vannatter 19367:18-19372:4; Criminal Trial Testimony of Dennis Fung 21579:6- 21583:9. (3) It is undisputed that there is not a single witness that has testified, could testify, or will testify that any planting of Simpson's blood occurred at the LAPD's Special Investigations Division laboratory, or at any other laboratory where the Rockingham blood drops were examined or tested.

In short, Simpson has no evidence that the Rockingham blood was planted. Any such argument could only be based entirely on rank speculation. Indeed, the undisputed evidence -- that the vial of Simpson's blood was taken to Rockingham only after all of the Rockingham blood evidence had been collected -- renders any such speculative theory logically impossible. Simpson cannot be permitted to unnecessarily prolong the trial, confuse the issues, and mislead the jury with argument that the Rockingham blood was planted, with evidence of trivial inconsistencies in testimony or on collateral matters, or with evidence that Simpson has refused to disclose to plantiffs in response to specific interrogatories. Ponce supra; Evid. Code 352 ("court may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighted bythe probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of times or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.") Thoren v. Johnson and Washer, 29 Cal. App. 3d 270, 274 (1972) (party may not rely on evidence not disclosed during discovery in response to interrogatories). . ."

[tv]

I have no doubt in my mind that it sounds fair to you. :)

Perhaps Daniel Petrocelli's own words will make it clearer:

"We wanted to establish from the beginning that unlike the criminal proceedings, theis would not be a trial of smoke and mirrors. The mere verbal suggestion of improper actions, we argued before Judge Fujisaki, was not sufficient reason to bring them before the court; under law, such suggestions must be supported by facts or else are not admissible and cannot be mentioned. In our pretrial motions in limine, or motions "at the threshold" of the trial, we asked the judge to preclude the defense from arguing that evidence against Simpson had been planted by the police because there was no evidence to support such a claim. In discovery we had asked the defense to present us with any and all such evidence, and they could not. Therefore, none existed for the trial.

The judge compromised. He barred the defense from telling the jury in their opening statement that Simpson's blood was planted in his Bronco, on the Bundy trail, and on the Rockingham trail. During the course of our trial, the witnesses could be examined, if appropriate, concerning these matters. The criminal trial had been consumed by postulations and suppositions and wholesale fabrications about what might have happened. Well, what might have happened was not at issue in our trial.

[William Anthony]

Perhaps Daniel Petrocelli's own words will make it clearer:

"We wanted to establish from the beginning that unlike the criminal proceedings, theis would not be a trial of smoke and mirrors. The mere verbal suggestion of improper actions, we argued before Judge Fujisaki, was not sufficient reason to bring them before the court; under law, such suggestions must be supported by facts or else are not admissible and cannot be mentioned. In our pretrial motions in limine, or motions "at the threshold" of the trial, we asked the judge to preclude the defense from arguing that evidence against Simpson had been planted by the police because there was no evidence to support such a claim. In discovery we had asked the defense to present us with any and all such evidence, and they could not. Therefore, none existed for the trial.

The judge compromised. He barred the defense from telling the jury in their opening statement that Simpson's blood was planted in his Bronco, on the Bundy trail, and on the Rockingham trail. During the course of our trial, the witnesses could be examined, if appropriate, concerning these matters. The criminal trial had been consumed by postulations and suppositions and wholesale fabrications about what might have happened. Well, what might have happened was not at issue in our trial.

Thank you for this post confirming it was a socio political production in that the standard is by a preponderance, more likely than not, and the judge precluded that as Petrocelli indicates where he says, "Well, what might have happened was not at issue in our trial." That is exactly the lesser standard and what should have been considered in the civil trial, imho, meaning what is most likely to have happened and not what did happen. Petrocelli's words confirm that it was a socio political production, imho.

[weezer]

I don't think the 'standard of proof' is the 'issue' for the NG's. . . .LOL

[tv]

Thank you for this post confirming it was a socio political production in that the standard is by a preponderance, more likely than not, and the judge precluded that as Petrocelli indicates where he says, "Well, what might have happened was not at issue in our trial." That is exactly the lesser standard and what should have been considered in the civil trial, imho, meaning what is most likely to have happened and not what did happen. Petrocelli's words confirm that it was a socio political production, imho.

The defense was asked to produce evidence as a part of discovery and then their allegations would be allowed at trial. They couldn't produce a shred of evidence to support their claims. They had their chance -- why didn't they take it?

[tv]

I don't think the 'standard of proof' is the 'issue' for the NG's. . . .LOL
Right. Besides the burden of proof is on the plaintiff's not the defense. They far exceeded the 51% they needed for a 'preponderance of the evidence."

[William Anthony]

The defense was asked to produce evidence as a part of discovery and then their allegations would be allowed at trial. They couldn't produce a shred of evidence to support their claims. They had their chance -- why didn't they take it?

Perhaps, you are unfamiliar with the purpose of discovery? I will be glad to show you the reasons if you are unfamiliar. I would think that the judge and the lawyers would be familiar with its purposes as well as any objections to the interrogatories.

[William Anthony]

Right. Besides the burden of proof is on the plaintiff's not the defense. They far exceeded the 51% they needed for a 'preponderance of the evidence."

Then why did the judge place it on the defense?:)

[tv]

Perhaps, you are unfamiliar with the purpose of discovery? I will be glad to show you the reasons if you are unfamiliar. I would think that the judge and the lawyers would be familiar with its purposes as well as any objections to the interrogatories.

I understand it perfectly. If the defense had evidence they should have turned it over. They had none to turn over.

[William Anthony]

"Q. Do you know whether you were wearing gloves at time that the drops on the
driveway were collected?

A. I know Ms. Mazzola was.

Q. Now, you didn't collect any of those drops, did you?

A. As I had described before, the collection process involves many steps, and I
was involved in the collection of those blood stains.

Q. Do you remember, you testified at a grand jury here in this case, did you
not?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And that was right after -- it was before the preliminary hearing, was it
not?

A. Yes.

Q. It was very close in time to when you processed the crime scene, was it not?

A. Yes.

Q. It was in -- I believe early July, correct, of '94?

A. Somewhere in there, yes.

Q. Do you remember being asked questions regarding the spot on the Bronco door?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you remember testifying at the grand jury hearing that you recovered
them in the manner described and that is the procedure you described to us?

A. I did say that I collected them because Ms. Mazzola and I were working as a
team.

Q. But you said that you did that work, correct?

A. In my mind, when we were working as a team, I did it. I was in charge of
her. I was in charge of her and she acted under my direction.

Q. She collected all the Bundy drops, didn't she?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: She collected most of the Bundy drops. However, I did collect some
of them myself.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you remember being asked this question at the grand jury
hearing.

"Q. Did you attempt to retrieve and preserve the blood found in those blood
drops referring to Bundy?

"A. Yes, I did.

"Q. What did you do?

"A. I transfered the blood drops onto cloth squares or cloth swatches."

Do You remember testifying that way, Mr.'Fung?

A. Yes.

Q. That wasn't true, was it?

A. I was answering the questions from a position of what was done and not of a
position of who did what.

Q. You were asked what did you do, Mr. Fung, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You said, "I transferred the blood onto cloth squares," didn't you?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. That wasn't true, was it?

A. Because we were working as a team and she was working under my direction, I
don't see that as being a lie.

Q. You never mentioned Andrea Mazzola once during the grand jury proceedings,
did you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained."

[William Anthony]

I understand it perfectly. If the defense had evidence they should have turned it over. They had none to turn over.

I see that you don't.:)

[tv]

Then why did the judge place it on the defense?:)

William, why don't you just admit they had nothing to base their allegations on? The previous defense used speculation, innuendo, distrust and fear to gain their victory. There was never a shred of evidence that implicated LE in a frame up of OJ Simpson.

[weezer]

Defense motion to bar Nicole's "he's going to kill me" statement to the police in 1989.

Defense motion to bar testimony about Simpson's "stalking" or "battering".

Defense motion to bar the personal opinions of witnesses about Simpson's guilt.

Defense motion to bar testimony about Simpson's drug use & adultery.

Defense motion to bar Nicole's out-of-court statements about her fear of Simpson.

Defense motion to bar disclosure of Simpson's financial status.

[William Anthony]

William, why don't you just admit they had nothing to base their allegations on? The previous defense used speculation, innuendo, distrust and fear to gain their victory. There was never a shred of evidence that implicated LE in a frame up of OJ Simpson.

I am now certain that you did not watch the same trial as I did. The defense produced (and I am speaking of the criminal trial to show why I would have objected to the interrogatory) evidence from which a reasonable inference could have been drawn that the evidence was planted. Here is a good article on discovery and objections.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:L9-B6r_d1IUJ:www.jenner.com/files/tbl_s20Publications%255CRelatedDocumentsPDFs1252%2 55C1551%255CLitigation_201_Responding_to_Interroga tories%2520_2_.pdf+objections+to+interrogatories&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I would have objected on the basis of unduly burdensome, as the plaintiffs had available access to the criminal trial transcripts. I wonder what was the basis of the defense objection. I will look for their response to Petrocelli's motion.

[tv]

I am now certain that you did not watch the same trial as I did. The defense produced (and I am speaking of the criminal trial to show why I would have objected to the interrogatory) evidence from which a reasonable inference could have been drawn that the evidence was planted. Here is a good article on discovery and objections.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:L9-B6r_d1IUJ:www.jenner.com/files/tbl_s20Publications%255CRelatedDocumentsPDFs1252%2 55C1551%255CLitigation_201_Responding_to_Interroga tories%2520_2_.pdf+objections+to+interrogatories&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I would have objected on the basis of unduly burdensome, as the plaintiffs had available access to the criminal trial transcripts. I wonder what was the basis of the defense objection. I will look for their response to Petrocelli's motion.
If there had been any valid evidence the defense would have presented it in the civil trial. Are you saying they withheld evidence that would have helped their client?

[William Anthony]

If there had been any valid evidence the defense would have presented it in the civil trial. Are you saying they withheld evidence that would have helped their client?

No, I was saying why I would have objected to the interrogatories. However, it seems that the defense did rely on the evidence I said but they were much kinder than I would have been and went on to spell out what evidence they relied on. How could they have presented the evidence, if the judge precluded it?

http://walraven.org/simpson/pm_02.html

[William Anthony]

Plaintiff motion (Brown) to bar reference to the Brown family selling items/stories to the media.

Plaintiff motion (Brown) to bar reference to Simpson's financial support of the Browns.

Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar "evidence was planted" theory.

Plaintiff declaration (Petrocelli) supporting "evidence was planted" motion.

Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar "glove was planted" theory.

Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar "Rockingham blood was planted" theory.

Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar "Bronco blood was planted" theory.

Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar reference to Fuhrman's racism.

Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar reference to Fuhrman's invocation of the 5th.

Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar reference to Faye Resnick's drug use.

Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to establish chain of custody of evidence.

[tv]

No, I was saying why I would have objected to the interrogatories. However, it seems that the defense did rely on the evidence I said but they were much kinder than I would have been and went on to spell out what evidence they relied on. How could they have presented the evidence, if the judge precluded it?

http://walraven.org/simpson/pm_02.html

There is no evidence to support the planting theory.

[tv]

Plaintiff motion (Brown) to bar reference to the Brown family selling items/stories to the media.

Plaintiff motion (Brown) to bar reference to Simpson's financial support of the Browns.

Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar "evidence was planted" theory.

Plaintiff declaration (Petrocelli) supporting "evidence was planted" motion.

Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar "glove was planted" theory.

Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar "Rockingham blood was planted" theory.

Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar "Bronco blood was planted" theory.

Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar reference to Fuhrman's racism.

Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar reference to Fuhrman's invocation of the 5th.

Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to bar reference to Faye Resnick's drug use.

Plaintiff motion (Goldman) to establish chain of custody of evidence.

I'm glad to see you're finally paying attention to the civil trial. Bravo, William :beer:

[William Anthony]

There is no evidence to support the planting theory.

I think that you may want to reconsider once you see what evidence is.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

[William Anthony]

I'm glad to see you're finally paying attention to the civil trial. Bravo, William :beer:

I pay attention to posts but thanks anyway. :)

[tv]

I think that you may want to reconsider once you see what evidence is.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

There was no proof/evidence offered that supports the theory of planting.

[William Anthony]

This is from the Ponce case, which the plaintiff's relied on

"If the record contained any evidence whatever tending to support such a theory of what transpired, we would of course conclude that the trial court committed gravely prejudicial error in depriving defendant of the opportunity to present that theory to the jury."

Petrocelli and the judge ruled that there must be substantial evidence but that was based on the facts of that particular case in that the defendants were positively identified by their victim. Hence, it would take substantial evidence to indicate that LE had coerced the victim in identifying the defendants to prove planting. The circumstances are entirely different. My short term memory is failing me but I do remember that the appellate court did not address the basis of this issue in the appeal (sufficiency of the evidence), but found another reason to say that the judge had not erred.

[William Anthony]

There was no proof/evidence offered that supports the theory of planting.

You must have missed this in the link,

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

[weezer]

November 19, 1996
Web posted at: 9:00 p.m. EST
SANTA MONICA, California (CNN) -- "In his first appearance on the stand in O.J. Simpson's wrongful-death civil trial, Brian "Kato" Kaelin testified Tuesday that Simpson had watched through a window while his ex-wife had sex with another man.

Simpson recalled the April 1992 incident for Kaelin on June 11, 1994, the night before the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman.

Kaelin said he and Simpson were watching the movie "The World According to Garp," when Simpson pointed out the part where the wife in the movie was going to have oral sex with a man in her car.

Kaelin said Simpson compared this to seeing Nicole give oral sex to a man named Keith at her condo. Simpson said he watched the act through the window, Kaelin testified.

In Simpson's criminal trial for the two murders, prosecutors contended that Simpson had stalked Nicole over a period of time, then killed her in a jealous rage.

