View Full Version : Key Testimony in the Civil Trial
I don't think others have a faulty gene. I just think they do want to hear the truth.:)
I thought we were still talking about your family and the common trait of circular reasoning. My mistake. :)
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 08:47 AM
I thought we were still talking about your family and the common trait of circular reasoning. My mistake. :)
Yes, that is your mistake as members of my family do not use circular reasoning. They do get accused of speaking in circles because they speak in parables or in sentences that have two connotations. :)
Yes, that is your mistake as members of my family do not use circular reasoning. They do get accused of speaking in circles because they speak in parables or in sentences that have two connotations. :)
You said you speak in a circular way so that's what I thought you meant. Are you talking more of double entendre? :)
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 08:54 AM
You said you speak in a circular way so that's what I thought you meant. Are you talking more of double entendre? :)
Speaking and thinking are two different things, in case you are unaware. I was taught that what comes up does not have to come out.:)
Speaking and thinking are two different things, in case you are unaware. I was taught that what comes up does not have to come out.:)
Speaking and thinking are two different things? Come on, William, now you're pulling my leg. :)
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 09:03 AM
Speaking and thinking are two different things? Come on, William, now you're pulling my leg. :)
Believe me, if I said everything I thought I would have been banned long ago and permanently.:)
Believe me, if I said everything I thought I would have been banned long ago and permanently.:)
As would I especially in the last two weeks. :)
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 09:21 AM
As would I especially in the last two weeks. :)
Ah, see you do understand. :)
Ah, see you do understand. :)
Of course. :)
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 09:32 AM
Of course. :)
That's what I suspected.
That's what I suspected.
As I suspect you understand certain things. :)
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 09:38 AM
As I suspect you understand certain things. :)
Things understood, don't have to be explained. :)
Things understood, don't have to be explained. :)
Exactly. :)
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 09:42 AM
Exactly. :)
Now, back to the socio political production.:)
Now, back to the socio political production.:)
Let's not forget the convicted perjurer and his deposition.
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 09:50 AM
Let's not forget the convicted perjurer and his deposition.
Do you mean where he took the 5th?
Do you mean where he took the 5th?
Why, of course! :)
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 02:01 PM
Why, of course! :)
Smart move on his part, don't you think?:)
weezer
05-12-2009, 02:09 PM
Smart move on his part, don't you think?:)
more of a lucky move for orenthal!
Smart move on his part, don't you think?:)
I'm sure he had his reasons for taking the 5th as did AC Cowlings. :)
I'm surprised that a student with a love of the law such as yourself would attach a negative conotation to the reasons a witness would exercise his 5th Amendment right. In reality, OJS also used his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination when he chose not to testify in the criminal trial.
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 02:16 PM
I'm sure he had his reasons for taking the 5th as did AC Cowlings. :)
I'm surprised that a student with a love of the law such as yourself would attach a negative conotation to the reasons a witness would exercise his 5th Amendment right. In reality, OJS also used his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination when he chose not to testify in the criminal trial.
I attached nothing negative to his taking of the 5th. I said it was a smart move on his part. Interestingly, you did not say whether you agreed or not but indicated that he had his reasons as AC did. We all know what the privilege protects, the right of a witness against self-incrimination.:)
I attached nothing negative to his taking of the 5th. I said it was a smart move on his part. Interestingly, you did not say whether you agreed or not but indicated that he had his reasons as AC did. We all know what the privilege protects, the right of a witness against self-incrimination.:)
You think you know what Mark Fuhrman's reasons were but it's AC's that intrigue me. I've said before what I think about AC's role in the aftermath of the murders so I won't make you read it again. :)
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 02:33 PM
You think you know what Mark Fuhrman's reasons were but it's AC's that intrigue me. I've said before what I think about AC's role in the aftermath of the murders so I won't make you read it again. :)
We both have our reasons for believing what we believe, life experiences. :)
We both have our reasons for believing what we believe, life experiences. :)
William, give me the name of someone that you believe is guilty of murder. Please don't make it some obscure case. I want to see if we agree and how it relates to life experience.
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 02:39 PM
William, give me the name of someone that you believe is guilty of murder. Please don't make it some obscure case. I want to see if we agree and how it relates to life experience.
The Menedez brothers.
The Menedez brothers.
Okay, I agree. What about our life experiences make us both think they're guilty and those same life experiences make us disagree about OJ Simpson? Something tells me I'm going to regret starting this discussion.
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 02:54 PM
Okay, I agree. What about our life experiences make us both think they're guilty and those same life experiences make us disagree about OJ Simpson? Something tells me I'm going to regret starting this discussion.
I think it is a matter of how we view the evidence. What I am saying is that there was no reason to believe that LE or the prosecution acted untoward in the Menendez trial. Here comes another story but a funny and recent one. Some of the men at my celebration, including me, decided to go to a bar and shoot pool. When we left the first bar there was a fight occurring outside. Not knowing if guns were going to be pulled, we hesitated before getting to our cars. A gun was pulled out by the police and we started toward the cars, when the police shouted freeze we immediately got against the bar wall. When it was safe, I asked could we leave now. When we left the second bar there was another incident when the police pulled a AK47, we hid behind the car. I think I related the story of when the police threw me to the ground and stuck a gun to my head. Once, my friend and I were pulled over and the police told us there had been a robbery and told me to open the trunk. The police had the gun pointed at my friend's head and the other officer stuck his gun in my back. Of course, they found nothing. Another time, they arrested me saying I fit the description of someone that was wanted. I was walking with my White girlfriend. After they handcuffed me, one of them said he should hit me with the baton. She jumped in front of me and they handcuffed and arrested her. The next morning they had us sign a waiver that we would not sue before they released us and no charges were brought in any of those incidents. Some Blacks have learned that the police are not their friends and are not there to serve and protect.
I think it is a matter of how we view the evidence. What I am saying is that there was no reason to believe that LE or the prosecution acted untoward in the Menendez trial. Here comes another story but a funny and recent one. Some of the men at my celebration, including me, decided to go to a bar and shoot pool. When we left the first bar there was a fight occurring outside. Not knowing if guns were going to be pulled, we hesitated before getting to our cars. A gun was pulled out by the police and we started toward the cars, when the police shouted freeze we immediately got against the bar wall. When it was safe, I asked could we leave now. When we left the second bar there was another incident when the police pulled a AK47, we hid behind the car. I think I related the story of when the police threw me to the ground and stuck a gun to my head. Once, my friend and I were pulled over and the police told us there had been a robbery and told me to open the trunk. The police had the gun pointed at my friend's head and the other officer stuck his gun in my back. Of course, they found nothing. Another time, they arrested me saying I fit the description of someone that was wanted. I was walking with my White girlfriend. After they handcuffed me, one of them said he should hit me with the baton. She jumped in front of me and they handcuffed and arrested her. The next morning they had us sign a waiver that we would not sue before they released us and no charges were brought in any of those incidents. Some Blacks have learned that the police are not their friends and are not there to serve and protect.
Have you ever considered changing neighborhoods?
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 03:07 PM
Have you ever considered changing neighborhoods?
Those incidents did not all occur in the same neighborhood. In fact, when the gun was stuck to my head, I was in a predominately White neighborhood. I have changed towns and states but wherever I go I am Black. :) Please, don't get me wrong. There have been police, who have assisted me and have given me breaks. It is just that being Black gives you a different perspective on things. I remember the incident when Vernon Jordan was at the airport, dressed in an Armani suit, IIRC, and a White man asked him to carry his bag. What I am saying is that experiences like this change the possible ways we view the evidence.
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 03:13 PM
Have you ever considered changing neighborhoods?
I don't think you meant it this way but in no neighborhood should any citizen feel that they can't trust and live in fear of the police.
Those incidents did not all occur in the same neighborhood. In fact, when the gun was stuck to my head, I was in a predominately White neighborhood. I have changed towns and states but wherever I go I am Black. :) Please, don't get me wrong. There have been police, who have assisted me and have given me breaks. It is just that being Black gives you a different perspective on things. I remember the incident when Vernon Jordan was at the airport, dressed in an Armani suit, IIRC, and a White man asked him to carry his bag. What I am saying is that experiences like this change the possible ways we view the evidence.
There are jerks in every walk of life and in every color. Some of them just happen to be members of law enforcement. I've been in a group of black women (teachers) where they ignored me, were sarcastic when they did speak to me and deliberately blocked my way etc., but one on one they were warm and friendly. Why did they feel the need to treat me differently when part of the group? I don't know why but it became part of my life experience.
I don't think you meant it this way but in no neighborhood should any citizen feel that they can't trust and live in fear of the police.
No I didn't mean it that way. I meant that those two bars seem to be a little rough around the edges and it might be wise to avoid them.
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 03:23 PM
There are jerks in every walk of life and in every color. Some of them just happen to be members of law enforcement. I've been in a group of black women (teachers) where they ignored me, were sarcastic when they did speak to me and deliberately blocked my way etc., but one on one they were warm and friendly. Why did they feel the need to treat me differently when part of the group? I don't know why but it became part of my life experience.
That is exactly what I mean. You may feel from that Blacks are a hostile group and view the evidence differently because of that experience, not saying that you do, but trying to show how different life experiences may play a part in how we view the evidence.
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 03:25 PM
No I didn't mean it that way. I meant that those two bars seem to be a little rough around the edges and it might be wise to avoid them.
Don't worry.:) A couple in our group wanted to go to another bar but I told them that the third time was a charm. My cousin laughed and said take him home, to my house. :)
That is exactly what I mean. You may feel from that Blacks are a hostile group and view the evidence differently because of that experience, not saying that you do, but trying to show how different life experiences may play a part in how we view the evidence.
I could believe that but I choose not to because I realize that they don't represent all black women.
Don't worry.:) A couple in our group wanted to go to another bar but I told them that the third time was a charm. My cousin laughed and said take him home, to my house. :)
Wise decision. The violence seemed to be escalating. It could have been third time is a charm or three strikes and you're out. :)
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 03:31 PM
I could believe that but I choose not to because I realize that they don't represent all black women.
I understand but it is different when a police person has the power to deprive you of your liberty and you are not sure, which type you are encountering. I forgot to tell you that the same policeman responded to both incidents. In the first he had a Glock 9 and the second an AK 47 and he was Black.:)
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 03:34 PM
Wise decision. The violence seemed to be escalating. It could have been third time is a charm or three strikes and you're out. :)
Mommy may have raised a fool, but she didn't raise a d*** fool.:)
I understand but it is different when a police person has the power to deprive you of your liberty and you are not sure, which type you are encountering. I forgot to tell you that the same policeman responded to both incidents. In the first he had a Glock 9 and the second an AK 47 and he was Black.:)
I agree with the abuse of power but I still think that cops like that are the exception rather than the rule. Was everyone involved black?
Mommy may have raised a fool, but she didn't raise a d*** fool.:)
I'm glad to hear that. :) That'a the difference between youth and maturity...you tend to avoid fights rather than run toward them. Or at least that's my (life) experience. :)
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 03:54 PM
I agree with the abuse of power but I still think that cops like that are the exception rather than the rule. Was everyone involved black?
No. In the fight there was a mixed couple, who were attacked by a White man and a Black Man and another Black man was acting like he was trying to break it up. I saw the Black man with the White girlfriend being robbed by the other three.
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 03:56 PM
I'm glad to hear that. :) That'a the difference between youth and maturity...you tend to avoid fights rather than run toward them. Or at least that's my (life) experience. :)
When I grew up two males could fight without weapons. That is not the case now, which is why we hesitated. At 38 I found that fighting was no longer fun, regardless or whether you won or lost.:)
No. In the fight there was a mixed couple, who were attacked by a White man and a Black Man and another Black man was acting like he was trying to break it up. I saw the Black man with the White girlfriend being robbed by the other three.
Robbed? Good heavens, it's getting worse as it goes along. I thought it was just a fight.
When I grew up two males could fight without weapons. That is not the case now, which is why we hesitated. At 38 I found that fighting was no longer fun, regardless or whether you won or lost.:)
I have to agree. Now you have to be careful what you say and do because they're packing heat out there! I'm particularly careful not to engage in road rage because people get killed that way.
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 04:09 PM
Robbed? Good heavens, it's getting worse as it goes along. I thought it was just a fight.
And I purposefully did not tell you what they took.:)
William Anthony
05-12-2009, 04:10 PM
I have to agree. Now you have to be careful what you say and do because they're packing heat out there! I'm particularly careful not to engage in road rage because people get killed that way.
Agreed.
OJ Simpson's lack of anger at the LAPD is amazing to me. This is from his civil trial deposition:
Q: well, did you ever support the Los Angeles Police Department?
A: I support them now.
Q: I'm--Was there any time you didn't support the Los Angeles Police Department?
A: Emotionally after I--some of the things that happened in this trial for a period of time, emotionally I blamed the whole force, but now I don't.
Q: Okay. But prior to June 12th, 1994 did you support the L A. Police Department?
A: Yes. And I still do.
Q: Okay. And you had no reason before June 12th, 1994 to think the Los Angeles Police Department didn't support you, did you?
MR. ROBERT BAKER: Well, I don't know that there's --that presupposes a whole bunch of things that I don't know that he would have any way of knowing.
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
MR. ROBERT BAKER: That calls for speculation. Instruct him not to answer.
William Anthony
05-13-2009, 12:21 PM
OJ Simpson's lack of anger at the LAPD is amazing to me. This is from his civil trial deposition:
Q: well, did you ever support the Los Angeles Police Department?
A: I support them now.
Q: I'm--Was there any time you didn't support the Los Angeles Police Department?
A: Emotionally after I--some of the things that happened in this trial for a period of time, emotionally I blamed the whole force, but now I don't.
Q: Okay. But prior to June 12th, 1994 did you support the L A. Police Department?
A: Yes. And I still do.
Q: Okay. And you had no reason before June 12th, 1994 to think the Los Angeles Police Department didn't support you, did you?
MR. ROBERT BAKER: Well, I don't know that there's --that presupposes a whole bunch of things that I don't know that he would have any way of knowing.
THE WITNESS: Yeah.
MR. ROBERT BAKER: That calls for speculation. Instruct him not to answer.
I think this says it all.
A: Emotionally after I--some of the things that happened in this trial for a period of time, emotionally I blamed the whole force, but now I don't.
I think this says it all.
A: Emotionally after I--some of the things that happened in this trial for a period of time, emotionally I blamed the whole force, but now I don't.
What changed his mind? It's obvious he's trying to open the door to planting and framing but his heart's just not in it. He knows it's not true.
William Anthony
05-13-2009, 02:55 PM
What changed his mind? It's obvious he's trying to open the door to planting and framing but his heart's just not in it. He knows it's not true.
The key is that he no longer "blames the whole force", which means he still blames some, IMHO.
The key is that he no longer "blames the whole force", which means he still blames some, IMHO.
Sorry, Mr. William "parse words" Anthony -- nowhere in that statement does he say he blames anyone in the police department.
William Anthony
05-13-2009, 05:45 PM
Sorry, Mr. William "parse words" Anthony -- nowhere in that statement does he say he blames anyone in the police department.
"...but now I don't". Don't what-"blame the whole force". Nowhere in that statement does he say that he doesn't blame some on the force, smile.
"...but now I don't". Don't what-"blame the whole force". Nowhere in that statement does he say that he doesn't blame some on the force, smile.
Your wishful thinking doesn't make it so. He never says he blames anyone in the force.
William Anthony
05-13-2009, 06:11 PM
Your wishful thinking doesn't make it so. He never says he blames anyone in the force.
I think you should reread his statement. :)
I think you should reread his statement. :)
I've read it several times. My opinion hasn't changed.
William Anthony
05-13-2009, 06:16 PM
I've read it several times. My opinion hasn't changed.
I didn't think it would.:)
i didn't think it would.:) :) :)
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 08:36 AM
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3975/is_200407/ai_n9454530/pg_5/?tag=content;col1
"When the attorney's role aids the 'process of reconstruction [rather] than one of recollection or recall,' he has stepped over the ethical boundary line that separates permissible preparation from impermissible coaching."78
weezer
05-14-2009, 09:19 AM
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3975/is_200407/ai_n9454530/pg_5/?tag=content;col1
"When the attorney's role aids the 'process of reconstruction [rather] than one of recollection or recall,' he has stepped over the ethical boundary line that separates permissible preparation from impermissible coaching."78
william, what is it called when the defense hides testimony/evidence?
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 09:24 AM
A discovery violation, which happens frequently. I have been reminded that we are discussing the socio political production, IMHO. What is it called when a defense is precluded from providing their client the best possible defense? Answer-a socio political production, IMHO.
weezer
05-14-2009, 10:09 AM
A discovery violation, which happens frequently. I have been reminded that we are discussing the socio political production, IMHO. What is it called when a defense is precluded from providing their client the best possible defense? Answer-a socio political production, IMHO.
hmmm -- I believe it's called 'sticking to the facts'. The defense was not precluded from providing the best defense -- they were told 'get after it' as soon as you show the court something resembling credible proof that any of that happened. The defense, of course, couldn't.
So far you've been unwilling to explain how the civil trial was a 'socio political production' -- are you now willing to tell what your definition of that phrase is?
"so·ci·o·po·li·ti·cal (sō'sē-ō-pə-lĭt'ĭ-kəl, -shē-)
adj. Involving both social and political factors."