Kaelin, Simpson's former house guest, also was one of the handful of people who spent time with Simpson the night of the slayings. Although Simpson was cleared of the murders in October 1995, the families of the victims have filed wrongful-death lawsuits against him.

On Tuesday, Kaelin appeared to be a friendly witness for the plaintiffs, in contrast to his testimony during the criminal trial, when the prosecution accused him of being evasive and asked that he be declared a hostile witness.

Also in his testimony Tuesday, Kaelin said:

Simpson was wearing a dark sweat suit the night of the murders. Blue-black fibers were found on evidence and the victims at the crime scene. Simpson denies owning such clothing.

Simpson told him Nicole was "playing hardball" with him by withholding visitation rights to his daughter, Sydney, the night of the murders. Kaelin acknowledged on cross-examination that he had not previously given this information to the police.

The plaintiffs used Kaelin to counter various defense contentions that Simpson was walking his dog, watching TV and hitting golf balls at the time of the killings. Kaelin said he did not see Simpson's television on that night, he never saw Simpson walk his dog because the animal is old and arthritic, and he neither saw nor heard Simpson chipping golf balls. . ."

[weezer]

You must have missed this in the link,

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

funny how the NG's only believe that only works for the defendant and not the plaintiffs. . . .

[weezer]

". . .Jurors hear 1993 police call

Jurors also heard a tape recording Tuesday of conversations police officers had with Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson after she called them to her home in October 1993.

The tape was secretly recorded by Sgt. Craig Lally, one of the Los Angeles Police officers called to the scene. On the tape, Lally and another officer, Robert Lerner, speak separately to the two about the altercation.

On the tape, Nicole told officers that this time the fight did not come to physical blows, but that four years earlier Simpson had struck her. She also told them, "I think if it happened once more, it would be the last time." (10 sec. /128K AIFF or WAV sound)

Simpson, meanwhile, explained to the officers that they were having a fight over an ex-boyfriend of Nicole's and he was "shocked" that she called the police.

"We were yelling at each other, but I'm surprised she called the cops. I thought she was on the phone with her mother," he told the officers. He told the officers that Nicole was the one who started the 1989 fight which resulted in his conviction for spousal battery.

This tape is a different recording from the tape of the 911 call Nicole placed asking police for help after Simpson allegedly broke down a back door to her house. Jurors heard that recording on Monday."

[William Anthony]

It did not take long for me to find the post on Simpson's appeal and here is the post with the basis that appellate court used to deny the appeal.

I will not bore you with the appeal that Simpson took from the rulings, since the appellate court upheld judge F. However, if you wish to read it, you will find that wrongful death or the circumstances surrounding it was not mentioned until consideration of whether the damage award was excessive. However, murder was repeatedly mentioned throughout the appeal and the appellate court did not rely on the sufficiency of the evidence in regard to MF but rather on the fact that the defense wanted MF's testimony read for the purposes of impeachment.

[William Anthony]

On Tuesday, Kaelin appeared to be a friendly witness for the plaintiffs, in contrast to his testimony during the criminal trial, when the prosecution accused him of being evasive and asked that he be declared a hostile witness.

Just as I suspected and said.

[William Anthony]

I cannot speak for any NG but, as I have previously said, the civil jury reached the correct verdict, imho, based on the rulings on the inclusion and exclusion of evidence in the socio political production.

[weezer]

Just as I suspected and said.

unlike orenthal, kato's testimony was consistent -- maybe not always discernible, but consistent.

[weezer]

I cannot speak for any NG but, as I have previously said, the civil jury reached the correct verdict, imho, based on the rulings on the inclusion and exclusion of evidence in the socio political production.

sure you can speak as an NG -- you've been doing it for years -- all under the guise of caring about the law and the rights of the accused.

[William Anthony]

Ten forty to ten forty five is not consistent with ten forty to ten fifty, nor is waiting one minute consistent with waiting two to three minutes, nor is walking consistent with running.

[William Anthony]

It seems that even though you ignore some people they will continue to make false accusations against you and insult you.

[weezer]

It seems that even though you ignore some people they will continue to make false accusations against you and insult you.

what you talkin' about willis? you've responded to two of my posts -- LOL

[tv]

It seems that even though you ignore some people they will continue to make false accusations against you and insult you.

Even worse than that -- you can put some people on ignore to avoid them and they'll circumvent your right to ignore them by asking other posters to quote their insults and false accusations so that you are sure to read them. My, my...the burdens we must bear. :)

[tv]

I cannot speak for any NG but, as I have previously said, the civil jury reached the correct verdict, imho, based on the rulings on the inclusion and exclusion of evidence in the socio political production.

The defense chose not to include any of their supposed evidence/proof that LE conspired against Simpson. They were given the opportunity but they had nothing to offer.

[tv]

Ten forty to ten forty five is not consistent with ten forty to ten fifty, nor is waiting one minute consistent with waiting two to three minutes, nor is walking consistent with running.

Kato was not looking at a clock when he heard/felt the thumps. The time of 10:51 or 10:52 is consistent with counting back from the time that Park was on the phone with his boss. The cell phone records do not lie.

[William Anthony]

Kato was not looking at a clock when he heard/felt the thumps. The time of 10:51 or 10:52 is consistent with counting back from the time that Park was on the phone with his boss. The cell phone records do not lie.

The phone records only establish the time that Park first saw Kato, which the evidence is indicative of Park seeing Kato after he finished his first cursory search and that does not indicate the time that Kato heard the thumps, which is why the judge did not allow Petrocelli's questions along that line, which you, like Ms. Clark, are now trying to argue.

[William Anthony]

The defense chose not to include any of their supposed evidence/proof that LE conspired against Simpson. They were given the opportunity but they had nothing to offer.

I told you and provided a link as to what the defense responded to the interrogatories but the judge ruled they could not use that evidence, which his ruling was based on an improper theory of the admissibility of the evidence, which the appellate court did not address but ruled that it was inadmissible based on the theory that it would be used to impeach MF. I have found that the appellate courts use this method in order not to say that one of their colleagues was wrong and find another basis to uphold a colleague's ruling.

[tv]

The phone records only establish the time that Park first saw Kato, which the evidence is indicative of Park seeing Kato after he finished his first cursory search and that does not indicate the time that Kato heard the thumps, which is why the judge did not allow Petrocelli's questions along that line, which you, like Ms. Clark, are now trying to argue.
We've been all over this. You choose not to acknowledge the the phone records establish an exact time from which we can count back to the approximate time of the thumps. You don't want to admit the credibility of this because it gives your guy the time he needed to commit the murders. Believe me, I understand. :)

[William Anthony]

I read all the posts but tend to ignore the posters, who I feel are rude and insulting by not responding directly to the poster.

[William Anthony]

We've been all over this. You choose not to acknowledge the the phone records establish an exact time from which we can count back to the approximate time of the thumps. You don't want to admit the credibility of this because it gives your guy the time he needed to commit the murders. Believe me, I understand. :)

No, you must not understand. The phone records between Park and his boss do not prove and cannot be used to calculate or even estimate the sound of thumps Kato heard during his phone call with Ms. Rachel.:)

[tv]

No, you must not understand. The phone records between Park and his boss do not prove and cannot be used to calculate or even estimate the sound of thumps Kato heard during his phone call with Ms. Rachel.:)

Yes, they can and they do.

[William Anthony]

Yes, they can and they do.

I guess in the minds of some.

[tv]

I guess in the minds of some.

In the minds of those who use reason and real facts to come to a conclusion about what happened.

[GreenIce]

William,

Do you think if some one jumping the fence and crashing into the wall so hard could make a glove shrink?

If you get a chance, read Susan Broadbank's testimony in the civil trial. I think that is her name. She measured the gloves vs a new pair and the gloves she measured were much smaller then then a new pair of the same size. Something like that, I haven't had a chance to go back and read it.

[William Anthony]

William,

Do you think if some one jumping the fence and crashing into the wall so hard could make a glove shrink?

If you get a chance, read Susan Broadbank's testimony in the civil trial. I think that is her name. She measured the gloves vs a new pair and the gloves she measured were much smaller then then a new pair of the same size. Something like that, I haven't had a chance to go back and read it.

No, I don't think anyone would crash into a wall three times, unless they were drunk. Will do.

[William Anthony]

In the minds of those who use reason and real facts to come to a conclusion about what happened.

I would say in the minds of those, who feel they know the real facts and support their conclusions with a partial view of the evidence.:)

[tv]

I would say in the minds of those, who feel they know the real facts and support their conclusions with a partial view of the evidence.:)What amuses me is that the people that believe in Simpson's evidence avoid his testimony in the civil trial like the plague. I can understand why -- it's a mess and illustrates what a big liar he is.

[William Anthony]

What amuses me is that the people that believe in Simpson's evidence avoid his testimony in the civil trial like the plague. I can understand why -- it's a mess and illustrates what a big liar he is.

I think that anyone can make human error and mistakes.

[tv]

I think that anyone can make human error and mistakes.

Have you read Simpson's civil trial deposition and testimony?

[William Anthony]

Have you read Simpson's civil trial deposition and testimony?

Some of it, which I do not see as lies. I mean, if we can say that certain witnesses commit human errors and mistakes, then we should allow those things for other witnesses, imho.:)

[tv]

Some of it, which I do not see as lies. I mean, if we can say that certain witnesses commit human errors and mistakes, then we should allow those things for other witnesses, imho.:)

Everyone commits human error including OJ Simpson. A few of his statements could be considered misstatements that are inconsequential to the case. The bulk of his testimony was revealed to be lies which was glaringly obvious when he was pinned down to specific answers. Would you like an example?

[William Anthony]

Everyone commits human error including OJ Simpson. A few of his statements could be considered misstatements that are inconsequential to the case. The bulk of his testimony was revealed to be lies which was glaringly obvious when he was pinned down to specific answers. Would you like an example?

I am too well raised to refuse.:)

[tv]

I am too well raised to refuse.:)

There's so much material available which illustrates his lies it'll take me a few minutes. I'm sure you understand. :)

[William Anthony]

There's so much material available which illustrates his lies it'll take me a few minutes. I'm sure you understand. :)

Take your time and give me the best. :)

[tv]

I am too well raised to refuse.:)

Sorry, I've been distracted by a phone call so this isn't my best effort but maybe you get the picture:

Q. And during the course of that flight, Mr. Simpson, you used the restroom on
at least five occasions, true?

A. I doubt it, but three or four, for sure.

Q. You're not certain you didn't use it on at least five occasions?

A. I would say three or four times.

I tend to, you know, I tend to drink a lot of water on flights -- it's
something that I state in my video -- and consequently, go to the bathroom.

Q. How would I know, Mr. Simpson?

A. I'm sure you interviewed -- I mean, I'm sure you looked at the testimony of
other -- of the video that I did for Playboy, where I state that in the video.

Q. So we're to accept what you say in a video as gospel truth in this
courtroom?

MR. BAKER: I object. That's argument.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Mr. Simpson, when you went into the restroom during the
flight back to Chicago, when you closed the door, lights go on; is that
correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Very small, confined area?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.

And you would have had at least four occasions in that restroom to make
observations relative to any cuts on your hand, wouldn't you?

A. Possibly.

Q. I mean, small, confined area, brightly lit, true?

A. Yeah.

When I said possibly, still, it's -- possibly it was four times. But I would
have assumed if I saw any cuts or anything, I would have -- may have noticed
it.

Q. Okay.

And on any of those occasions, you never observed any cuts on any portion of
your hand, true?

A. That's correct.

Q. Left or right, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. So there was absolutely no question in your mind when you got to Chicago
that you didn't have any cuts on your left middle finger; is that true?

A. Well, it was not anything I had on my mind when I got to Chicago.

Q. You didn't see anything on the plane that led you to believe that you had a
cut on your left middle finger; is that what you're saying?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.

So you were absolutely certain when you were in Chicago, that the cut that you
received in connection with that glass was the first cut to that left middle
finger; that true?

A. For the most part, yes.

Q. That was the information you had on June 13, when you spoke with Detectives
Lange and Vannatter true?

A. That's correct.

Q. It was on that occasion that you told them that you cut it the night before.

[GreenIce]

I cannot speak for any NG but, as I have previously said, the civil jury reached the correct verdict, imho, based on the rulings on the inclusion and exclusion of evidence in the socio political production.

William,

I do not agree with the civil trial verdict. However, I believe the jury did their job and I can understand how they came to their verdict.

[William Anthony]

William,

I do not agree with the civil trial verdict. However, I believe the jury did their job and I can understand how they came to their verdict.

The rulings on the evidence in that socio political production left them no choice, imho.

[William Anthony]

Sorry, I've been distracted by a phone call so this isn't my best effort but maybe you get the picture:

Q. And during the course of that flight, Mr. Simpson, you used the restroom on
at least five occasions, true?

A. I doubt it, but three or four, for sure.

Q. You're not certain you didn't use it on at least five occasions?

A. I would say three or four times.

I tend to, you know, I tend to drink a lot of water on flights -- it's
something that I state in my video -- and consequently, go to the bathroom.

Q. How would I know, Mr. Simpson?

A. I'm sure you interviewed -- I mean, I'm sure you looked at the testimony of
other -- of the video that I did for Playboy, where I state that in the video.

Q. So we're to accept what you say in a video as gospel truth in this
courtroom?

MR. BAKER: I object. That's argument.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) Mr. Simpson, when you went into the restroom during the
flight back to Chicago, when you closed the door, lights go on; is that
correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Very small, confined area?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.

And you would have had at least four occasions in that restroom to make
observations relative to any cuts on your hand, wouldn't you?

A. Possibly.

Q. I mean, small, confined area, brightly lit, true?

A. Yeah.

When I said possibly, still, it's -- possibly it was four times. But I would
have assumed if I saw any cuts or anything, I would have -- may have noticed
it.

Q. Okay.

And on any of those occasions, you never observed any cuts on any portion of
your hand, true?