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 10:22 AM
http://books.google.com/books?id=OewkAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA3787&lpg=PA3787&dq=it+is+the+province+of+the+jury+to+determine+cre dibility&source=bl&ots=TLA16K-W4s&sig=deElcK0eIuBsc2sJhmf-Ko74-T0&hl=en&ei=PycMSqH5E4S08ATfkcHQDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
It is the province of the judge to determine the law. Long ago in motions for summary judgment, a rather unique form of taking the case from the jury, the judge was allowed to weigh and give credibility to the evidence, thereby, blurring the roles. It is with this emphasis that I say the courts must be careful to avoid the appearance that trials are socio political productions, IMHO. By the way, the jury determines what the facts are, smile.
weezer
05-14-2009, 10:53 AM
http://books.google.com/books?id=OewkAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA3787&lpg=PA3787&dq=it+is+the+province+of+the+jury+to+determine+cre dibility&source=bl&ots=TLA16K-W4s&sig=deElcK0eIuBsc2sJhmf-Ko74-T0&hl=en&ei=PycMSqH5E4S08ATfkcHQDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
It is the province of the judge to determine the law. Long ago in motions for summary judgment, a rather unique form of taking the case from the jury, the judge was allowed to weigh and give credibility to the evidence, thereby, blurring the roles. It is with this emphasis that I say the courts must be careful to avoid the appearance that trials are socio political productions, IMHO. By the way, the jury determines what the facts are, smile.
do you agree that the jury should be presented with facts in order to determine what is evidence?
hmmm -- I believe it's called 'sticking to the facts'. The defense was not precluded from providing the best defense -- they were told 'get after it' as soon as you show the court something resembling credible proof that any of that happened. The defense, of course, couldn't.
So far you've been unwilling to explain how the civil trial was a 'socio political production' -- are you now willing to tell what your definition of that phrase is?
"so·ci·o·po·li·ti·cal (sō'sē-ō-pə-lĭt'ĭ-kəl, -shē-)
adj. Involving both social and political factors."
In reading the testimony, I've noticed that the planting and framing theories did come in but the defense wasn't able to expound on them because they had nothing to back it up. Even when OJ Simpson was asked if he had any explanation for how the blood got in the Bronco and mixed with the victims he said no.
weezer
05-14-2009, 11:47 AM
In reading the testimony, I've noticed that the planting and framing theories did come in but the defense wasn't able to expound on them because they had nothing to back it up. Even when OJ Simpson was asked if he had any explanation for how the blood got in the Bronco and mixed with the victims he said no.
LOL -- he could have said, "I scewed up!"
LOL -- he could have said, "I scewed up!"
LOL, he could have and it would have been the most believable thing he said. I really think he thought the jury would be impressed by his presence and find him not liable. I wonder if that's why Johnnie didn't participate. He knew there was no way he would win in a civil case.
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 12:22 PM
The jury is presented with evidence to determine the facts, not vice versa.
weezer
05-14-2009, 12:22 PM
LOL, he could have and it would have been the most believable thing he said. I really think he thought the jury would be impressed by his presence and find him not liable. I wonder if that's why Johnnie didn't participate. He knew there was no way he would win in a civil case.
I think cockroach only participated when money was going INTO his own pockets! :eek:
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 12:23 PM
In reading the testimony, I've noticed that the planting and framing theories did come in but the defense wasn't able to expound on them because they had nothing to back it up. Even when OJ Simpson was asked if he had any explanation for how the blood got in the Bronco and mixed with the victims he said no.
Why should he know?
weezer
05-14-2009, 12:25 PM
The jury is presented with evidence to determine the facts, not vice versa.
soooooooooooo -- you could get a lawyer like you that would go on and on for days and days presenting nonsense and the jury is suppose to be able to determine which is fact? I don't believe that's the way it works. But this scenario may be what tvdinner was talking about when she said 'have pity' on your jury! LOL
weezer
05-14-2009, 12:25 PM
Why should he know?
what a perfect time for him to say someone planted it!
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 12:26 PM
Some lawyers have different areas of expertise. Some are just generally have petro/oil running through their cells.;)
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 12:30 PM
Erroneous beliefs don't make them credible, simply because one believes them. There is a reason why the jury is called the trier of fact and the judge is called the trier of fact in a bench trial. Perhaps, a remedial course in Introduction to Law 101 would be a good idea.
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 12:33 PM
I think Simpson gave the right answer. It was up to the plaintiffs to prove how the blood got "in" the Bronco. I would have told them to review the testimony of MF for starters.
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 12:40 PM
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/477661/procedural-law/28422/The-common-law-trial-judge-and-jury
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trier+of+fact
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 12:54 PM
LOL, he could have and it would have been the most believable thing he said. I really think he thought the jury would be impressed by his presence and find him not liable. I wonder if that's why Johnnie didn't participate. He knew there was no way he would win in a civil case.
Maybe, the magnificent one knew he could not win in this socio political production. Thanks, for supporting GreenIce's and my opinions.:)
weezer
05-14-2009, 01:33 PM
Some lawyers have different areas of expertise. Some are just generally have petro/oil running through their cells.;)
you are exactly right! cockroach made his very good, rolls royce driving, mistress supporting, illegimate child making, wife abusing lifestyle suing the government --
do you think cockroach was the one that got orenthal's rolls?
weezer
05-14-2009, 01:35 PM
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/477661/procedural-law/28422/The-common-law-trial-judge-and-jury
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trier+of+fact
Admitting Evidence
The rules of civil procedure allow the attorneys to discover any information that may lead to admissible evidence. Some time before, or at the start of trial, the court will begin the process of reviewing the evidence that the attorneys plan to submit and determining, what, if any, of it is admissible. The rules for admissibility are much stricter for evidence in criminal cases because of the constitutional protections for the defendant. The outcome of many criminal cases is decided by the judge’s rulings on which evidence is admissible. For example, the judge may exclude a confession or a murder weapon because it was obtained improperly. Although the constitutional issues of improper search and self-incrimination are not a problem in civil trials, witnesses and other evidence may still be excluded if it is unduly prejudicial or if it does not meet the legal standards for credibility. Once evidence has been admitted, it is subject to cross- examination.
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 01:43 PM
I do not concern myself with what a lawyer gets paid as I am more interested in his courtroom prowess and his ethics in a courtroom. If interested in spiritual or moral guidance I would seek that from a minister.;) I don't think anyone should act unethically, greasy, oily as a lawyer. :)
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 02:04 PM
The rules for admissibility are much stricter for evidence in criminal cases because of the constitutional protections for the defendant...witnesses and other evidence may still be excluded if it is unduly prejudicial or if it does not meet the legal standards for credibility.
The judge in the socio political production made the rules stricter for the admissibility of evidence. The judge in the criminal trial allowed the evidence. However, let us not stop there. Let's look at how the civil judges usurped the power not only on the admissibility of evidence but deciding cases or taking them away from the jury via summary judgment motions, which effectively became motions in limine in part.
Let's look at the rulings in two of the earlier cases, Adickes and Cross.
Adickes v. S. H. Kress and Company
(b) Respondent did not carry out its burden, as the party moving for summary judgment of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact, as it did not foreclose the possibility that there was a policeman in the store while the petitioner was awaiting service (from which the jury could infer an understanding between the officer and an employee of respondent that petitioner not be served), and its failure to meet that burden requires reversal. Pp. 398 U. S. 153-159. (the court allowed inferences to be drawn by the evidence or lack thereof)
Cross v. United States F.2d 331
Summary judgment is particularly inappropriate where "the inferences which the parties seek to have drawn deal with questions of motive, intent and subjective feelings and reactions." (herein lies the reason to admit the evidence of planting)
Now let's look at the later cases, Celotex and Liberty Lobby, Inc.
Celotex v. Catrett
2. The questions whether an adequate showing of exposure to petitioner's products was in fact made by respondent in opposition to the motion, and whether such a showing, if reduced to admissible evidence, would be sufficient to carry respondent's burden of proof at trial, should be determined by the Court of Appeals in the first instance. Pp. 326-327.
The moving party is "entitled to a judgment as a matter of law" because the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof. "[T]h[e] standard [for granting summary judgment] mirrors the standard for a directed verdict under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) . . . ." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., ante, at 250. (the court has begun to usurp the function of the jury by ruling on the sufficiency, weight and credibility of the evidence)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby
“The question here is whether a reasonable jury could find either that the plaintiff proved his case by the quality and quantity of the evidence required by the governing law or that he did not. " (the court now usurped the weight and credibility of the evidence, jury functions and I ask you who interprets the governing law. In case, you don't know, its the courts. As Chief Justice John Marshall said in Marbury, it is our duty to say what the law is.)
You now may understand the problems I have with our judicial system. Long ago the court usurped the power of judicial review and they have extended that power to usurp the power of the jury. Anticipation and preparation, :).
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 02:40 PM
Ms. Tvdinner,
In regard to your comment about parsing words, I supply this for your review and add that is the stuff from which good lawyers are made. :)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-108.ZS.html
Why should he know?
Why pass up a perfect opportunity to float the planting/framing theory?
Ms. Tvdinner,
In regard to your comment about parsing words, I supply this for your review and add that is the stuff from which good lawyers are made. :)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-108.ZS.html
That was very interesting. I think in most instances when words and sentence structures are picked apart it's because there's nothing else to base the case on. I'm trying not to use the word desperation...:)
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 03:10 PM
That was very interesting. I think in most instances when words and sentence structures are picked apart it's because there's nothing else to base the case on. I'm trying not to use the word desperation...:)
I can understand your not understanding but it deals with the burden of proof and the intent of the legislature and what was the intent of the defendant. To try to overlook these things is improper without using the word desperation.:) As you now see this is the stuff that lawyers do and thanks for the recognition of my skills in that area. :)
fgump2
05-14-2009, 03:16 PM
The judge in the socio political production made the rules stricter for the admissibility of evidence. The judge in the criminal trial allowed the evidence. However, let us not stop there. Let's look at how the civil judges usurped the power not only on the admissibility of evidence but deciding cases or taking them away from the jury via summary judgment motions, which effectively became motions in limine in part.
Let's look at the rulings in two of the earlier cases, Adickes and Cross.
Adickes v. S. H. Kress and Company
(b) Respondent did not carry out its burden, as the party moving for summary judgment of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact, as it did not foreclose the possibility that there was a policeman in the store while the petitioner was awaiting service (from which the jury could infer an understanding between the officer and an employee of respondent that petitioner not be served), and its failure to meet that burden requires reversal. Pp. 398 U. S. 153-159. (the court allowed inferences to be drawn by the evidence or lack thereof)
Cross v. United States F.2d 331
Summary judgment is particularly inappropriate where "the inferences which the parties seek to have drawn deal with questions of motive, intent and subjective feelings and reactions." (herein lies the reason to admit the evidence of planting)
Now let's look at the later cases, Celotex and Liberty Lobby, Inc.
Celotex v. Catrett
2. The questions whether an adequate showing of exposure to petitioner's products was in fact made by respondent in opposition to the motion, and whether such a showing, if reduced to admissible evidence, would be sufficient to carry respondent's burden of proof at trial, should be determined by the Court of Appeals in the first instance. Pp. 326-327.
The moving party is "entitled to a judgment as a matter of law" because the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof. "[T]h[e] standard [for granting summary judgment] mirrors the standard for a directed verdict under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) . . . ." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., ante, at 250. (the court has begun to usurp the function of the jury by ruling on the sufficiency, weight and credibility of the evidence)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby
“The question here is whether a reasonable jury could find either that the plaintiff proved his case by the quality and quantity of the evidence required by the governing law or that he did not. " (the court now usurped the weight and credibility of the evidence, jury functions and I ask you who interprets the governing law. In case, you don't know, its the courts. As Chief Justice John Marshall said in Marbury, it is our duty to say what the law is.)
You now may understand the problems I have with our judicial system. Long ago the court usurped the power of judicial review and they have extended that power to usurp the power of the jury. Anticipation and preparation, :).
Whlen the civil jury decided the case against Mr. Simpson Johnnie Cochran said that Mr. Simpson should accept the verdict and move on. He didn't criticize the results or say that he thought Mr. Simpson was innocent. I suppose everyone on this board should move on also.
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 03:23 PM
Whlen the civil jury decided the case against Mr. Simpson Johnnie Cochran said that Mr. Simpson should accept the verdict and move on. He didn't criticize the results or say that he thought Mr. Simpson was innocent. I suppose everyone on this board should move on also.
This thread was started for those, who had an interest in discussing, IMHO, the socio political production. It is not for those who do not have that interest. I have accepted the verdict and have stated my reasons why. You have called my posts referring to the socio political production insulting and I have supported my reasons for so doing. After this post, I have chosen not to respond to any more of your posts, unless I feel compelled to so do, as I find them insulting and you choose to mention me by initials in most of your posts followed by some remarks I consider insulting. I shall follow the moderator's instructions and ignore your posts. It is my sincere hope that, if you find my posts insulting, you will, likewise, adhere to the moderator's instructions.
I can understand your not understanding but it deals with the burden of proof and the intent of the legislature and what was the intent of the defendant. To try to overlook these things is improper without using the word desperation.:) As you now see this is the stuff that lawyers do and thanks for the recognition of my skills in that area. :)
I'm sure you'll understand if I would prefer to be the judge of what I do or do not understand. :)
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 03:47 PM
I'm sure you'll understand if I would prefer to be the judge of what I do or do not understand. :)
What I meant by that is that the word desperation should not have remotely entered your though processes as this is the stuff that lawyers do. :)
What I meant by that is that the word desperation should not have remotely entered your though processes as this is the stuff that lawyers do. :)When I see a case where the main argument of one side is sentence structure and that's all they have to offer then I tend to think it's desperation. Example: Mark Fuhrman's use of the word 'them' in the criminal trial. Please don't take this as an invitation to a prolonged discussion about that particular segment of testimony. :)
weezer
05-14-2009, 04:04 PM
Whlen the civil jury decided the case against Mr. Simpson Johnnie Cochran said that Mr. Simpson should accept the verdict and move on. He didn't criticize the results or say that he thought Mr. Simpson was innocent. I suppose everyone on this board should move on also.
good point -- not the move on part but the observation regarding cockroach's reaction to the civil trial verdict.
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 04:10 PM
When I see a case where the main argument of one side is sentence structure and that's all they have to offer then I tend to think it's desperation. Example: Mark Fuhrman's use of the word 'them' in the criminal trial. Please don't take this as an invitation to a prolonged discussion about that particular segment of testimony. :)
That is why I say you don't understand. You see the party, who brings the law suit is required to prove every element of the claim. It is recognized that cross-examination is the greatest vehicle for the search for truth, which is why a lawyer should pay attention to each and every word that a witness says. The truth is often hidden in the words. MF was trained how to testify. He was trapped by the brilliant Bailey.
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 04:15 PM
There was a good reason why the magnificent one did not say that Simpson was innocent. The jury in the socio political production did not have the responsibility of deciding guilt or innocence.
weezer
05-14-2009, 04:17 PM
That is why I say you don't understand. You see the party, who brings the law suit is required to prove every element of the claim. It is recognized that cross-examination is the greatest vehicle for the search for truth, which is why a lawyer should pay attention to each and every word that a witness says. The truth is often hidden in the words. MF was trained how to testify. He was trapped by the brilliant Bailey.
you mean when flee switched from 'referred to any persons' to 'have not used'?
weezer
05-14-2009, 04:18 PM
There was a good reason why the magnificent one did not say that Simpson was innocent. The jury in the socio political production did not have the responsibility of deciding guilt or innocence.
cockroach never before, during or after the trial stated that he believed orenthal did not commit the murders.
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 04:24 PM
Neither the criminal trial nor the socio political production were held to render a verdict of innocent. With the verdict of not guilty in the criminal trial, the presumption of innocence was retained and has never detached, even through the socio political production. The magnificent one understood that he did not have to say it, IMHO.
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 04:25 PM
The brilliant Bailey caused MF to be convicted of perjury. ;)
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 04:32 PM
http://law.hofstra.edu/pdf/Academics/Journals/LawReview/lrv_issues_v35n04_i01.pdf
Here is an excellent article on the elements of a claim. I was taught that there were four elements that had to be proven in a negligence claim. I believe that the author here has a good point, as it allows proof of causation under two different theories. I am trying off the top of my head to remember the elements of proving the existence of a contract. I remember the following, an agreement, competency and consideration. I think there is one more that is escaping me. There was more that one that I forgot. There must be in addition an offer, an acceptance and formed for a legal purpose.
weezer
05-14-2009, 04:44 PM
The brilliant Bailey caused MF to be convicted of perjury. ;)
I don't agree with the brilliant part but he did maneuver the perjury charge.
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 04:59 PM
I don't agree with the brilliant part but he did maneuver the perjury charge.
The brilliant Bailey simply asked the question. MF maneuvered his way into the charge.
That is why I say you don't understand. You see the party, who brings the law suit is required to prove every element of the claim. It is recognized that cross-examination is the greatest vehicle for the search for truth, which is why a lawyer should pay attention to each and every word that a witness says. The truth is often hidden in the words. MF was trained how to testify. He was trapped by the brilliant Bailey.
Mark Fuhrman lied when he said he hadn't used the racial epithet in the last ten years. Bailey didn't touch him regarding the evidence or his role in the investigation.
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 06:23 PM
Mark Fuhrman lied when he said he hadn't used the racial epithet in the last ten years. Bailey didn't touch him regarding the evidence or his role in the investigation.
You are right as MF took the 5th.
You are right as MF took the 5th.
Obviously, you're not aware that there was quite a bit of testimony before he took the 5th. Maybe you need to refresh your memory by reading over the transcripts.
William Anthony
05-14-2009, 08:37 PM
Obviously, you're not aware that there was quite a bit of testimony before he took the 5th. Maybe you need to refresh your memory by reading over the transcripts.
I think these are the pertinent questions.
"MR. UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, was the testimony that you gave at the preliminary hearing in this case completely truthful?
DET. FUHRMAN: I wish to assert my 5th amendment privilege.
MR. UELMEN: Have you ever falsified a police report?
DET. FUHRMAN: I wish to assert my 5th amendment privilege.