A. That's correct.

Q. Left or right, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. So there was absolutely no question in your mind when you got to Chicago
that you didn't have any cuts on your left middle finger; is that true?

A. Well, it was not anything I had on my mind when I got to Chicago.

Q. You didn't see anything on the plane that led you to believe that you had a
cut on your left middle finger; is that what you're saying?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.

So you were absolutely certain when you were in Chicago, that the cut that you
received in connection with that glass was the first cut to that left middle
finger; that true?

A. For the most part, yes.

Q. That was the information you had on June 13, when you spoke with Detectives
Lange and Vannatter true?

A. That's correct.

Q. It was on that occasion that you told them that you cut it the night before.

Sorry, but I must be missing something here.

[weezer]

The rulings on the evidence in that socio political production left them no choice, imho.

what exactly is the definition of 'socio political'?

[weezer]

Sorry, but I must be missing something here.

Excerpts from orenthal's statement to police on his return from Chicago.

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

". . .L: Well, we'd like to do that. We've got, of course, the cut on your finger that you aren't real clear on. Do you recall having that cut on your finger the last time you were at Nicole's house?

S: A week ago?

L: Yeah.

S: No. It was last night.

L: OK, so last night you cut it. . ."

". . .L: Well, there's blood at your house in the driveway and we've got a search warrant, and we're going to get the blood. We found some in your house. Is that your blood that's there?

S: If it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave.

L: Last night?

S: Yeah, and I wasn't aware that it was ... I was aware that that I ... You know, I was trying to get out of the house. I didn't even pay attention to it. I saw it when I was in the kitchen, and then grabbed a napkin or something, and that was it. I didn't think about it after that. . ."

[William Anthony]

I was reminded that this is the civil thread.

[weezer]

YEP -- where orenthal was proved for what he is:

". . ."We trap him, he changes his story. We trap him again, he changes his story again," Petrocelli said. "He was lying, lying, lying, and he got caught, got caught, got caught."

[tv]

YEP -- where orenthal was proved for what he is:

". . ."We trap him, he changes his story. We trap him again, he changes his story again," Petrocelli said. "He was lying, lying, lying, and he got caught, got caught, got caught."

Petrocelli couldn't have described it better. The above testimony shows how he wiggled and squirmed his way through his explanations. I don't know why he thought he could change his story about the cut on his finger and have the jury just accept it. Maybe he figured he was 'the juice' and he'd be given the same preferential treatment he'd been receiving from everyone for years.

[tv]

Sorry, but I must be missing something here.

If you don't see that he's completely changed his story about how he cut his finger than you are certainly missing something. This is only one example of his lying among many.

[William Anthony]

If you don't see that he's completely changed his story about how he cut his finger than you are certainly missing something. This is only one example of his lying among many.

Pray tell what change about which you speak?

[weezer]

Petrocelli couldn't have described it better. The above testimony shows how he wiggled and squirmed his way through his explanations. I don't know why he thought he could change his story about the cut on his finger and have the jury just accept it. Maybe he figured he was 'the juice' and he'd be given the same preferential treatment he'd been receiving from everyone for years.

I believe that that is how things were for orenthal -- he lied, cheated, hit, stole and everyone made excuses, looked the other way, or was an enabler.

I'm reminded of a part of Nicole's letter:

". . .I knew what went on in our relationship before we got married. I knew after 6 years that all the things I thought were going on -- were! All the things I gave in to -- all the "I'm sorry for thinking that" "I'm sorry for not believing you" -- "I'm sorry for not trusting you."

I made up with you all the time & even took the blame many times for your cheating. I know this took place because we fought about it alot & even discussed it before we got married with my family & a minister. . ." :(

[tv]

I believe that that is how things were for orenthal -- he lied, cheated, hit, stole and everyone made excuses, looked the other way, or was an enabler.

I'm reminded of a part of Nicole's letter:

". . .I knew what went on in our relationship before we got married. I knew after 6 years that all the things I thought were going on -- were! All the things I gave in to -- all the "I'm sorry for thinking that" "I'm sorry for not believing you" -- "I'm sorry for not trusting you."

I made up with you all the time & even took the blame many times for your cheating. I know this took place because we fought about it alot & even discussed it before we got married with my family & a minister. . ." :(

This letter rings true. You can tell it's written from the heart. I think Simpson's overwhelming personality swallowed her whole until she started to grow up and then she simply outgrew him. She finally realized that she had an identity of her own and didn't deserve his mistreatment and control of her. I can see him blaming her for his cheating -- if she were a better wife, thinner, more attractive etc...we know he never takes the blame for anything.

[tv]

Pray tell what change about which you speak?

I'll let you figure it out. :)

[weezer]

so we know that orenthal did bleed at rockingham before he left for Chicago. that fact must have been important to him or he would not have felt the need to lie.

[tv]

so we know that orenthal did bleed at rockingham before he left for Chicago. that fact must have been important to him or he would not have felt the need to lie.

If it was important that he lie then that means it was important to the murders. IMO, the reason he initially admitted to bleeding on the night of the murders at his home was that he didn't know who might have noticed the cut on his finger.

[William Anthony]

I'll let you figure it out. :)

I think you need to read the questions in the excerpt you provided as to the questions he was asked.:)

[weezer]

I think you need to read the questions in the excerpt you provided as to the questions he was asked.:)

orenthal said he was bleeding -- in fact, he used a paper towel to clean it. then orenthal said he wasn't bleeding until he cut his finger in chicago. why did he feel he had to lie about it? it was his home -- his explanation was plausible. why lie?

[William Anthony]

Before we call someone a liar, I think it wise to look to the exact questions and answers. I will post what I believe to be the relevant questions and answers.

And on any of those occasions, you never observed any cuts on any portion of
your hand, true?

A. That's correct.

Q. Left or right, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. So there was absolutely no question in your mind when you got to Chicago
that you didn't have any cuts on your left middle finger; is that true?

A. Well, it was not anything I had on my mind when I got to Chicago.

Q. You didn't see anything on the plane that led you to believe that you had a
cut on your left middle finger; is that what you're saying?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.

So you were absolutely certain when you were in Chicago, that the cut that you
received in connection with that glass was the first cut to that left middle
finger; that true?

A. For the most part, yes.

[weezer]

Before we call someone a liar, I think it wise to look to the exact questions and answers. I will post what I believe to be the relevant questions and answers.

And on any of those occasions, you never observed any cuts on any portion of
your hand, true?

A. That's correct.

Q. Left or right, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. So there was absolutely no question in your mind when you got to Chicago
that you didn't have any cuts on your left middle finger; is that true?

A. Well, it was not anything I had on my mind when I got to Chicago.

Q. You didn't see anything on the plane that led you to believe that you had a
cut on your left middle finger; is that what you're saying?

A. That's correct.

Q. Okay.

So you were absolutely certain when you were in Chicago, that the cut that you
received in connection with that glass was the first cut to that left middle
finger; that true?

A. For the most part, yes.

I don't believe this lie can be rehabilitated. orenthal said he was bleeding at rockingham before he left for chicago and then he said he didn't bleed until he was in the hotel in chicago -- now if that's the truth, orenthal may have the first immaculate finger known to mankind!

[William Anthony]

What type of wound, for lack of a better word, as cut is often used to denote a scratch, an abrasion or a laceration, all of which would have bled, whether for a short or a long time. For those of us who have had minor wounds in sensitive places, such as from shaving, they often bleed for a while until stop by a piece of tissue and pressure. Once the bleeding has stopped, one does not pay attention to it unless it starts bleeding again. Simpson said he made "no observation" of a cut to his hand on the plane, not that there was none. He was asked specifically about "a cut to his left middle finger", which he said he cut in Chicago on glass. Petrocelli failed to ask what to me would have been the next rational question, which would have been, Mr. Simpson when you say you cut your finger in Chicago "for the most part" what do you mean. Simpson listen to the questions as asked and responded to the question. I see no lie in the answers. I see a failure on Petrocelli's part to ask the proper questions but I think he was more interested in boasting in his subsequent book than being a lawyer.

[weezer]

What type of wound, for lack of a better word, as cut is often used to denote a scratch, an abrasion or a laceration, all of which would have bled, whether for a short or a long time. For those of us who have had minor wounds in sensitive places, such as from shaving, they often bleed for a while until stop by a piece of tissue and pressure. Once the bleeding has stopped, one does not pay attention to it unless it starts bleeding again. Simpson said he made "no observation" of a cut to his hand on the plane, not that there was none. He was asked specifically about "a cut to his left middle finger", which he said he cut in Chicago on glass. Petrocelli failed to ask what to me would have been the next rational question, which would have been, Mr. Simpson when you say you cut your finger in Chicago "for the most part" what do you mean. Simpson listen to the questions as asked and responded to the question. I see no lie in the answers. I see a failure on Petrocelli's part to ask the proper questions but I think he was more interested in boasting in his subsequent book than being a lawyer.

Q: And what did you use, if anything, to pick up the glass?

A: I didn't pick up the glass.

Q: The glass piece on the floor.

A: Probably my hand.

Q: Did you have anything in your hand, like a towel or a napkin?

A: I don't recall.

Q: Which hand did you use to pick up the broken piece of glass?

A: I don't remember.

Q: When you picked it up, did you cut yourself?

A: I don't think so, no.

Q: So as of this point in time, your finger--your middle finger on your left hand was not cut. Correct?

A: I believe so, yes.

Q: Is that correct?

A: I believe so, yes.

Q: When you picked up the piece of --There were no other cuts on your left hand at that time either. Correct?

A: Correct.

Q: And when you picked up the piece of glass--

A: Not that I know of, I should say.

Q: When you picked up the piece of glass, what did you do with it?

A: Put it in the sink.

Q: And were there any other pieces in the sink at that time?

A: I don't know.

Q: Did you cut yourself at all putting it into the sink?

A: No. . ."

". . .Q: Now, at what point in this process did you break--did you cut your finger?

A: Again?

Q: Yes.

A: Somewhere in between going back and forth to the phone, trying to pack, trying to get dressed, at some point in there I cut my finger.

Q: And on what piece of glass-Strike that.

Did you cut it on one of the broken pieces of glass?

A: Yeah.

Q: On what piece?

THE WITNESS: Can we take a break?

MR. BAKER: Yeah, sure.

THE WITNESS: Jesus Christ. . ."

[William Anthony]

I must be still missing something and I would need more of the last portion to place the answers in context.

[William Anthony]

This shows me that Simpson was listening to the questions as asked during some of the questioning.

"Q: And what did you use, if anything, to pick up the glass?

A: I didn't pick up the glass. "

[tv]

This shows me that Simpson was listening to the questions as asked during some of the questioning.

"Q: And what did you use, if anything, to pick up the glass?

A: I didn't pick up the glass. "

Then he turns around and says he used his hand. He was making stuff up as he went along. It must be so hard to defend this testimony with a straight face but I think you're trying.

[tv]

I think you need to read the questions in the excerpt you provided as to the questions he was asked.:)

I've read it several times. If you're confused as to the implications feel free to read it all you want. :)

[William Anthony]

I've read it several times. If you're confused as to the implications feel free to read it all you want. :)

I did, I posted, I see no need to.:)

[weezer]

I think it would be an interesting exercise if we simply post evidence/testimony to debate/discuss the trial.

[tv]

I agree. I think the testimony that's been posted so far has been fascinating and shows the glaring inconsistencies in Simpson's stories.

[William Anthony]

Then he turns around and says he used his hand. He was making stuff up as he went along. It must be so hard to defend this testimony with a straight face but I think you're trying.

I must have missed this post. However, it does not change my previous one that Simpson was paying attention to the questions that were asked of him and answering them. I will show you what I mean and, therefore, it is not hard to defend him and say that he was not lying. :)

"Q: And what did you use, if anything, to pick up the glass?

A: I didn't pick up the glass.

Q: The glass piece on the floor.

A: Probably my hand. "

As I have said, it is wise to consider the questions and answers before calling someone a liar, as a piece of glass is different from the glass.

[William Anthony]

I agree. I think the testimony that's been posted so far has been fascinating and shows the glaring inconsistencies in Simpson's stories.

I think something was posted about the questions asked by Lang when Simpson was questioned and I do not know, if they were introduced during the socio political production. However, I think it is just as interesting an exercise to consider the evidence that was not admitted due to the judge's rulings. I have seen no inconsistencies introduced thus far but I have seen Simpson being attentive to the questions asked him thus far. :)

[tv]

I think something was posted about the questions asked by Lang when Simpson was questioned and I do not know, if they were introduced during the socio political production. However, I think it is just as interesting an exercise to consider the evidence that was not admitted due to the judge's rulings. I have seen no inconsistencies introduced thus far but I have seen Simpson being attentive to the questions asked him thus far. :)

If you want to discuss what wasn't introduced in the civil trial you need only look to the criminal trial where every hare-brained theory under ths sun was allowed in.

[tv]

I must have missed this post. However, it does not change my previous one that Simpson was paying attention to the questions that were asked of him and answering them. I will show you what I mean and, therefore, it is not hard to defend him and say that he was not lying. :)

"Q: And what did you use, if anything, to pick up the glass?

A: I didn't pick up the glass.

Q: The glass piece on the floor.

A: Probably my hand. "

As I have said, it is wise to consider the questions and answers before calling someone a liar, as a piece of glass is different from the glass.

Desperate.

[William Anthony]

If you want to discuss what wasn't introduced in the civil trial you need only look to the criminal trial where every hare-brained theory under ths sun was allowed in.

We began a discussion on why it was not allowed in the socio political production and an analysis of the Ponce case, mentioned in the plaintiff's motion.

[William Anthony]

Desperate.

Attentive and not lying. See, if one does not pay close attention, they may mistakenly call another a liar or say that the person was trapped. :)

[tv]

This should put to rest all the wild speculation that OJS wasn't intending to kill himself. This testimony is from November 26, 1996 --


Q. You see on the monitor what's been marked and actually admitted into
evidence as Exhibit 761, and it's entitled, To Whom it May Concern.

A. Yes.

Q. That's a letter that you wrote, or a note that you wrote on June 17; is that
correct?

A. Yes.

(The instrument herein referred to as Handwritten note dated June 15, 1994 by
O.J. Simpson was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 761.)

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) You see in the upper right-hand corner, June 15, 1994?

A. Yes.

Q. That's not the date that you wrote this note?

A. That's correct.

Q. And, in fact, the first time that you ever put pen to paper in connection
with this note was on the morning of June 17, 1994, true?

A. That's correct.

Q. And it was only after you were told that you were going to be arrested that
you first put pen to paper to write this note, true?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. And it was only after that you had learned evidence that linked you to these
murders, that you put pen to paper on June 17 and wrote this note, true, sir?

A. I don't know about that. I just know that they were going to arrest me.

Q. Well, Mr. Simpson, you knew by June 17 that your blood was found at
Rockingham and Bundy, didn't you, sir.

A. I don't think that there was much talk about that --

MR. BAKER: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I don't think there was that much talk about that. All I know is that they
were going to arrest me.

Q. Well, you knew they were going to arrest you in connection with a double
murder, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you decided at that point, to draft this note, this letter, true?

A. That's correct.

Q. And after it was completed, you gave it to Robert Kardashian to read,
telling him that he would know when to read it, right?

A. I believe I gave it to AC.

Q. Okay.

And you told AC that he would know when to read it or when it should be read?

A. I don't believe so. I think I just gave it to him.

Q. Well, you knew, sir, that this letter was going to be read in the event of
your death, didn't you?

A. I would have assumed so, yes.

Q. That was your intention, wasn't it?

A. That's correct.

[tv]

Attentive and not lying. See, if one does not pay close attention, they may mistakenly call another a liar or say that the person was trapped. :)

The testimony speaks for itself. OJS is a liar.

[William Anthony]

The testimony speaks for itself. OJS is a liar.

If you are unable to understand the difference between the glass and a piece of glass, then i can understand why you are so quick to call someone a liar.:)

[William Anthony]

This should put to rest all the wild speculation that OJS wasn't intending to kill himself. This testimony is from November 26, 1996 --


Q. You see on the monitor what's been marked and actually admitted into
evidence as Exhibit 761, and it's entitled, To Whom it May Concern.

A. Yes.

Q. That's a letter that you wrote, or a note that you wrote on June 17; is that
correct?

A. Yes.

(The instrument herein referred to as Handwritten note dated June 15, 1994 by
O.J. Simpson was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 761.)

Q. (BY MR. BREWER) You see in the upper right-hand corner, June 15, 1994?

A. Yes.

Q. That's not the date that you wrote this note?

A. That's correct.

Q. And, in fact, the first time that you ever put pen to paper in connection
with this note was on the morning of June 17, 1994, true?

A. That's correct.

Q. And it was only after you were told that you were going to be arrested that
you first put pen to paper to write this note, true?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. And it was only after that you had learned evidence that linked you to these
murders, that you put pen to paper on June 17 and wrote this note, true, sir?

A. I don't know about that. I just know that they were going to arrest me.

Q. Well, Mr. Simpson, you knew by June 17 that your blood was found at
Rockingham and Bundy, didn't you, sir.

A. I don't think that there was much talk about that --

MR. BAKER: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I don't think there was that much talk about that. All I know is that they
were going to arrest me.

Q. Well, you knew they were going to arrest you in connection with a double
murder, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you decided at that point, to draft this note, this letter, true?

A. That's correct.

Q. And after it was completed, you gave it to Robert Kardashian to read,
telling him that he would know when to read it, right?

A. I believe I gave it to AC.

Q. Okay.

And you told AC that he would know when to read it or when it should be read?

A. I don't believe so. I think I just gave it to him.

Q. Well, you knew, sir, that this letter was going to be read in the event of
your death, didn't you?

A. I would have assumed so, yes.

Q. That was your intention, wasn't it?

A. That's correct.

I see nothing in the quote about suicide.

[tv]

I see nothing in the quote about suicide.

Perhaps his testimony on November 25, 1996 will make it a little clearer --

Q. And you gave that letter to Bob Kardashian and said "you'll know when to
read it," right, or words to that effect?

A. I think I gave it to AC, and maybe he gave it to Bob Kardashian.

Q. And your state of mind in writing that letter was that you were
contemplating killing yourself, right?

A. That's correct.

[weezer]

We began a discussion on why it was not allowed in the socio political production and an analysis of the Ponce case, mentioned in the plaintiff's motion.

I'm still trying to find that definition of 'socio political production' that relates to this case. I've asked if you would give us your definition so that we could understand what exactly you mean. You have seen fit not to do that so I am going to assume there is nothing in that phrase that relates to this case and quite possibly you just like the way it sounds. :tongue:

[weezer]

If you are unable to understand the difference between the glass and a piece of glass, then i can understand why you are so quick to call someone a liar.:)

hmmm -- let me see: orenthal said that a piece of the glass was on the floor and he picked it up. next he was asked what he used to pick 'the' glass up. I guess had he used 'them', it would have been clearer?

[William Anthony]

He was asked what he used to pick up "the glass". He responded, he did not pick up the glass. He was then asked what he used to pick up "a piece of glass" and he responded he guessed his hand, for which some want to call him a liar.:)
I think they want to call him that, because he would not let himself be tricked by Petrocelli's crude attempt at trickery.

[William Anthony]

Perhaps his testimony on November 25, 1996 will make it a little clearer --

Q. And you gave that letter to Bob Kardashian and said "you'll know when to
read it," right, or words to that effect?

A. I think I gave it to AC, and maybe he gave it to Bob Kardashian.

Q. And your state of mind in writing that letter was that you were
contemplating killing yourself, right?

A. That's correct.

Now, see what I mean by the question and answer and not jumping to hasty conclusions, as the first post did not mention suicide. :)

[tv]

Now, see what I mean by the question and answer and not jumping to hasty conclusions, as the first post did not mention suicide. :)

Yes, I see that you jumped to conclusions as you concluded wrongly that he wasn't talking about suicide.

[William Anthony]

Yes, I see that you jumped to conclusions as you concluded wrongly that he wasn't talking about suicide.

You again have jumped to a wrong conclusion as I never state whether or not he was talking about suicide when I referred to you previous post. This is what I said.

I see nothing in the quote about suicide.

That is why I informed you that we must pay close attention to what is said in questions and answers before we hastily reach incorrect conclusions about someone being a liar or what someone said. :)

[tv]

You again have jumped to a wrong conclusion as I never state whether or not he was talking about suicide when I referred to you previous post. This is what I said.



That is why I informed you that we must pay close attention to what is said in questions and answers before we hastily reach incorrect conclusions about someone being a liar or what someone said. :)

William, let's cut to the chase -- no pun intended. Are you conceding that Orenthal James Simpson was considering committing suicide when he wrote the note?

[William Anthony]

William, let's cut to the chase -- no pun intended. Are you conceding that Orenthal James Simpson was considering committing suicide when he wrote the note?

Not by your first post but it would appear so by your second.

[weezer]

William, let's cut to the chase -- no pun intended. Are you conceding that Orenthal James Simpson was considering committing suicide when he wrote the note?

I think anyone that had to have it spelled out for them probably has other problems. :eek::tongue:

[tv]

I think anyone that had to have it spelled out for them probably has other problems. :eek::tongue:

It's the old 'nitpick each word of the testimony to death' ploy but this time it was unsuccessful. :)

[William Anthony]

It's the old 'nitpick each word of the testimony to death' ploy but this time it was unsuccessful. :)

I think it is called attentiveness and not being judgmental.:)

[tv]

I think it is called attentiveness and not being judgmental.:)
Have you read Bob Baker's opening and closing statements? :)

[William Anthony]

Have you read Bob Baker's opening and closing statements? :)

No, I have not.

[William Anthony]

"THE COURT: I've had the opportunity of reading Moore versus American
United Life Insurance Company, and reading the 1292 evidence code.
And I am at the present time concerned that this particular point is
one of the more important issues in this case with regard to how a
ruling will affect the course of the case.
Moore_versus_American_United_Life is not a very satisfying case. The
court in that case -- there's the issue of, in 1292, almost
back-handed way, not exploring with any depth how the worker's
compensation judge's interest is actually similar to or the same as
that of the defendant, and the motivations are similar and the same as
the defendant.
It does not explain the parties that were involved in the worker's
compensation proceeding, other than the fact that American United Life
was not a party. It doesn't say who all the other parties were. So
it's not a very definitive case.
On the other hand, plaintiffs have really not cited any cases that
would explain in any detail at all, really, the operation of 1292,
other than citing People_versus_Green, which explains what
cross-examination means, as interpreted by the court.
It would appear that the evidence code is a statute that has its
genesis in a uniform code that has undoubtedly been adopted elsewhere
in this country. And if counsel are unable to find any cases in this
jurisdiction that deal with that, counsel could at least cite to the
Court some legislative history or legislative analysis and any other
outside jurisdiction's interpretation of that provision, to shed light
on how it would apply to the facts before this Court.
So, for the present time, the Court will preclude the defendant from
making any references to whether Fuhrman's testimony will be received
via his testimony in the criminal trial, or whether he is expected to
testify at all on this.
The defense has some indication from that witness that the witness is
going to appear voluntarily to testify.
The Court will reserve that issue for a future time, and the defendant
is ordered not to make any offer of that testimony to the jury until
it has received permission to do so by the Court.
And in anticipation of that, the Court will order both sides to
prepare further briefings on that issue.
When do you people -- plaintiffs expect to complete the case?

MR. GELBLUM: When did plaintiff expect to complete our case?

THE COURT: Well, I want to set up a briefing schedule with regards to
that issue before the defense puts on its case.

MR. GELBLUM: You want to give a couple weeks for briefing that will
certainly be think longer than that.

MR. BAKER: I want this issue resolved before I give my opening
statements. We've been five weeks --

THE COURT: Counsel, my order is, you're precluded from making any
reference to it at this time.

MR. BAKER: I move for a mistrial, based on five weeks of Fuhrman
before this jury trial and talking about the jury panel.

THE COURT: Motion denied.

MR. BAKER: I move for a stay to take a writ on the issue.

THE COURT: Denied."

[weezer]

"THE COURT: I've had the opportunity of reading Moore versus American
United Life Insurance Company, and reading the 1292 evidence code.
And I am at the present time concerned that this particular point is
one of the more important issues in this case with regard to how a
ruling will affect the course of the case.
Moore_versus_American_United_Life is not a very satisfying case. The
court in that case -- there's the issue of, in 1292, almost
back-handed way, not exploring with any depth how the worker's
compensation judge's interest is actually similar to or the same as
that of the defendant, and the motivations are similar and the same as
the defendant.
It does not explain the parties that were involved in the worker's
compensation proceeding, other than the fact that American United Life
was not a party. It doesn't say who all the other parties were. So
it's not a very definitive case.
On the other hand, plaintiffs have really not cited any cases that
would explain in any detail at all, really, the operation of 1292,
other than citing People_versus_Green, which explains what
cross-examination means, as interpreted by the court.
It would appear that the evidence code is a statute that has its
genesis in a uniform code that has undoubtedly been adopted elsewhere
in this country. And if counsel are unable to find any cases in this
jurisdiction that deal with that, counsel could at least cite to the
Court some legislative history or legislative analysis and any other
outside jurisdiction's interpretation of that provision, to shed light
on how it would apply to the facts before this Court.
So, for the present time, the Court will preclude the defendant from
making any references to whether Fuhrman's testimony will be received
via his testimony in the criminal trial, or whether he is expected to
testify at all on this.
The defense has some indication from that witness that the witness is
going to appear voluntarily to testify.
The Court will reserve that issue for a future time, and the defendant
is ordered not to make any offer of that testimony to the jury until
it has received permission to do so by the Court.
And in anticipation of that, the Court will order both sides to
prepare further briefings on that issue.
When do you people -- plaintiffs expect to complete the case?

MR. GELBLUM: When did plaintiff expect to complete our case?

THE COURT: Well, I want to set up a briefing schedule with regards to
that issue before the defense puts on its case.

MR. GELBLUM: You want to give a couple weeks for briefing that will
certainly be think longer than that.

MR. BAKER: I want this issue resolved before I give my opening
statements. We've been five weeks --

THE COURT: Counsel, my order is, you're precluded from making any
reference to it at this time.

MR. BAKER: I move for a mistrial, based on five weeks of Fuhrman
before this jury trial and talking about the jury panel.

THE COURT: Motion denied.

MR. BAKER: I move for a stay to take a writ on the issue.

THE COURT: Denied."

sometimes smart people can be just plain ole stupid -- he actually thought he should argue something not in evidence. too bad william wasn't there to tell him that he can't do that! :tongue:

[William Anthony]

"MR. LEONARD: Where I come, from this is called a sandbag, Your Honor.
We went through four weeks of jury selection in which Mark Fuhrman's
name came up early and often. It was referred to by both the defense
and the plaintiffs. Mr. Petrocelli indicated on more than one
occasion that the jury may very well hear from Mr. Fuhrman, either in
person or from his testimony being read in.
Obviously, the plaintiffs knew that this was going to be an issue.
They knew by virtue of the fact that Mr. Fuhrman had pled the Fifth on
two different occasions, and by virtue of the fact he was domiciled in
Idaho; that the only way, most likely, that we'd be able to get his
testimony in, would be through reading his prior -- his former
testimony at the criminal trial. And yet, they sat for months, almost
-- exactly 60 days after motions in limine were required to be filed.
And that led us to take positions in front of the jury -- in front of
every single juror, that will sit in this case. They took positions
themselves. And now, as an afterthought, Mr. Petrocelli, in open
court the other day, says, "Well, we don't think it's admissible."
The time for filing motions in limine was 60 days ago. It was an
extremely important reason that that be done."

I would have told the defense that the rulings in this socio political production were stacked against them.