MR. UELMEN: Is it your intention to assert your 5th amendment privilege with respect to all questions that I ask you?
DET. FUHRMAN: Yes.
MR. UELMEN: Can I have a moment?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. MOUNGER: Your Honor, further questions don't serve any purpose since my client has already answered that he will not answer any question and will assert his 5th amendment privilege. Anything further can only be a show.
MR. UELMEN: I only have one other question, your Honor.
THE COURT: What was that, Mr. Uelmen?
MR. UELMEN: Detective Fuhrman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?
DET. FUHRMAN: I assert my 5th amendment privilege."
weezer
05-14-2009, 09:44 PM
what would have happened to Fuhrman's protection under the privilege of the 5th amendment if he had answered any questions once he declared his 5th amendment right?
William Anthony
05-15-2009, 08:21 AM
What would have happened if MF decided to answer the question truthfully?
What would have happened if MF decided to answer the question truthfully?
I'm surprised a student of the law has to be reminded that if you invoke your 5th amendment privilege for one question you have to invoke it for all questions that follow. You give this forum the impression that he didn't answer any questions during the trial which is untrue. Bailey questioned him extensively and got nowhere. That's why he had to resort to dragging up a racial epithet he used eight years previously.
William Anthony
05-15-2009, 10:01 AM
I'm surprised a student of the law has to be reminded that if you invoke your 5th amendment privilege for one question you have to invoke it for all questions that follow. You give this forum the impression that he didn't answer any questions during the trial which is untrue. Bailey questioned him extensively and got nowhere. That's why he had to resort to dragging up a racial epithet he used eight years previously.
Maybe to you the brilliant Bailey got nowhere but to others his cross examination was brilliant. The brilliant Bailey got him to admit that there was no evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters before him and that he investigated the area looking for signs of someone being back there, that he had baggies available to transport the glove from Bundy to Rockingham that the glove appeared sticky, IIRC, several hours later, that he said them when he was asked specifically about seeing one glove and that he said he saw blood in the Bronco at a time that he could not have seen blood in the Bronco, to name a few.
William Anthony
05-15-2009, 10:06 AM
The brilliant Bailey got in evidence of MF's motive, means and opportunity to plant the glove and when asked if he planted evidence in this case, MF took the 5th. A law student does not have to be reminded what asserting the 5th amendment privilege means as Dean Uelmen asked MF the first question was did he lie under oath in this case, which he could have said yes, because he was subsequently convicted of perjury anyway and could have answered the rest of the questions truthfully or opted to take the 5th a latter time.
weezer
05-15-2009, 10:14 AM
Maybe to you the brilliant Bailey got nowhere but to others his cross examination was brilliant. The brilliant Bailey got him to admit that there was no evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters before him and that he investigated the area looking for signs of someone being back there, that he had baggies available to transport the glove from Bundy to Rockingham that the glove appeared sticky, IIRC, several hours later, that he said them when he was asked specifically about seeing one glove and that he said he saw blood in the Bronco at a time that he could not have seen blood in the Bronco, to name a few.
Furhman testified -- there was no great acts on flee's part that had Fuhrman 'admitting' to squat. Fuhrman testified as to what he saw and was told.
Sooooooooo, your theory is that Fuhrman framed orenthal but wasn't smart enough to set the stage for things like 'signs of someone being back there' or the appearance of the blood on the glove? riiiiight. . . .;)
William Anthony
05-15-2009, 10:44 AM
MF was more far, far, far, far more arrogant than intelligent, IMHO. :)
MF was more far, far, far, far more arrogant than intelligent, IMHO. :)
Want to try for one more far? :biggrin:
weezer
05-15-2009, 12:37 PM
I'm surprised a student of the law has to be reminded that if you invoke your 5th amendment privilege for one question you have to invoke it for all questions that follow. You give this forum the impression that he didn't answer any questions during the trial which is untrue. Bailey questioned him extensively and got nowhere. That's why he had to resort to dragging up a racial epithet he used eight years previously.
I understand he wants to be a defense lawyer -- should do well --
I understand he wants to be a defense lawyer -- should do well --
William likes to talk about rights under the law but he only applies it to some people. He doesn't recognize that Mark Fuhrman has the same rights as OJ Simpson and Al Cowlings when it comes to self-incrimination. I guess if he likes you he thinks you have rights but if he doesn't he assigns a different standard.
weezer
05-15-2009, 02:22 PM
William likes to talk about rights under the law but he only applies it to some people. He doesn't recognize that Mark Fuhrman has the same rights as OJ Simpson and Al Cowlings when it comes to self-incrimination. I guess if he likes you he thinks you have rights but if he doesn't he assigns a different standard.
oh I don't think it has anything to do with 'like' -- but a whole lot to do with 'what'. ;)
weezer
05-15-2009, 02:24 PM
MF was more far, far, far, far more arrogant than intelligent, IMHO. :)
I would say he's at least on equal footing with flee for arrogance and intelligence except of course, Fuhrman retired and flee was fired! :tongue:
William Anthony
05-15-2009, 05:41 PM
Want to try for one more far? :biggrin:
Here's two for you, far far.:)
William Anthony
05-15-2009, 05:42 PM
William likes to talk about rights under the law but he only applies it to some people. He doesn't recognize that Mark Fuhrman has the same rights as OJ Simpson and Al Cowlings when it comes to self-incrimination. I guess if he likes you he thinks you have rights but if he doesn't he assigns a different standard.
The privilege is equal for all. I simply pointed to the questions asked MF. :)
William Anthony
05-15-2009, 05:43 PM
America seems to be selective as to who gets punished and who gets rewarded.
fgump2
05-15-2009, 06:53 PM
That is why I say you don't understand. You see the party, who brings the law suit is required to prove every element of the claim. It is recognized that cross-examination is the greatest vehicle for the search for truth, which is why a lawyer should pay attention to each and every word that a witness says. The truth is often hidden in the words. MF was trained how to testify. He was trapped by the brilliant Bailey.
I don't think it took brilliance for Bailey to trap Fuhrman on the use of a racial insult. It took dillegence for somebody, possibly a paralegal, to discover that Fuhrman had used racial insults. Once they had discovered that, it was nickel dime stuff to trap him. The only hitch would have been if Fuhrman had shown more descretion, and been less empahtic and said something like " I don't think so, but maybe I have, if so it was wrong". I think public opinion polls at the time showed that the MF testimony didn't change verly many people's opinions, just gave the pro defense people something to talk about.
To comment on another point about the not very mag- one. The concept of legal innocence in a felony trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. For most people, if they think that there was a 90% certainty that Orenthal killed two people, that would be reasonable doubt. Orenthal was a public figure who made money off of public relations, it would have been an advantage to have people think he was probably innocent, not just 10% chance he was innocent.
I think that Cochran seldom expressed the view that Orenthal was innocent. I think he probably implied Orenthal was innocent when he was getting money from the killer, but after that, I don't think that he ever said much, if anything, that indicated he thought Orenthal was innocent. To my way of thinking he implied he thought Orenthal was guilty at least twice after the civil trial.
William Anthony
05-15-2009, 07:07 PM
I don't think it took brilliance for Bailey to trap Fuhrman on the use of a racial insult. It took dillegence for somebody, possibly a paralegal, to discover that Fuhrman had used racial insults. Once they had discovered that, it was nickel dime stuff to trap him. The only hitch would have been if Fuhrman had shown more descretion, and been less empahtic and said something like " I don't think so, but maybe I have, if so it was wrong". I think public opinion polls at the time showed that the MF testimony didn't change verly many people's opinions, just gave the pro defense people something to talk about.
To comment on another point about the not very mag- one. The concept of legal innocence in a felony trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. For most people, if they think that there was a 90% certainty that Orenthal killed two people, that would be reasonable doubt. Orenthal was a public figure who made money off of public relations, it would have been an advantage to have people think he was probably innocent, not just 10% chance he was innocent.
I think that Cochran seldom expressed the view that Orenthal was innocent. I think he probably implied Orenthal was innocent when he was getting money from the killer, but after that, I don't think that he ever said much, if anything, that indicated he thought Orenthal was innocent. To my way of thinking he implied he thought Orenthal was guilty at least twice after the civil trial.
I think it was a private investigator that found the evidence against MF. The private investigator nor the paralegal was qualified to ask questions of the witness in a court of law. The brilliant Bailey asked the questions that trapped MF. If there was a juke box in an Eagles behind, there would be sweet music in the air. :)
There is no concept of legal finding of innocence in a criminal trial, which I am sure the magnificent one understood, but made use of a poorly crafted jury instruction, which stated that, if there are two different views of the evidence and one points to guilt and the other to innocence, the jury had to accept the one that pointed to innocence. The concept of legal proof in a a criminal trial is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution must provide evidence from which it can be inferred that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in order to rebut the presumption of innocence.