[weezer]

"MR. LEONARD: Where I come, from this is called a sandbag, Your Honor.
We went through four weeks of jury selection in which Mark Fuhrman's
name came up early and often. It was referred to by both the defense
and the plaintiffs. Mr. Petrocelli indicated on more than one
occasion that the jury may very well hear from Mr. Fuhrman, either in
person or from his testimony being read in.
Obviously, the plaintiffs knew that this was going to be an issue.
They knew by virtue of the fact that Mr. Fuhrman had pled the Fifth on
two different occasions, and by virtue of the fact he was domiciled in
Idaho; that the only way, most likely, that we'd be able to get his
testimony in, would be through reading his prior -- his former
testimony at the criminal trial. And yet, they sat for months, almost
-- exactly 60 days after motions in limine were required to be filed.
And that led us to take positions in front of the jury -- in front of
every single juror, that will sit in this case. They took positions
themselves. And now, as an afterthought, Mr. Petrocelli, in open
court the other day, says, "Well, we don't think it's admissible."
The time for filing motions in limine was 60 days ago. It was an
extremely important reason that that be done."

I would have told the defense that the rulings in this socio political production were stacked against them.

all trials are made of up of wins and losses as to evidence and testimony. Baker and team didn't come across as any too swift.

[William Anthony]

Don't the same standards or insulting comments apply to Petrocelli as they apply to the magnificent one and Roza Lopez?:shrug:
What about this.

And yet, they sat for months, almost
-- exactly 60 days after motions in limine were required to be filed.

[weezer]

Don't the same standards or insulting comments apply to Petrocelli as they apply to the magnificent one and Roza Lopez?:shrug:
What about this.

And yet, they sat for months, almost
-- exactly 60 days after motions in limine were required to be filed.

what's insulting?

[William Anthony]

I am not surprised that some cannot understand what is insulting. So, when they claimed the magnificent one lied about Roza Lopez and hid her is not the same thing Petrocelli did? I am waiting for someone to say Petrocelli lied and hid MF's testimony. Let me be the first to say that it what he did, IMHO.

[tv]

I am not surprised that some cannot understand what is insulting. So, when they claimed the magnificent one lied about Roza Lopez and hid her is not the same thing Petrocelli did? I am waiting for someone to say Petrocelli lied and hid MF's testimony. Let me be the first to say that it what he did, IMHO.

Two defense attorneys and one plaintiff's attorney traveled to Idaho to depose Mark Fuhrman. He took the fith on all questions for both sides. F. Lee Bailey was the attorney that was supposed to participate in Mark Fuhrman's deposition but he was sitting in the hoosegow in Florida. Please clarify what testimony Petrocelli hid in the civil trial if Mark Fuhrman didn't give any. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Two defense attorneys and one plaintiff's attorney traveled to Idaho to depose Mark Fuhrman. He took the fith on all questions for both sides. F. Lee Bailey was the attorney that was supposed to participate in Mark Fuhrman's deposition but he was sitting in the hoosegow in Florida. Please clarify what testimony Petrocelli hid in the civil trial if Mark Fuhrman didn't give any. :shrug:

What testimony do you believe Petrocelli was referring to or do you think that was just a lie? Why the testimony from the criminal trial, of course.:)

[tv]

Anyone that has read the actual civil trial opening statements and testimony understands that Bob Baker was able to get in all the theories and innuendo regarding Mark Fuhrman and the planting and LAPD misconduct without the criminal trial testimony.

[William Anthony]

Anyone that has read the actual civil trial opening statements and testimony understands that Bob Baker was able to get in all the theories and innuendo regarding Mark Fuhrman and the planting and LAPD misconduct without the criminal trial testimony.

Because what the lawyers say in opening is not evidence, then they should have testimony admitted to support their statements. If the judge allowed him to talk about MF and, if he called him a racist, interracial hating, detective, who admitted to planting/fabricating/manipulating evidence in the past, regardless of whether it was in a screen play or not, then MF's testimony as well as LHM and others should have at least been read in, if those witnesses were unavailable, IMHO. However, the socio political production may have become a trial of transcripts-sort of like we are doing.:)

[tv]

Because what the lawyers say in opening is not evidence, then they should have testimony admitted to support their statements. If the judge allowed him to talk about MF and, if he called him a racist, interracial hating, detective, who admitted to planting/fabricating/manipulating evidence in the past, regardless of whether it was in a screen play or not, then MF's testimony as well as LHM and others should have at least been read in, if those witnesses were unavailable, IMHO. However, the socio political production may have become a trial of transcripts-sort of like we are doing.:)

Would it be possible to discuss the evidence that was presented instead of putting the trial on trial?

[William Anthony]

Would it be possible to discuss the evidence that was presented instead of putting the trial on trial?

Are you saying that I should not support my opinion of the trial, which was in my opinion a socio political production?:)

[tv]

Are you saying that I should not support my opinion of the trial, which was in my opinion a socio political production?:)
Sure, you can support it but you do the defense a disservice. They did present evidence in the trial that is worthy of discussion.

[William Anthony]

Sure, you can support it but you do the defense a disservice. They did present evidence in the trial that is worthy of discussion.

I thought you were critical of the defense presentation. I think that the defense was precluded in this socio political production from putting on all the relevant evidence due to the judge's rulings. I don't know that, if the evidence had been admitted, would it have changed the jury's verdict but it would have been interesting to see whether or not it would have.

[tv]

I thought you were critical of the defense presentation. I think that the defense was precluded in this socio political production from putting on all the relevant evidence due to the judge's rulings. I don't know that, if the evidence had been admitted, would it have changed the jury's verdict but it would have been interesting to see whether or not it would have.

Bob Baker did an adequate job and even had some moments when he excelled. The problem for the defense was that they had a large amount of evidence against their client to try to overcome. The evidence you wish had been presented wasn't so we'll just have to move on without it.Please keep in mind that the plaintiffs didn't get in everything they wanted either. :)

[William Anthony]

Bob Baker did an adequate job and even had some moments when he excelled. The problem for the defense was that they had a large amount of evidence against their client to try to overcome. The evidence you wish had been presented wasn't so we'll just have to move on without it.Please keep in mind that the plaintiffs didn't get in everything they wanted either. :)

Oh, I disagree that we have to move on without it. I think you realize that the judge's rulings were a part of the trial and what he allowed to be included or excluded played an integral part of the jury's decision. Aside from the different types of trials and standard of proof, it is interesting to see what contributed to the differences in the verdicts, IMHO.

[tv]

Oh, I disagree that we have to move on without it. I think you realize that the judge's rulings were a part of the trial and what he allowed to be included or excluded played an integral part of the jury's decision. Aside from the different types of trials and standard of proof, it is interesting to see what contributed to the differences in the verdicts, IMHO.

Let me rephrase -- I'm moving on without it.

[William Anthony]

Let me rephrase -- I'm moving on without it.

I am not surprised. Have a good trip.:)

[tv]

I am not surprised. Have a good trip.:)
I plan on it. :)

[William Anthony]

I plan on it. :)

Touche. :)

[tv]

Here is part of Lou Brown's suit against Simpson. Some people think that the Browns don't believe OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole... :)

8) On or about June 12, 1994, Orenthal James Simpson and Does 1 through 10,planned and prepared to assault, batter and murder Nicole Brown Simpson and did thereafter brutally, and with malice aforethought, stalk, attack and repeatedly stab and beat decedent, Nicole Brown Simpson. Defendants, and each of them, left her on the walkway in front of her residence to die. Nicole Brown Simpson survived the brutal attack for some unknown period of time and thereafter bled to death as a direct legal result of the wrongful and homicidal acts of Orenthal James Simpson and Does 1 through 10.

9) The attack was perpetrated by defendant Orenthal James Simpson and Does 1 through 10 with the full knowledge that the assault and battery upon decedent's body would lead to her death. Each of the acts alleged herein were done with a wanton, reckless disregard for the rights of the decedent and with the full knowledge that she would die as a result of said acts.

10) As a proximate result of the assault, battery and murder of Nicole Brown Simpson by defendants, and each of them decedent was required to and did employ physicians and surgeons to examine, treat and care for her and did incur medical and incidental expenses in an amount unknown at this time. The complaint will be amended according to proof when the amount becomes known.

http://walraven.org/simpson/brn_suit.html

[William Anthony]

Here is part of Lou Brown's suit against Simpson. Some people think that the Browns don't believe OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole... :)

8) On or about June 12, 1994, Orenthal James Simpson and Does 1 through 10,planned and prepared to assault, batter and murder Nicole Brown Simpson and did thereafter brutally, and with malice aforethought, stalk, attack and repeatedly stab and beat decedent, Nicole Brown Simpson. Defendants, and each of them, left her on the walkway in front of her residence to die. Nicole Brown Simpson survived the brutal attack for some unknown period of time and thereafter bled to death as a direct legal result of the wrongful and homicidal acts of Orenthal James Simpson and Does 1 through 10.

9) The attack was perpetrated by defendant Orenthal James Simpson and Does 1 through 10 with the full knowledge that the assault and battery upon decedent's body would lead to her death. Each of the acts alleged herein were done with a wanton, reckless disregard for the rights of the decedent and with the full knowledge that she would die as a result of said acts.

10) As a proximate result of the assault, battery and murder of Nicole Brown Simpson by defendants, and each of them decedent was required to and did employ physicians and surgeons to examine, treat and care for her and did incur medical and incidental expenses in an amount unknown at this time. The complaint will be amended according to proof when the amount becomes known.

http://walraven.org/simpson/brn_suit.html

No one has said that the Browns did not allege this in their complaint. However, the verdict, statement of truth, as to what was proven did not address wrongful death, murder or killing. The special interrogatories that the jury had to answer did not ask whether or not Simpson caused the wrongful death of Ms. NBS. No matter how one tries to say the verdict meant that, it did not and does a disservice to her memory and family, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

http://walraven.org/simpson/ver_form.html

Question No. 4: Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Ronald Goldman.

Write the answer "yes" or "no" below.

Yes No

Answer: _____ _____

Proceed to Question No. 5.

Question No. 5: Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Simpson committed battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?

Write the answer "yes" or "no" below.

Yes No

Answer: _____ _____

If your answer to Question No. 5 is "yes," proceed to Question No. 6.

If your answers to Question Nos. 1 and 5 are "no," proceed to date, sign, and return the verdict form.

Question No. 6: Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed oppression in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?

Write the answer "yes" or "no" below.

Yes No

Answer: _____ _____

If you answered "yes" to Question No. 5, proceed to Question No. 7.

Question No. 7: Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that defendant Simpson committed malice in the conduct upon which you base your finding of liability for battery against Nicole Brown Simpson?

Write the answer "yes" or "no" below.

Yes No

Answer: _____ _____

If you answered "yes" to Question No. 1, answer Question No. 8.

Question No. 8: We award damages against defendant Simpson and in favor of plaintiffs Goldman and Rufo, in the aggregate, as follows:

Amount

Answer: $_______

Date, sign, and return the verdict form.

DATED: _____, 1997 ________________ FOREPERSON

[fgump2]

I would have told the defense that the rulings in this socio political production were stacked against them.[/QUOTE]

I disapprove of terms like ‘socio political production’. I think it is inflammatory. We have enough turmoil about the murders of Ron and Nicole without unnecessary terms like that.
I have sometimes wondered why it is a tradition to address the judge as ‘your honor’ in both American and English courts. Part of it is tradition, but part of it is that the leaders of this country have usually thought that it is good for people to treat the law with respect even when we disagree with it. This is why I disapprove of the term ‘socio political production’ to describe a trial. It is a disrespectful way to refer to judicial decisions.
An important skill for any good lawyer and for anyone who wants to get along well with others is the skill of disagreeing without being disagreeable. WA and perhaps (most?) others on this board have a lot of room for improvement in this area. WA has written that he wants to be a civil rights lawyer. If he wants to do more than win cases, that is if he wants to change our country for the better, he should stop using terms like that.
I don’t admire the bible as much as some other people do; but I agree with the biblical quote “blessed are the peacemakers”. People who call a controversial trial a ‘socio political production’ are not peacemakers.

[William Anthony]

I disapprove of terms like ‘socio political production’. I think it is inflammatory. We have enough turmoil about the murders of Ron and Nicole without unnecessary terms like that.
I have sometimes wondered why it is a tradition to address the judge as ‘your honor’ in both American and English courts. Part of it is tradition, but part of it is that the leaders of this country have usually thought that it is good for people to treat the law with respect even when we disagree with it. This is why I disapprove of the term ‘socio political production’ to describe a trial. It is a disrespectful way to refer to judicial decisions.
An important skill for any good lawyer and for anyone who wants to get along well with others is the skill of disagreeing without being disagreeable. WA and perhaps (most?) others on this board have a lot of room for improvement in this area. WA has written that he wants to be a civil rights lawyer. If he wants to do more than win cases, that is if he wants to change our country for the better, he should stop using terms like that.
I don’t admire the bible as much as some other people do; but I agree with the biblical quote “blessed are the peacemakers”. People who call a controversial trial a ‘socio political production’ are not peacemakers.
[/QUOTE]
The Bible also says "as you see the light walk therein". The first Amendment permits everyone to voice their opinion whether of not they are agreeable to others, so long as they are not "fighting words". The Dred Scott decision and the Plessy v. Ferguson were legal decisions that have gone down in infamy. Not all legal decisions need to be respected as any judge is first of all a human being, filled with all the virtues and vices of the human race. My hero, Dr. Martin Luther King, was not a peacemaker but he didn't preach violence nor did he bite his tongue because others saw his words as inflammatory. God, IMHO, in the flesh, Jesus, spoke inflammatory words and did not bite his tongue. When one feels that the law is not being respected by rulings, out of respect for that law, one is compelled to speak his opinion of those rulings in a trial. I suppose you feel the same about the criminal trial and will speak out against the "Dancing Itos", the comments made about Ito, the comments made about the jury and the comments made about the dream team. I have never slammed the civil jury. It is my honest opinion that the jury reached the correct verdict in that socio political production and that the rulings helped ensure what verdict would be reached in that socio political production. Please allow me the privilege, as I do not say rights, (because something which can be given and can be taken away it is not a right to me) to voice my opinion as I allow you to voice yours? It is out of respect for the law that I voice my opinion, because I believe a trial should be decided on all admissible evidence. I tend to think that, since there were other testimonies of unavailable witnesses read into the transcript, IIRC, then the defense should have been permitted to read MF's testimony into the trial transcript. Another poster posted a link in which it was said that a party should be granted great leeway to offer testimony of motive and supplied a link to support it. I think the defense should have been provided great leeway to show motive of MF to plant evidence. The ruling disallowed the testimonies of Ms. Bell, Ms. Singer, Ms. LHM and Mr. Hodge. The rulings in this socio political production prevented the defense from offering the best defense possible to their client, which I think disrespected the law, which reinforces my honest opinion that the civil trial was a socio political production.