He was not required to prove his innocence but the prosecution was required to prove his guilt. Judging from the posters, who have posted on this forum, it would have been an insurmountable task to prove his innocence to some.:)
Do you mean that a Killer paid the magnificent one to defend Simpson? Who was that killer? :)
William Anthony
05-17-2009, 06:56 AM
Did the civil jurors paid any attention to the changing/molding of Park's and Kato's testimonies?
weezer
05-17-2009, 09:02 PM
Did the civil jurors paid any attention to the changing/molding of Park's and Kato's testimonies?
so far, the only person that makes the claim of changing/molding testimony is you william so I guess the answer to your question would be 'no'. :shrug:
William Anthony
05-18-2009, 06:58 AM
Ah, it is not quite true, since one poster, who has been referred to as the esteemed one and a comment has been made that this poster, who has a command of the testimony, acknowledges that Park changed his testimony, then the civil jury must not have been paying as much attention as it should have or maybe there was an agenda that I have not yet considered.
weezer
05-18-2009, 01:27 PM
Ah, it is not quite true, since one poster, who has been referred to as the esteemed one and a comment has been made that this poster, who has a command of the testimony, acknowledges that Park changed his testimony, then the civil jury must not have been paying as much attention as it should have or maybe there was an agenda that I have not yet considered.
so do you think the criminal jury was capable of understanding when cockroach promised witness that he couldn't produce, and flee told the court he and a witness had a conversation that didn't take place, and criminal defense team members were fined and sanctioned for concealing/hiding/lying about evidence?
William Anthony
05-18-2009, 03:01 PM
I have been reminded that this thread is about the socio political production, which stars a somewhat greasy-like named individual as plaintiff's lawyer.
weezer
05-18-2009, 03:03 PM
I have been reminded that this thread is about the socio political production, which stars a somewhat greasy-like named individual as plaintiff's lawyer.
hmmm -- you have an affinity for cockroaches but not grease -- go figure.
I have been reminded that this thread is about the socio political production, which stars a somewhat greasy-like named individual as plaintiff's lawyer.
William, you are a person very concerned with racism and ethnic slurs. Why do you keep referring to Daniel Petrocelli, who is of Italian descent, as greasy? Are you unaware that a derogatory term for Italians is greaseball or is it a sly way for you to denigrate him?
William Anthony
05-18-2009, 05:00 PM
William, you are a person very concerned with racism and ethnic slurs. Why do you keep referring to Daniel Petrocelli, who is of Italian descent, as greasy? Are you unaware that a derogatory term for Italians is greaseball or is it a sly way for you to denigrate him?
I have never heard of Italians being referred to as greaseballs. I was referring to the Petro in his name. I am as not as well versed in racial or ethnic slurs as some seem to be.
William Anthony
05-18-2009, 05:01 PM
I prefer cockroaches and grease over many things.
I have never heard of Italians being referred to as greaseballs. I was referring to the Petro in his name. I am as not as well versed in racial or ethnic slurs as some seem to be.
Now that you've been duly informed I hope you'll find something else to call him.
William Anthony
05-18-2009, 05:17 PM
Now that you've been duly informed I hope you'll find something else to call him.
I will call him whatever I like with the notation that it is not about his race. Thanks.
William Anthony
05-18-2009, 05:23 PM
William, you are a person very concerned with racism and ethnic slurs. Why do you keep referring to Daniel Petrocelli, who is of Italian descent, as greasy? Are you unaware that a derogatory term for Italians is greaseball or is it a sly way for you to denigrate him?
Perhaps, you are unaware that Blacks use the words grimy and greasy to connote someone one or some thing that has acted in a dirty manner. He is greasy. What he did was greasy.
I will call him whatever I like with the notation that it is not about his race. Thanks.
Oh, I see. It's okay for you to insist that people not use everyday terms that aren't meant in a derogatory way but the rules are different for you? I told you my use of boy and fried chicken wasn't about race but that was unacceptable to you. I'd appreciate the same consideration.
By the way, nothing Daniel Petrocelli did was dirty in any way. He was the attorney for the plaintiff, Fred Goldman, and exposed OJ Simpson once an for all for the lying POS that he is.
William Anthony
05-18-2009, 05:49 PM
Oh, I see. It's okay for you to insist that people not use everyday terms that aren't meant in a derogatory way but the rules are different for you? I told you my use of boy and fried chicken wasn't about race but that was unacceptable to you. I'd appreciate the same consideration.
By the way, nothing Daniel Petrocelli did was dirty in any way. He was the attorney for the plaintiff, Fred Goldman, and exposed OJ Simpson once an for all for the lying POS that he is.
You sure have a different memory of things than I do. Once Martin and I explained to you why we saw the term boy as offensive when used to address US, you defended it and also the use of the fried chicken remark. However, if Petrocelli finds it racially offensive, then let him say so.
I have posted what he did that was greasy, or shall I say what Park testified he did that was greasy. :)
You sure have a different memory of things than I do. Once Martin and I explained to you why we saw the term boy as offensive when used to address US, you defended it and also the use of the fried chicken remark. However, if Petrocelli finds it racially offensive, then let him say so.
I have posted what he did that was greasy, or shall I say what Park testified he did that was greasy. :)
I defended it but I stopped using it in this forum. I'll have to admit I'm somewhat disappointed in your response. I thought once you realized it's offensive you'd refrain from using it. I doubt that you'll be hearing from Mr. Petrocelli but there are others that read here that might be offended.
William Anthony
05-18-2009, 06:19 PM
I defended it but I stopped using it in this forum. I'll have to admit I'm somewhat disappointed in your response. I thought once you realized it's offensive you'd refrain from using it. I doubt that you'll be hearing from Mr. Petrocelli but there are others that read here that might be offended.
Oh, then I see you do understand that the term boy was directed to Martin and me. You see, I have not defended my use of it but said that, if I continued to use it, I would notate that it had nothing to do with race. You and others said that your use of those terms had nothing to do with race but never indicated that, if you did use it, you would include it had nothing to do with race. See the difference? One might think the continued use of such terms without the noted exception was an intentional use to inflame.
fgump2
05-18-2009, 06:23 PM
I have never heard of Italians being referred to as greaseballs. I was referring to the Petro in his name. I am as not as well versed in racial or ethnic slurs as some seem to be.
Why not refer to it as witness tampering or leading the witness? That is what you mean isn't it?
I don't think Petrocelli was guilty of witness tampering. Was the defense team of 1995 guilty of tampering with R. Lopez's testimony, to change the time she knew for sure the bronco was at the Simpson Rockingham home? I thought they were, but I can't find any evidence of it.
Dr. W. Huizinga compared Orenthal SImpson's suffering to the suffering of the biblical character Job. I am guessing he wouldn't have made that comparison if the defense lawyers hadn't encouraged that line of thinking. I suppoe the book 'An American Tragedy' might give some idea on where that comparison came from.
You sometimes have a rather indirect and insulting way of saying things. Instead of writing that you disaprove of some of the judicial decisions in the civil trial you call it a socio political production, instead of witness tampering, or leading the witness, you call Petrocelli greasy.
William Anthony
05-18-2009, 06:30 PM
Why not refer to it as witness tampering or leading the witness? That is what you mean isn't it?
I don't think Petrocelli was guilty of witness tampering. Was the defense team of 1995 guilty of tampering with R. Lopez's testimony, to change the time she knew for sure the bronco was at the Simpson Rockingham home? I thought they were, but I can't find any evidence of it.
Dr. W. Huizinga compared Orenthal SImpson's suffering to the suffering of the biblical character Job. I am guessing he wouldn't have made that comparison if the defense lawyers hadn't encouraged that line of thinking. I suppoe the book 'An American Tragedy' might give some idea on where that comparison came from.
You sometimes have a rather indirect and insulting way of saying things. Instead of writing that you disaprove of some of the judicial decisions in the civil trial you call it a socio political production, instead of witness tampering, or leading the witness, you call Petrocelli greasy.
I don't know why when I am reminded that this is the thread for a discussion of the socio political production that others fell compelled to bring in things from the criminal trial.:shrug::)
When you decide where the biblical reference comes from, please, inform us?
I think it is called coaching a witness. I am not calling Petrocelli greasy but his tactics as testified to by Park.
weezer
05-18-2009, 09:51 PM
I don't know why when I am reminded that this is the thread for a discussion of the socio political production that others fell compelled to bring in things from the criminal trial.:shrug::)
When you decide where the biblical reference comes from, please, inform us?
I think it is called coaching a witness. I am not calling Petrocelli greasy but his tactics as testified to by Park.
boy oh boy -- (not a racial slur)
GreenIce
05-18-2009, 10:47 PM
[QUOTE=fgump2;9191209] I don't think Petrocelli was guilty of witness tampering. Was the defense team of 1995 guilty of tampering with R. Lopez's testimony, to change the time she knew for sure the bronco was at the Simpson Rockingham home?
fgump2,
This is not true. It was a defense investigator who made the mistake when he thought it took 5 minutes to make a cup of tea in the microwave. However, her testimony was not soley based on seeing the Bronco. It also had to do with what she heard that night and her interview with MF the next morning.