[tv]

No one has said that the Browns did not allege this in their complaint. However, the verdict, statement of truth, as to what was proven did not address wrongful death, murder or killing. The special interrogatories that the jury had to answer did not ask whether or not Simpson caused the wrongful death of Ms. NBS. No matter how one tries to say the verdict meant that, it did not and does a disservice to her memory and family, IMHO.I didn't post this to contradict the meaning of the verdict. I'm pointing out that there are some on this board that have said the Brown's didn't believe OJ Simpson to be the killer. This dispells that notion. If you'll reread my post you'll see that I didn't mention the verdict.

[William Anthony]

I didn't post this to contradict the meaning of the verdict. I'm pointing out that there are some on this board that have said the Brown's didn't believe OJ Simpson to be the killer. This dispells that notion. If you'll reread my post you'll see that I didn't mention the verdict.

I stand corrected.

[tv]

I would have told the defense that the rulings in this socio political production were stacked against them.

I disapprove of terms like ‘socio political production’. I think it is inflammatory. We have enough turmoil about the murders of Ron and Nicole without unnecessary terms like that.
I have sometimes wondered why it is a tradition to address the judge as ‘your honor’ in both American and English courts. Part of it is tradition, but part of it is that the leaders of this country have usually thought that it is good for people to treat the law with respect even when we disagree with it. This is why I disapprove of the term ‘socio political production’ to describe a trial. It is a disrespectful way to refer to judicial decisions.
An important skill for any good lawyer and for anyone who wants to get along well with others is the skill of disagreeing without being disagreeable. WA and perhaps (most?) others on this board have a lot of room for improvement in this area. WA has written that he wants to be a civil rights lawyer. If he wants to do more than win cases, that is if he wants to change our country for the better, he should stop using terms like that.
I don’t admire the bible as much as some other people do; but I agree with the biblical quote “blessed are the peacemakers”. People who call a controversial trial a ‘socio political production’ are not peacemakers.

fgump2, I agree with what you've said here. The trial will continue to be referred to by William as the sociopolitcal production because he knows it is irritating to others just as referring to Park's mother as his mommy is irritating. These terms have been used so much that at this point I'm desensitized to them.

Speaking for myself, I'm trying not to respond to nasty posts or become involved in petty squabbles. It's very hard at times to resist the temptation to 'one-up' the other person so it's definitely a work in progress and I may be unsucessful in the long run...I hope not. :)

[tv]

I stand corrected.Thank you.

[William Anthony]

fgump2, I agree with what you've said here. The trial will continue to be referred to by William as the sociopolitcal production because he knows it is irritating to others just as referring to Park's mother as his mommy is irritating. These terms have been used so much that at this point I'm desensitized to them.

Speaking for myself, I'm trying not to respond to nasty posts or become involved in petty squabbles. It's very hard at times to resist the temptation to 'one-up' the other person so it's definitely a work in progress and I may be unsucessful in the long run...I hope not. :)[/QUOTE]

It is not a matter of quid pro quo to me and, If I had to worry about offending someone every time I wrote something, then I would not write. There are a lot of things that I find inflammatory that others write but I do not speak out against them, unless I feel they are insulting, rude, uncivil or a personal attack. There is nothing inflammatory about the word mommy, imho, but, IMHO, I think there is something inflammatory in the use of the term step-in-fetchet. I voiced my opinion but that has not stopped a poster from using it. Therefore, since it is not against the rules, I have chosen to ignore it. There is nothing inflammatory in the use of the term socio political production, as it is simply my opinion. If you find that inflammatory as I did step-in-fetchet, then you can simply ignore it and not have to worry about one-upping a poster, IMHO. I hope that you will be very successful in the long and short run. When I asked that certain terms not be used by posters, you defended them. It is your right to defend what you want to defend and continued to defend them. My point is that some find different things inflammatory and I have stated why I feel the way I feel and it is out of respect for the law that I voice my opinion about the socio political production.

[William Anthony]

Thank you.

Your welcome.

[tv]

It is not a matter of quid pro quo to me and, If I had to worry about offending someone every time I wrote something, then I would not write. There are a lot of things that I find inflammatory that others write but I do not speak out against them, unless I feel they are insulting, rude, uncivil or a personal attack. There is nothing inflammatory about the word mommy, imho, but, IMHO, I think there is something inflammatory in the use of the term step-in-fetchet. I voiced my opinion but that has not stopped a poster from using it. Therefore, since it is not against the rules, I have chosen to ignore it. There is nothing inflammatory in the use of the term socio political production, as it is simply my opinion. If you find that inflammatory as I did step-in-fetchet, then you can simply ignore it and not have to worry about one-upping a poster, IMHO. I hope that you will be very successful in the long and short run. When I asked that certain terms not be used by posters, you defended them. It is your right to defend what you want to defend and continued to defend them. My point is that some find different things inflammatory and I have stated why I feel the way I feel and it is out of respect for the law that I voice my opinion about the socio political production.
I realize that you don't worry about offending anyone and post what you please. So be it. I'm attempting to post about the case and not bite on everything that's said to me or about me. So, can we get back to the case?

[William Anthony]

I realize that you don't worry about offending anyone and post what you please. So be it. I'm attempting to post about the case and not bite on everything that's said to me or about me. So, can we get back to the case?

What in this post of yours is about the case?

fgump2, I agree with what you've said here. The trial will continue to be referred to by William as the sociopolitcal production because he knows it is irritating to others just as referring to Park's mother as his mommy is irritating. These terms have been used so much that at this point I'm desensitized to them.

Speaking for myself, I'm trying not to respond to nasty posts or become involved in petty squabbles. It's very hard at times to resist the temptation to 'one-up' the other person so it's definitely a work in progress and I may be unsucessful in the long run...I hope not.

I see it as personal comments about me, in part, as you agreed with a personal and insulting attack against me.

[GreenIce]

William,

I have a question I hope you can answer.

We all know in the civil trial that defendant's guilt or non-guilt is based soley on "More Likely Then Not".

What I don't understand is why the evidence does not also fall under the same "more likely then not".

When you have over 5 state experts plus two defense experts not seeing any blood on the sock and then two months later it is found, isn't more likely then not it was planted?

[William Anthony]

William,

I have a question I hope you can answer.

We all know in the civil trial that defendant's guilt or non-guilt is based soley on "More Likely Then Not".

What I don't understand is why the evidence does not also fall under the same "more likely then not".

When you have over 5 state experts plus two defense experts not seeing any blood on the sock and then two months later it is found, isn't more likely then not it was planted?

One correction to your post and I think it was simply an inadvertent statement on your part as I know your interest in the law. The defendant is found liable or not liable in a civil suit and yes that is based on the more likely than not standard.

The courts have changed the standard on the admissibility of some evidence and this was done, as far as I am able to discern, in motions for summary judgment. There is another civil standard that falls above the more than likely standard and below the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, clear and convincing evidence. I truly do not know when this standard was applied but I know that it applies in defamation cases.

When the socks aren't in the video when they are supposed to be, isn't it more likely than not that the evidence was planted?:)

[tv]

What in this post of yours is about the case?

I see it as personal comments about me, in part, as you agreed with a personal and insulting attack against me.
I have no idea what personal and insulting attack you're talking about and I'm not going to get sucked into an argument.

[William Anthony]

I have no idea what personal and insulting attack you're talking about and I'm not going to get sucked into an argument.

There is no need to argue, as this is what I was talking about, to which you expressed your agreement and with that said let's discuss the case as we have been.

It is a disrespectful way to refer to judicial decisions.
An important skill for any good lawyer and for anyone who wants to get along well with others is the skill of disagreeing without being disagreeable. WA and perhaps (most?) others on this board have a lot of room for improvement in this area. WA has written that he wants to be a civil rights lawyer. If he wants to do more than win cases, that is if he wants to change our country for the better, he should stop using terms like that.
I don’t admire the bible as much as some other people do; but I agree with the biblical quote “blessed are the peacemakers”. People who call a controversial trial a ‘socio political production’ are not peacemakers.

[tv]

There is no need to argue, as this is what I was talking about, to which you expressed your agreement and with that said let's discuss the case as we have been.

It wasn't an attack; it's my opinion that you use those terms because you think it irritates others. The random discussion thread is one attack after another on posters that believe OJ Simpson is guilty. There is one poster on this forum that spends most of her time in pointing out why the "g's" are wrong due to their life experiences, prejudices etc., when in fact she knows nothing about any of us and what our life experiences are. No one but me knows what's in my heart. I've accepted the fact that these comments are allowed to stand and are even applauded by you. I can either get down in the dirt and participate in the snide comments or I can try to stick to talking about the case. Now, I'm ready to discuss the case if that's what you want to do.

[William Anthony]

THE COURT: Okay. The Willie Ford video.

I'll hear from the moving party on this.

MR. GELBLUM: On the Willie Ford video, Your Honor, as we said in the papers, there's two reasons why it's really -- it's irrelevant, under --

THE COURT: I read your moving papers.

Do you have anything else you want to add to that?

MR. GELBLUM: Just that I don't think I mentioned the legal basis relevance under 352, because it doesn't show -- it's meaningless; it doesn't show the area where the socks would be. He has --

THE COURT: It shows the bedroom, doesn't it?

MR. GELBLUM: But not the area where the socks were collected.

THE COURT: That's your contention.

MR. GELBLUM: There's another undisputed evidence. If they have evidence to the contrary, fine. The only evidence from Mr. Ford himself is that he -- his testimony -- if they have other evidence, fine.

MR. P. BAKER: There's two issues.

The video shows the room; it bolsters Mr. Ford's testimony that he did not see socks there, or we -- he would have videotaped the socks there on the rug, number one.

Number two, the issue on the counter is completely disingenuous that Rockingham sock log shows him being there from 3:10 to 4:30.

Mr. Fung sat there and said he collected blood.

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. You're going to have to repeat that.

MR. P. BAKER: He collected item 12 in the foyer at 4:30. He collected item 14 in the master bathroom at 4:40. I believe he collected item 13, the socks, between 4:30 and 4:40.

Mr. Ford will testify he was in the bedroom at approximately 4:15. He was there before Mr. Fung collected the socks, and didn't see the socks.

This video goes to his credibility. That's what cross-examination is for. This is directly contradictory to what they argued at side bar.

MR. GELBLUM: I have no problem with Mr. Ford coming and testifying about the crime scene log, but the video, it's a 352 problem. It does not show he did; it doesn't contradict; it doesn't show the place where the socks were. And the counter on the video is admittedly off. And he admits he has no idea how far off it is.

That's the evidence, Your Honor. I have no problem with him coming in and saying he didn't see the socks; that's fine. But the video is the problem. I'm not trying to preclude the evidence, just the video.

MR. P. BAKER: Submit, Judge.

THE COURT: Motion denied.

[tv]

The video was made to record the condition of the home after it had been processed. It wasn't to be used as evidence.

[William Anthony]

It wasn't an attack; it's my opinion that you use those terms because you think it irritates others. The random discussion thread is one attack after another on posters that believe OJ Simpson is guilty. There is one poster on this forum that spends most of her time in pointing out why the "g's" are wrong due to their life experiences, prejudices etc., when in fact she knows nothing about any of us and what our life experiences are. No one but me knows what's in my heart. I've accepted the fact that these comments are allowed to stand and are even applauded by you. I can either get down in the dirt and participate in the snide comments or I can try to stick to talking about the case. Now, I'm ready to discuss the case if that's what you want to do.

There is nothing in your post that states it was your opinion. Here it is.

fgump2, I agree with what you've said here. The trial will continue to be referred to by William as the sociopolitcal production because he knows it is irritating to others just as referring to Park's mother as his mommy is irritating. These terms have been used so much that at this point I'm desensitized to them.

Speaking for myself, I'm trying not to respond to nasty posts or become involved in petty squabbles. It's very hard at times to resist the temptation to 'one-up' the other person so it's definitely a work in progress and I may be unsucessful in the long run...I hope not.

The Gs also make attacks and snide remarks such as a poster's remarks are ridiculous, illogical, remarks about common sense and step-in-fetchit, just to name a few. However, be that as it may be. I chose not to take sides in the recent debate between you and another poster, so to say that I applauded anything is just untrue. It is my position that when a poster takes a stance and defends a snide remark or agrees with an insulting post they are taking sides. I was discussing the case before this post and I am going to continue.

[William Anthony]

The video was made to record the condition of the home after it had been processed. It wasn't to be used as evidence.

By 4:15 the magical socks should have been on the bedroom floor but Mr. Ford did not see them and they weren't on the video, despite what was the purpose of the video.

[tv]

There is nothing in your post that states it was your opinion. Here it is.

I said I agree with fgump2. That's stating it as an opinion.