GreenIce
05-18-2009, 10:51 PM
I have never heard of Italians being referred to as greaseballs. I was referring to the Petro in his name. I am as not as well versed in racial or ethnic slurs as some seem to be.
William,
Have you ever seen the movie "Goodfellas"? The term "greaseball" is used in it.
Oh, then I see you do understand that the term boy was directed to Martin and me. You see, I have not defended my use of it but said that, if I continued to use it, I would notate that it had nothing to do with race. You and others said that your use of those terms had nothing to do with race but never indicated that, if you did use it, you would include it had nothing to do with race. See the difference? One might think the continued use of such terms without the noted exception was an intentional use to inflame.
To be honest I don't remember how the argument about the word boy (not a racial slur) started. All I know is I've never used it as a racial slur and if I posted it I wouldn't have any ulterior motives. Just as you say blacks use the word greasy to mean dirty -- weezer and I both told you that in the south grown men are regularly called boys and it was a term we'd used all our lives without any racial meaning attached to it. That wasn't acceptable to you if you will recall. Now, you want to use the word greasy with impunity. Does the hypocrisy ever end?
boy oh boy -- (not a racial slur)
You can say that again! There must be some interesting civil trial testimony we can discuss. Got any ideas what we should focus on?
William Anthony
05-19-2009, 05:58 AM
William,
Have you ever seen the movie "Goodfellas"? The term "greaseball" is used in it.
I have seen the movie but don't remember any of the words. :)
William Anthony
05-19-2009, 06:02 AM
To be honest I don't remember how the argument about the word boy (not a racial slur) started. All I know is I've never used it as a racial slur and if I posted it I wouldn't have any ulterior motives. Just as you say blacks use the word greasy to mean dirty -- weezer and I both told you that in the south grown men are regularly called boys and it was a term we'd used all our lives without any racial meaning attached to it. That wasn't acceptable to you if you will recall. Now, you want to use the word greasy with impunity. Does the hypocrisy ever end?
It started when Martin and I were referred to as boys. I have stated that, if I used the word greasy, which is not greaseball, I would say that I am not using it as a racial slur. No such negation was offered or used by posters, who used the word boy after Martin's and my protestations. Do you see the hypocrisy?
William Anthony
05-19-2009, 06:03 AM
You can say that again! There must be some interesting civil trial testimony we can discuss. Got any ideas what we should focus on?
How about Petrocelli's coaching of Park?
weezer
05-19-2009, 07:46 AM
Today would have been Nicole's 50th birthday. RIP :rose:
She's been gone a long time. I hope she found the peace in death she didn't have in life. :rose:
I don't know why when I am reminded that this is the thread for a discussion of the socio political production that others fell compelled to bring in things from the criminal trial.:shrug::)
When you decide where the biblical reference comes from, please, inform us?
I think it is called coaching a witness. I am not calling Petrocelli greasy but his tactics as testified to by Park.
If you want to read Dr. Huizenga's reference to Job I'll put it in the other thread since it's from the criminal trial. It amuses me that the good Dr. thinks the only person that's suffered more than OJ Simpson is Job...but then he doesn't know you, William. :)
William Anthony
05-19-2009, 12:54 PM
If you want to read Dr. Huizenga's reference to Job I'll put it in the other thread since it's from the criminal trial. It amuses me that the good Dr. thinks the only person that's suffered more than OJ Simpson is Job...but then he doesn't know you, William. :)
It was not Job's suffering but his faith and patience that made him great. That seems to be misunderstood.
weezer
05-19-2009, 12:59 PM
It was not Job's suffering but his faith and patience that made him great. That seems to be misunderstood.
and now a theologian -- wow
William Anthony
05-19-2009, 01:34 PM
Thomas Paine.
fgump2
05-21-2009, 12:17 AM
I have been reminded that this thread is about the socio political production, which stars a somewhat greasy-like named individual as plaintiff's lawyer.
**************************
Cochran got some kind of official reprimand for breaking the mutual discovery law/rule in the criminal trial. I ithink he did it twice. That is more serious than Petrocelli being criticized for leading the witness. For one thing leading the witness is a subjective mistake, different judges may interpret it differently. It may also be less premeditated. Breaking the discovery law, which I think Cochran did twice is more serious.
For anyone to say that Petrocelli leading the witness once makes him bad, while praising both Cochran and Bailey shows a double standard; a lack of integrity. It is especially lbad for people who call Cochran the magnificent one.
William Anthony
05-21-2009, 05:46 AM
**************************
Cochran got some kind of official reprimand for breaking the mutual discovery law/rule in the criminal trial. I ithink he did it twice. That is more serious than Petrocelli being criticized for leading the witness. For one thing leading the witness is a subjective mistake, different judges may interpret it differently. It may also be less premeditated. Breaking the discovery law, which I think Cochran did twice is more serious.
For anyone to say that Petrocelli leading the witness once makes him bad, while praising both Cochran and Bailey shows a double standard; a lack of integrity. It is especially lbad for people who call Cochran the magnificent one.
I reiterate a couple of things, which are that I have been reminded that this thread is to discuss things related to the socio politicial production of which the magnificent one was not a part but the oily one, who unethically coached the witness, not lead the witness, was.
weezer
05-21-2009, 08:42 AM
I reiterate a couple of things, which are that I have been reminded that this thread is to discuss things related to the socio politicial production of which the magnificent one was not a part but the oily one, who unethically coached the witness, not lead the witness, was.
boy (no racial slur) you really have a problem!
boy (no racial slur) you really have a problem!
William's disclaimer idea just might work out -- he's had worse ones. :)
William Anthony
05-21-2009, 09:32 AM
William's disclaimer idea just might work out -- he's had worse ones. :)
That's right. I have. However, the oily one is in regard to Petrocelli's tactics as you both very well know.:)
weezer
05-21-2009, 11:46 AM
That's right. I have. However, the oily one is in regard to Petrocelli's tactics as you both very well know.:)
understood -- and when I use the word 'boy' it's a phrase used in the south that carries no racial connotation. Gee, that was easy to reach an understanding wasn't it?
understood -- and when I use the word 'boy' it's a phrase used in the south that carries no racial connotation. Gee, that was easy to reach an understanding wasn't it?
This new meeting of the minds between you and William is so heartwarming -- it's so nice when everyone's happy! :rose:
weezer
05-21-2009, 02:03 PM
This new meeting of the minds between you and William is so heartwarming -- it's so nice when everyone's happy! :rose:
I know I feel better - - -
William Anthony
05-21-2009, 03:39 PM
This new meeting of the minds between you and William is so heartwarming -- it's so nice when everyone's happy! :rose:
I will be looking for her disclaimer as I will provide when I use the term grease ball or greasy. :)
fgump2
05-21-2009, 04:20 PM
I reiterate a couple of things, which are that I have been reminded that this thread is to discuss things related to the socio politicial production of which the magnificent one was not a part but the oily one, who unethically coached the witness, not lead the witness, was.
I will try to shift the comparison between Cochran and Petrocelli to the random thread.
William Anthony
05-21-2009, 04:36 PM
I will try to shift the comparison between Cochran and Petrocelli to the random thread.
Thanks and I believe that is a fitting place for such a discussion.
weezer
05-21-2009, 05:02 PM
Thanks and I believe that is a fitting place for such a discussion.
you going to start following your own advice and direction? Seems to me that the trials overlap and either/or trial could be discussed on either/or thread.
"Did the civil jurors paid any attention to the changing/molding of Park's and Kato's testimonies?
__________________
Doc Holiday"
William Anthony
05-21-2009, 06:31 PM
Did a poster forget this?
I think it would be an interesting exercise if we simply post evidence/testimony to debate/discuss the trial.
William Anthony
06-03-2009, 02:12 PM
This is another reason why I call the socio political production a socio political production.
http://www.ehlinelaw.com/pages/3093/Wrongful-Death-Survival-Action-Differences.htm
William Anthony
06-06-2009, 10:17 AM
A. I waited until finally, the white male came and opened the gate for me.
Q. And is this the same white male that you had seen previously?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is the very next time that you had seen him, right?
A. Yes.
(Indicating to Exhibit 116.)
Q. You -- can you tell us by walking up to Exhibit 116 and pointing out where the white male walked up to and how the white male opened the gate for you?
A. He came up the driveway from this direction, and he didn't come up to the gate and open it manually. He -- I guess where it says control box, somewhere over in that area, he hit a button or what-not, and the gate opened.
"Q. All right. Now, then you -- some minutes later Mr. Kaelin opens the gate for you?
A. About a minute.
Q. Okay. So you saw him at the point where the green arrow is on the exhibit, and you then -- there was no other activity, you looked away, and approximately a minute later you see Mr. Kaelin at the gate control box, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you don't know what happened to Mr. Kaelin during the whole other time, right?
A. Don't really care.
Q. Okay. And whether you care or not, you don't know?
A. Don't know.
Q. And in that 60 seconds you hadn't observed him walking in any direction, north, south, east, or west, or any variations thereof, true?