The Gs also make attacks and snide remarks such as a poster's remarks are ridiculous, illogical, remarks about common sense and step-in-fetchit, just to name a few. However, be that as it may be. I chose not to take sides in the recent debate between you and another poster, so to say that I applauded anything is just untrue. It is my position that when a poster takes a stance and defends a snide remark or agrees with an insulting post they are taking sides. I was discussing the case before this post and I am going to continue. You've made your feelings about me clear but I can continue to discuss the case with you if the bickering is going to cease. Being snide isn't fgump2's style at least in my opinion but you're free to interpret his/her remarks however you please.

[tv]

By 4:15 the magical socks should have been on the bedroom floor but Mr. Ford did not see them and they weren't on the video, despite what was the purpose of the video.
I don't want you to think I'm avoiding this but I'm on my way out the door to my Mother's Day dinner. I'll check it out later. :)

[William Anthony]

You've made your feelings about me clear but I can continue to discuss the case with you if the bickering is going to cease. Being snide isn't fgump2's style at least in my opinion but you're free to interpret his/her remarks however you please.

I don't know what you think I feel about you, other than you have some misplaced loyalty, IMHO.:) I wasn't saying that his/her insulting posts were snide. :)

[William Anthony]

I don't want you to think I'm avoiding this but I'm on my way out the door to my Mother's Day dinner. I'll check it out later. :)

Enjoy, your Mother's day. :)

[fgump2]

THE COURT: Okay. The Willie Ford video.

I'll hear from the moving party on this.

MR. GELBLUM: On the Willie Ford video, Your Honor, as we said in the papers, there's two reasons why it's really -- it's irrelevant, under --

THE COURT: I read your moving papers.

Do you have anything else you want to add to that?

MR. GELBLUM: Just that I don't think I mentioned the legal basis relevance under 352, because it doesn't show -- it's meaningless; it doesn't show the area where the socks would be. He has --

THE COURT: It shows the bedroom, doesn't it?

MR. GELBLUM: But not the area where the socks were collected.

THE COURT: That's your contention.

MR. GELBLUM: There's another undisputed evidence. If they have evidence to the contrary, fine. The only evidence from Mr. Ford himself is that he -- his testimony -- if they have other evidence, fine.

MR. P. BAKER: There's two issues.

The video shows the room; it bolsters Mr. Ford's testimony that he did not see socks there, or we -- he would have videotaped the socks there on the rug, number one.

Number two, the issue on the counter is completely disingenuous that Rockingham sock log shows him being there from 3:10 to 4:30.

Mr. Fung sat there and said he collected blood.

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. You're going to have to repeat that.

MR. P. BAKER: He collected item 12 in the foyer at 4:30. He collected item 14 in the master bathroom at 4:40. I believe he collected item 13, the socks, between 4:30 and 4:40.

Mr. Ford will testify he was in the bedroom at approximately 4:15. He was there before Mr. Fung collected the socks, and didn't see the socks.

This video goes to his credibility. That's what cross-examination is for. This is directly contradictory to what they argued at side bar.

MR. GELBLUM: I have no problem with Mr. Ford coming and testifying about the crime scene log, but the video, it's a 352 problem. It does not show he did; it doesn't contradict; it doesn't show the place where the socks were. And the counter on the video is admittedly off. And he admits he has no idea how far off it is.

That's the evidence, Your Honor. I have no problem with him coming in and saying he didn't see the socks; that's fine. But the video is the problem. I'm not trying to preclude the evidence, just the video.

MR. P. BAKER: Submit, Judge.

THE COURT: Motion denied.

This looks like another attempt by the defense to make the prosecution look bad because of confusion about time. In this case I think the problem was that the camera Mr. Ford used put the time iof day in each photo, and the time was off for some reason. It may have had something to do with daylight savings time.

As far as the socks being magic, it would seem odd to me to deliberately plant socks there and invalidly collect them, and then wait months to plant blood on them. Does this mean the LAPD were thinking "look we'll collect the socks, and if we need more evidence in the future we'll plant some blood"?

This is somewhat like the defense charges about blood in the bronco. I mean to charge that Fuhrman planted blood in the Bronco hours after the killings, and then that two witnesses said there was no blood in the bronco weeks later is a bit much to me. I mean if Fuhrman plantd blood in the Bronco on June 13, then the witnesses who said that blood wasn't there weeks later must have been mistaken.

[William Anthony]

This looks like another attempt by the defense to make the prosecution look bad because of confusion about time. In this case I think the problem was that the camera Mr. Ford used put the time iof day in each photo, and the time was off for some reason. It may have had something to do with daylight savings time.

As far as the socks being magic, it would seem odd to me to deliberately plant socks there and invalidly collect them, and then wait months to plant blood on them. Does this mean the LAPD were thinking "look we'll collect the socks, and if we need more evidence in the future we'll plant some blood"?

This is somewhat like the defense charges about blood in the bronco. I mean to charge that Fuhrman planted blood in the Bronco hours after the killings, and then that two witnesses said there was no blood in the bronco weeks later is a bit much to me. I mean if Fuhrman plantd blood in the Bronco on June 13, then the witnesses who said that blood wasn't there weeks later must have been mistaken.

It is not an attempt to make the prosecution look bad but it is a showing of why the prosecution's evidence could not be trusted. Yes, the clock on the camcorder was off by an hour and showed 3:15 when it should have showed 4:15, either way the socks should have been there because MF had not collected them yet but Mr. Ford testified he did not see the socks.

It seems odd to me that the magical socks showed a blood stain consistent in the amount of EDTA with that of the prosecution's dead testifying expert.

I will address the blood "in" the Bronco later.

[tv]

Enjoy, your Mother's day. :)

Thank you, I did. :)

[GreenIce]

This looks like another attempt by the defense to make the prosecution look bad because of confusion about time. In this case I think the problem was that the camera Mr. Ford used put the time iof day in each photo, and the time was off for some reason. It may have had something to do with daylight savings time.

As far as the socks being magic, it would seem odd to me to deliberately plant socks there and invalidly collect them, and then wait months to plant blood on them. Does this mean the LAPD were thinking "look we'll collect the socks, and if we need more evidence in the future we'll plant some blood"?

This is somewhat like the defense charges about blood in the bronco. I mean to charge that Fuhrman planted blood in the Bronco hours after the killings, and then that two witnesses said there was no blood in the bronco weeks later is a bit much to me. I mean if Fuhrman plantd blood in the Bronco on June 13, then the witnesses who said that blood wasn't there weeks later must have been mistaken.

fgump2,

No one said that the blood was planted on the socks later. I believe Judge Ito ordered an inventory of all blood evidence so he could make a ruling on the defense's request for portions of the samples so they could do their own tests. If blood was on those socks, it should have been found long before it was found in August.

You can't discount that 4 state witnesses testified that they did not see blood on the socks. I believe the block on the this check list was "none obvious". Are we to believe that Michelle Kestler, Greg Matheson, Dennis Fung and Colin Y did not know that there were tests and equipment that can detective blood that can't be seen by the naked eye?

No one said that MF planted blood in the Bronco--what was suggested is that he wiped the glove on the console. He also testifed he saw blood when he could not have seen on the door sill of the Bronco.

Plus, there were more then two people who testified that they did not see blood in the same location that blood stains were taken by Dennis Fung in Sept. According to the testimony of two of the witnesses, there were even more people who saw that there was no blood in the Bronco--these people were looking for this blood and did not see it.

Another point about the socks, why did Fung collect them in the first place? He said that he did not see blood on them--yet collected them anyway. And I believe the common G's belief is that he did not collect the dark items in the washing machine because he did not see blood on them. It makes no sense. IMO.

[tv]

It is not an attempt to make the prosecution look bad but it is a showing of why the prosecution's evidence could not be trusted. Yes, the clock on the camcorder was off by an hour and showed 3:15 when it should have showed 4:15, either way the socks should have been there because MF had not collected them yet but Mr. Ford testified he did not see the socks.

It seems odd to me that the magical socks showed a blood stain consistent in the amount of EDTA with that of the prosecution's dead testifying expert.

I will address the blood "in" the Bronco later.

William, please post evidence to support your claim that Mark Fuhrman collected the socks.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Ford.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. There were no socks there when you left the room?

A. That's right.

Q. There were no socks when you went in the room?

A. That's right.

Q. You never saw any socks on the floor?

A. Right.

Q. Mr. Fung wasn't there when you were in the room?

A. No. He had just left.

Q. He had just left because he just finished collecting the evidence right?

A. Right.

Q. That, in fact, was your role there that day, was to film after the evidence had been collected, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. That was your whole purpose for being there?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In fact, you started outside because somebody told you they were still working inside, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you started downstairs because you said they're still working upstairs, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you didn't go in the master bedroom because Dennis said, I'm still working in here, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So the socks weren't there because they had already been picked up, right?

A. Yes.

MR. P. BAKER: Calls for speculation and argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

[William Anthony]

William, please post evidence to support your claim that Mark Fuhrman collected the socks.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Ford.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. There were no socks there when you left the room?

A. That's right.

Q. There were no socks when you went in the room?

A. That's right.

Q. You never saw any socks on the floor?

A. Right.

Q. Mr. Fung wasn't there when you were in the room?

A. No. He had just left.

Q. He had just left because he just finished collecting the evidence right?

A. Right.

Q. That, in fact, was your role there that day, was to film after the evidence had been collected, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. That was your whole purpose for being there?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In fact, you started outside because somebody told you they were still working inside, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you started downstairs because you said they're still working upstairs, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you didn't go in the master bedroom because Dennis said, I'm still working in here, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So the socks weren't there because they had already been picked up, right?

A. Yes.

MR. P. BAKER: Calls for speculation and argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Too many Fs on the prosecution side. DF.

[tv]

[/B]

Too many Fs on the prosecution side. DF.

It doesn't matter if the objection was sustained. The fact is that Willie Ford couldn't go in the room because Dennis Fung was still working in there. He had collected the socks before Willie Ford entered the room. That's the explanation for why he didn't see the socks. Only vivid imaginations and wishful thinking have made it into something it isn't.

[William Anthony]

It doesn't matter if the objection was sustained. The fact is that Willie Ford couldn't go in the room because Dennis Fung was still working in there. He had collected the socks before Willie Ford entered the room. That's the explanation for why he didn't see the socks. Only vivid imaginations and wishful thinking have made it into something it isn't.

Wishful thinking wants to deny the time DF testified to collecting the socks. The evidence is that Mr. Ford did not see the socks and they weren't on the video at the time they should have been lying on the floor for Mr. Ford to see and video tape them.

[tv]

Wishful thinking wants to deny the time DF testified to collecting the socks. The evidence is that Mr. Ford did not see the socks and they weren't on the video at the time they should have been lying on the floor for Mr. Ford to see and video tape them.

Willie Ford testified that he had to wait for Dennis Fung to finish in the room before he entered to videotape. There's no reason Fung would have left the socks behind when he was finished.

[William Anthony]

Willie Ford testified that he had to wait for Dennis Fung to finish in the room before he entered to videotape. There's no reason Fung would have left the socks behind when he was finished.

That question was sustained. The times on the log and the camcorder say the socks should have been on the floor but they weren't see on the camcorder or by Mr. Ford. Therefore, we do not have to speculate as to whether or not DF had finished collecting items from the room, since the log tells us he hadn't and Mr. Ford and the camcorder tells us that the socks were not there. That is the evidence without improper speculation. You see your question assumes that the socks had been lying there and collected but the other evidence tells us they hadn't been lying there, and were found and collected somewhere else, unless you believe them to be magical socks.

[William Anthony]

Some more testimony/evidence.

Q. And what time did you arrive at 360 North Rockingham?

A. I think approximately around 3 o'clock.

Q. Okay.

And the Rockingham log shows 3:10.

Would you agree that was about the time that you arrived there?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what was your purpose in going to 360 North Rockingham?

A. To videotape all of Mr. Simpson's personal effects that were out in the open, not to open up any drawers or any doors, to videotape anything else. Everything that was out.

Q. And what was the reason -- did you ever come to an understanding as to the reason you were supposed to videotape the residence?

A. Yes, sir. Detective, I think, Haro, says they were getting ready to lock up his place, and I was to videotape everything that was left in the room.

Q. And as I understand it, you had an RCA VHS camcorder?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what did you first -- or strike that.

On the bottom of the videotape is a time counter; is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the time counter shows the time that the videotape was recorded; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And as I understand it, you later learned that that time counter was off; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, for example, just to be clear, the time counter on your videotape shows that you were in Mr. Simpson's bedroom at approximately 3:13 p.m.; is that correct?

A. The -- on the videotape it shows that?

Q. Right.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you understand that that's not correct, true?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And by the way, what time did you leave 360 North Rockingham?

A. I would say about 4:30, I think.

Q. Okay.

And when were you in Mr. Simpson's bedroom, in relation to the time you left Rockingham?

A. I would say within about 10 minutes before that, 4:30.

Q. So if the videotape shows that you're in the Rockingham -- O.J. Simpson's master bedroom at 3:13, and that it's your understanding that you were there at about 4:20, you would agree that the time is about off -- is off about an hour and 10 minutes, true?

A. The time in the video camera was really not a factor, never established whether it was the correct time or not.

Q. But if the -- if the clock says 3:13 when you're in Mr. Simpson's bedroom, you have an independent recollection of being there around 4:15 to 4:20, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So the time counter, would be your assumption, is off by about an hour and five minutes, right?

A. I would say so.

[tv]

Some more testimony/evidence.

Q. And what time did you arrive at 360 North Rockingham?

A. I think approximately around 3 o'clock.

Q. Okay.

And the Rockingham log shows 3:10.

Would you agree that was about the time that you arrived there?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what was your purpose in going to 360 North Rockingham?

A. To videotape all of Mr. Simpson's personal effects that were out in the open, not to open up any drawers or any doors, to videotape anything else. Everything that was out.

Q. And what was the reason -- did you ever come to an understanding as to the reason you were supposed to videotape the residence?

A. Yes, sir. Detective, I think, Haro, says they were getting ready to lock up his place, and I was to videotape everything that was left in the room.

Q. And as I understand it, you had an RCA VHS camcorder?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what did you first -- or strike that.

On the bottom of the videotape is a time counter; is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the time counter shows the time that the videotape was recorded; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And as I understand it, you later learned that that time counter was off; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, for example, just to be clear, the time counter on your videotape shows that you were in Mr. Simpson's bedroom at approximately 3:13 p.m.; is that correct?

A. The -- on the videotape it shows that?

Q. Right.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you understand that that's not correct, true?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And by the way, what time did you leave 360 North Rockingham?

A. I would say about 4:30, I think.

Q. Okay.

And when were you in Mr. Simpson's bedroom, in relation to the time you left Rockingham?

A. I would say within about 10 minutes before that, 4:30.

Q. So if the videotape shows that you're in the Rockingham -- O.J. Simpson's master bedroom at 3:13, and that it's your understanding that you were there at about 4:20, you would agree that the time is about off -- is off about an hour and 10 minutes, true?

A. The time in the video camera was really not a factor, never established whether it was the correct time or not.

Q. But if the -- if the clock says 3:13 when you're in Mr. Simpson's bedroom, you have an independent recollection of being there around 4:15 to 4:20, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So the time counter, would be your assumption, is off by about an hour and five minutes, right?

A. I would say so.

The fact remains that he had to wait for Dennis Fung to finish in the bedroom before he entered. Why would Dennis Fung leave the socks on the carpet after he finished processing the room? If you have a reasonable explanation for that I'd be interested in it. Emphasis on the word reasonable.

[William Anthony]

The fact remains that he had to wait for Dennis Fung to finish in the bedroom before he entered. Why would Dennis Fung leave the socks on the carpet after he finished processing the room? If you have a reasonable explanation for that I'd be interested in it. Emphasis on the word reasonable.

Because as the evidence suggests they were not lying on the floor at the time they should have been.:) The evidence of the amount of EDTA found in the stain on the socks suggests planting. :) The totality of the evidence suggests planting of the socks and the blood allegedly found on them.:)

[William Anthony]

Willie Ford testified that he had to wait for Dennis Fung to finish in the room before he entered to videotape. There's no reason Fung would have left the socks behind when he was finished.

I have done a quick word search for the word wait for the testimonies offered on December 11th, the day Mr. Ford testified in the civil trial, and did not see any testimony that Mr. Ford testified that he had to wait for DF to finish the room before he entered. Could you please post it?

[tv]

I have done a quick word search for the word wait for the testimonies offered on December 11th, the day Mr. Ford testified in the civil trial, and did not see any testimony that Mr. Ford testified that he had to wait for DF to finish the room before he entered. Could you please post it?



Q. Did you encounter Dennis Fung at any point while you were upstairs?

A. Not directly. Out of the corner of my eye, I noticed he was just going back and forth as he was collecting the evidence.

Q. Did you have a conversation with Dennis Fung as you were walking down the hallway towards the master bedroom?

A. Yes, sir. To the point where my video light was shining toward the master bedroom. He thought I was coming in. He said "I'm not ready for you yet."Well, I said okay and continued into the next bedroom.

Q. So as you're walking into the master bedroom, Mr. Fung says, "we're not ready for you yet?"

A. No. I'm not walking into the master bedroom at this point. I'm videotaping photographs on the hallway wall.

He thought I was coming into the master bedroom when he said, I'm not ready for you.

Q. And then at that point, you didn't go in the master bedroom?

A. No, I didn't. I turned into the next bedroom.

[tv]

Because as the evidence suggests they were not lying on the floor at the time they should have been.:) The evidence of the amount of EDTA found in the stain on the socks suggests planting. :) The totality of the evidence suggests planting of the socks and the blood allegedly found on them.:)

No proof of planting exists.

[William Anthony]

Q. Did you encounter Dennis Fung at any point while you were upstairs?

A. Not directly. Out of the corner of my eye, I noticed he was just going back and forth as he was collecting the evidence.

Q. Did you have a conversation with Dennis Fung as you were walking down the hallway towards the master bedroom?

A. Yes, sir. To the point where my video light was shining toward the master bedroom. He thought I was coming in. He said "I'm not ready for you yet."Well, I said okay and continued into the next bedroom.

Q. So as you're walking into the master bedroom, Mr. Fung says, "we're not ready for you yet?"

A. No. I'm not walking into the master bedroom at this point. I'm videotaping photographs on the hallway wall.

He thought I was coming into the master bedroom when he said, I'm not ready for you.

Q. And then at that point, you didn't go in the master bedroom?

A. No, I didn't. I turned into the next bedroom.

So, there is no testimony in the civil trial that Mr. Ford was told to wait until DF collected the evidence. Mr. Ford was simply told by DF that he wasn't ready for him to video the master bedroom, whatever that may have meant, correct? Since I have been reminded that this is testimony from the civil trial, then this is what we are limiting it to, correct?

[William Anthony]

No proof of planting exists.

Evidence of.:)

[tv]

So, there is no testimony in the civil trial that Mr. Ford was told to wait until DF collected the evidence. Mr. Ford was simply told by DF that he wasn't ready for him to video the master bedroom, whatever that may have meant, correct? Since I have been reminded that this is testimony from the civil trial, then this is what we are limiting it to, correct?

Here you go with the nitpicking. Of course, it meant that he wasn't finished processing the room so he had to wait. What I posted is from the civil trial.

[William Anthony]

Here you go with the nitpicking. Of course, it meant that he wasn't finished processing the room so he had to wait. What I posted is from the civil trial.

I know that and there is nothing in that to support your claim that DF told Mr. Ford to wait until he collected the evidence. :)

[tv]

I know that and there is nothing in that to support your claim that DF told Mr. Ford to wait until he collected the evidence. :)

I'm not going to indulge in parsing words. Of course that's what's meant by 'I'm not ready for you yet'. Come on, William.

[William Anthony]

I'm not going to indulge in parsing words. Of course that's what's meant by 'I'm not ready for you yet'. Come on, William.

You see, based on all the evidence, I am not as sure as you are as to what DF meant. He could have been saying we are still looking for a pair of socks that blood we can take and blood can be deposited on.

[tv]

You see, based on all the evidence, I am not as sure as you are as to what DF meant. He could have been saying we are still looking for a pair of socks that blood we can take and blood can be deposited on.

No, he couldn't have been saying that but you can continue to try to make that sound reasonable if you like. I've made my point.

[William Anthony]

No, he couldn't have been saying that but you can continue to try to make that sound reasonable if you like. I've made my point.

Were you there?:)

[tv]

Were you there?:)

Where?

[weezer]

No, he couldn't have been saying that but you can continue to try to make that sound reasonable if you like. I've made my point.

sure makes it hard to have an open, honest, and intelligent conversation doesn't it?

[William Anthony]

Where?

In the room with DF.

[tv]

sure makes it hard to have an open, honest, and intelligent conversation doesn't it? It really does when every sentence has to be broken down and every word analyzed.

[William Anthony]

It really does when every sentence has to be broken down and every word analyzed.

Now, you are learning how to be a lawyer.:)

[tv]

Now, you are learning how to be a lawyer.:)

I'll leave the learning up to you. I'm just trying to have a discussion about a murder case that interests me. Sometimes this feels more like work than recreation. :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

I'll leave the learning up to you. I'm just trying to have a discussion about a murder case that interests me. Sometimes this feels more like work than recreation. :rolleyes:

No pain, no gain. I'll bet you would be bored if everyone agreed with Ms. Tvdinner, even though you might like it.:)

[tv]

No pain, no gain. I'll bet you would be bored if everyone agreed with Ms. Tvdinner, even though you might like it.:)

I don't expect agreement but I don't enjoy going over every word that's picked apart. Am I mistaken or do you enjoy all this microscopic examination of sentence structure and syntax? :)

[William Anthony]

I don't expect agreement but I don't enjoy going over every word that's picked apart. Am I mistaken or do you enjoy all this microscopic examination of sentence structure and syntax? :)

Hopefully, I will make a lot of money doing just that.:)

[tv]

Hopefully, I will make a lot of money doing just that.:)

I hope you do. May the Lord have pity on the jurors in your cases. :)

[William Anthony]

I hope you do. May the Lord have pity on the jurors in your cases. :)

I won't have any on the witnesses. :)

[tv]

I won't have any on the witnesses. :)

I picture them with their hands over their ears, screaming "make him stop!"...:) A real Perry Mason moment.

[William Anthony]

I picture them with their hands over their ears, screaming "make him stop!"...:) A real Perry Mason moment.

My inquiry would be are you having some difficulty remembering that you are under oath to tell the truth to the best of your ability. :)

[tv]

My inquiry would be are you having some difficulty remembering that you are under oath to tell the truth to the best of your ability. :)

If that's your question right before they carry the witness out on a stretcher having a nervous breakdown you may not get an answer. :)

[William Anthony]

If that's your question right before they carry the witness out on a stretcher having a nervous breakdown you may not get an answer. :)

Then the question of credibility would be left up to the jury, providing they were not on accompanying stretchers.:)

[tv]

Then the question of credibility would be left up to the jury, providing they were not on accompanying stretchers.:)

I think it would a good idea for any court in which you try a case to have a disaster plan in place. Seriously. :)

[weezer]

I picture them with their hands over their ears, screaming "make him stop!"...:) A real Perry Mason moment.

LOL -- that would follow the WTF look on their faces. . .:eek:

[William Anthony]

I think it would a good idea for any court in which you try a case to have a disaster plan in place. Seriously. :)

Why Ms. Tvdinner,

I must thank you for this as I just realized that I might be able to retire off my first client, charging billable hours for the new trials.:)

[tv]

Why Ms. Tvdinner,

I must thank you for this as I just realized that I might be able to retire off my first client, charging billable hours for the new trials.:)

You're very welcome. :) Johnnie's firm made money off the civil trial as well now that I think about it.

[tv]

LOL -- that would follow the WTF look on their faces. . .:eek:

Yep, I'm picturing it! :D

[William Anthony]

You're very welcome. :) Johnnie's firm made money off the civil trial as well now that I think about it.

That socio political production was not of the magnificent one's making.:)

[William Anthony]

Yep, I'm picturing it! :D

They may not appreciate the madness of my method. :)

[tv]

They may not appreciate the madness of my method. :)

Few do. :)

[William Anthony]

Few do. :)

That hasn't stopped me yet. I stand on my win loss record.:)

[tv]

That hasn't stopped me yet. I stand on my win loss record.:)

Nothing stops you. Neither rain nor snow, nor sleet nor dark of night shall stay William Anthony from the long, agonizing completion of his flawed arguments. :)

[weezer]

Nothing stops you. Neither rain nor snow, nor sleet nor dark of night shall stay William Anthony from the long, agonizing completion of his flawed arguments. :)

LOL :beer:

[William Anthony]

Nothing stops you. Neither rain nor snow, nor sleet nor dark of night shall stay William Anthony from the long, agonizing completion of his flawed arguments. :)

Because you don't agree does not make them flawed, it just means that I must hone my power of persuasion skills. Thanks. We have spent an inordinate amount of time discussing my madness methods:). I suggest we get back to the trial before I expose all my secrets. :)

[tv]

LOL :beer:

:D :cool:

[William Anthony]

:D :cool:

I now understand the reason for your loyalty. :)

[tv]

Because you don't agree does not make them flawed, it just means that I must hone my power of persuasion skills. Thanks. We have spent an inordinate amount of time discussing my madness methods:). I suggest we get back to the trial before I expose all my secrets. :)

I'll gladly talk about the trial but I'm finished picking apart each word. I'm sure you agree. :)

[tv]

I now understand the reason for your loyalty. :)

Where I put my loyalty shouldn't concern you. I've stopped questioning the reasons for yours.

[William Anthony]

I'll gladly talk about the trial but I'm finished picking apart each word. I'm sure you agree. :)

By no means. Analysis of the testimony/evidence is the way to find a semblance of the truth, IMHO, giving proper attention to the rulings and deference to the jury on weight and credibility.

[William Anthony]

Where I put my loyalty shouldn't concern you. I've stopped questioning the reasons for yours.

Then my methods should not concern you but I haven't stopped questioning yours.:)

[tv]

Then my methods should not concern you but I haven't stopped questioning yours.:)

It really doesn't concern you. No one's picked my friends for many years. I enjoy weezer's posts and knowledge about the case. You'll just have to get over it. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

It really doesn't concern you. No one's picked my friends for many years. I enjoy weezer's posts and knowledge about the case. You'll just have to get over it. :shrug:

I see you misunderstand. I am not picking or trying to pick your friends for you. I just think that friends do not always expect you to agree with them.:)

[tv]

I see you misunderstand. I am not picking or trying to pick your friends for you. I just think that friends do not always expect you to agree with them.:)
I used to consider you my friend and we've disagreed on almost everything since I joined this forum. :)

[William Anthony]

I used to consider you my friend and we've disagreed on almost everything since I joined this forum. :)

Thanks for proving my point. :)

[tv]

Thanks for proving my point. :)

I never knew what point you were trying to make but I'm glad I could help you out.

[William Anthony]

I never knew what point you were trying to make but I'm glad I could help you out.

You reinforce my opinion of mankind in ways that you may never know.:)

[tv]

You reinforce my opinion of mankind in ways that you may never know.:)

The smile was added why?

[William Anthony]

The smile was added why?

Because it is pleasant.:)

[tv]

Because it is pleasant.:)

Sometimes I wish you wouldn't talk in circles. :)

[William Anthony]

Sometimes I wish you wouldn't talk in circles. :)

Believe it or not it is a family characteristic. We try to be diplomatic and then get upset when others miss what we are saying. Go figure.:)

[tv]

Believe it or not it is a family characteristic. We try to be diplomatic and then get upset when others miss what we are saying. Go figure.:)

You mean kind of like a faulty gene?

[William Anthony]

You mean kind of like a faulty gene?

I don't think others have a faulty gene. I just think they do want to hear the truth.:)