A. True.
Originally Posted by William Anthony
That's right. I have. However, the oily one is in regard to Petrocelli's tactics as you both very well know.
Calling a adult black man BOY has racial conotations regardless of where it is used.
You pulled this quote from William out from 5/21 -- 16 days ago. The only explanation for why you have brought this up now is to inflame feelings between posters. Deepwater has asked for forum members to be more respectful of each other. Some of us are trying to comply with her request.
martin II
06-06-2009, 04:50 PM
You pulled this quote from William out from 5/21 -- 16 days ago. The only explanation for why you have brought this up now is to inflame feelings between posters. Deepwater has asked for forum members to be more respectful of each other. Some of us are trying to comply with her request.
Wrong
my post is in response to a poster saying calling a man boy is accepted in the south without racial conatations. my post was to show that i dissagree especially when the man is a adult black person.
you may dissagree with my position and that is your right to do so but i balieve that most informed adults looking at the history of this offensive word when directed at adult black men understand the negative intent and reject its use regardless of their national location. i don't remember reading the post you refer to.imo
martin II
06-06-2009, 05:10 PM
This is another reason why I call the socio political production a socio political production.
http://www.ehlinelaw.com/pages/3093/Wrongful-Death-Survival-Action-Differences.htm
William
Thanks for this link.It supports my long standing position that civil trials are only about money.Money and as much money as possible.This civil trial was also about the politicks and public opinion in LA based mainly on who the defendant and the victims were. imo.
martin II
06-06-2009, 05:27 PM
You pulled this quote from William out from 5/21 -- 16 days ago. The only explanation for why you have brought this up now is to inflame feelings between posters.I don't think i have to but i have explained the reason for my post so you saying the'ONLY EXPLANATION is to inflame posters is obviously a unsupported opinion of yours and is not the only explanation for my post. Deepwater has asked for forum members to be more respectful of each other. Some of us are trying to comply with her request.
Thanks.
Wrong
my post is in response to a poster saying calling a man boy is accepted in the south without racial conatations. my post was to show that i dissagree especially when the man is a adult black person.
you may dissagree with my position and that is your right to do so but i balieve that most informed adults looking at the history of this offensive word when directed at adult black men understand the negative intent and reject its use regardless of their national location. i don't remember reading the post you refer to.imo
The moderator has removed your original post from this morning that quoted William from May 21. Maybe now we can move on and not discuss a subject from 16 days ago that only serves to cause bad feelings between posters.
martin II
06-06-2009, 06:21 PM
A. I waited until finally, the white male came and opened the gate for me.
Q. And is this the same white male that you had seen previously?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is the very next time that you had seen him, right?
A. Yes.
(Indicating to Exhibit 116.)
Q. You -- can you tell us by walking up to Exhibit 116 and pointing out where the white male walked up to and how the white male opened the gate for you?
A. He came up the driveway from this direction, and he didn't come up to the gate and open it manually. He -- I guess where it says control box, somewhere over in that area, he hit a button or what-not, and the gate opened.
"Q. All right. Now, then you -- some minutes later Mr. Kaelin opens the gate for you?
A. About a minute.
Q. Okay. So you saw him at the point where the green arrow is on the exhibit, and you then -- there was no other activity, you looked away, and approximately a minute later you see Mr. Kaelin at the gate control box, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you don't know what happened to Mr. Kaelin during the whole other time, right?
A. Don't really care.
Q. Okay. And whether you care or not, you don't know?
A. Don't know.
Q. And in that 60 seconds you hadn't observed him walking in any direction, north, south, east, or west, or any variations thereof, true?
A. True.
More testimony that Park did not see Kato run to or from the garage area.He only saw him STILL STANDING ON THAT SIDEWALK before Kato opened the gate.Kato heard the noise at 10;45 and the fact that Park saw two duffle bags at the door when he drove in that oj had just brought down from upstairs means that oj was in the house when Park first arrived until oj came back down to get into the limo. imo
martin II
06-06-2009, 06:38 PM
The moderator has removed your original post from this morning that quoted William from May 21. Maybe now we can move on and not discuss a subject from 16 days ago that only serves to cause bad feelings between posters.
i did not know there was a rule against responding to post 16 days ago.some days ago you called william and myself old fools which i ignored.That is the best couse of actions for me.
martin II
06-06-2009, 07:34 PM
William
You have done a great job explaining and proving the time Kato heard the noise 10;45, which Kato and his girlfriend agrees with. Anyway one cuts it
or try to twist it Park had no idea that Kato had ran to the garage area and returned to the Ashford gate to let him in.imo
Thanks.
I'm glad we've cleared the air. Now we can get back to discussing the case instead of reopening old wounds. :)
William Anthony
06-07-2009, 06:40 AM
William
You have done a great job explaining and proving the time Kato heard the noise 10;45, which Kato and his girlfriend agrees with. Anyway one cuts it
or try to twist it Park had no idea that Kato had ran to the garage area and returned to the Ashford gate to let him in.imo
Thank you, Martin
To them that have eyes let them see and read and to those that have ears let them hear.
weezer
06-07-2009, 07:04 PM
Johnnie Cochran
"a litigator who'd taken the cases people said he might win when hell freezes over, then laughed all the way to the bank when the multimillion-dollar verdicts came rolling in."
:shrug:
William Anthony
06-08-2009, 06:26 AM
Ah, the magnificence of the magnificent one.:rose: :rose:
weezer
06-08-2009, 09:22 AM
psst -- don't tell martin -- he believes that civil trials are wrong.
"martin II
Criime Library Supreme Member Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 13,986
William
Thanks for this link.It supports my long standing position that civil trials are only about money.Money and as much money as possible.This civil trial was also about the politicks and public opinion in LA based mainly on who the defendant and the victims were. imo."
:shrug:
William Anthony
06-08-2009, 09:57 AM
Isn't that the way most of America views success, through the money and power one has?
Since socal rightfully pointed out that the OJ In The News thread had gone off topic I thought I'd post this here. It's Petrocelli questioning Jason Simpson in the civil trial -- wonder why OJ Simpson didn't flat out deny they were his?
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Is that what you heard him say?
A: I heard him say, "I don't know where they found those gloves," something like, "I don't know where they found those gloves or if they're even my gloves at all."
Q: And when did you hear O.J. Simpson say that?
A: I think it was at a-I think it was in jail or something.
Q: And to whom did he say that?
A: He was just saying it to whoever was in the room.
Q: And who was in the room besides you and O.J. Simpson?
A: I think Nicole Pulvers, me. I think that was it.
weezer
08-27-2009, 06:26 PM
Jason Simpson's deposition:
Mr. Petrocelli:
Q: Do you remember your father saying, "I loved her too much"?
A: I remember hearing my dad say that once, but I couldn't tell you when it was.
When did you hear your dad say, "I loved her too much"?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I just answered. I just said I couldn't tell you when.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: But it was sometime after her death. Right?
A: I don't know. I guess.
Q: At the funeral or at the wake?
A: I don't recall. Honestly.
martin II
08-27-2009, 06:34 PM
psst -- don't tell martin -- he believes that civil trials are wrong.
"martin II
Criime Library Supreme Member Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 13,986
William
Thanks for this link.It supports my long standing position that civil trials are only about money.Money and as much money as possible.This civil trial was also about the politicks and public opinion in LA based mainly on who the defendant and the victims were. imo."
:shrug:
Most civil trials in America are about money.Extracting money from the defendant.That is why imo the level of proof required is so low or lower that a criminal trial.
martin II
08-27-2009, 06:45 PM
Jason Simpson's deposition:
Mr. Petrocelli:
Q: Do you remember your father saying, "I loved her too much"?
A: I remember hearing my dad say that once, but I couldn't tell you when it was.
When did you hear your dad say, "I loved her too much"?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I just answered. I just said I couldn't tell you when.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: But it was sometime after her death. Right?
A: I don't know. I guess.
Q: At the funeral or at the wake?
A: I don't recall. Honestly.
If Jason responded that he couldn't tell you when, that means he does not remember when he heard oj say those words so what id the purpose of Peter asking him again.Jason finally responded in the same way i don't recall.
The other thing is that OJ saying i loved her too much only means he thought he loved her too much nothing else and was sorry that she had been killed by someone. It is not possible to get blood out of a turnip no matter how much one would like to.
martin II
08-27-2009, 06:49 PM
Since socal rightfully pointed out that the OJ In The News thread had gone off topic I thought I'd post this here. It's Petrocelli questioning Jason Simpson in the civil trial -- wonder why OJ Simpson didn't flat out deny they were his?
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Is that what you heard him say?
A: I heard him say, "I don't know where they found those gloves," something like, "I don't know where they found those gloves or if they're even my gloves at all."
Q: And when did you hear O.J. Simpson say that?
A: I think it was at a-I think it was in jail or something.
Q: And to whom did he say that?
A: He was just saying it to whoever was in the room.
Q: And who was in the room besides you and O.J. Simpson?
A: I think Nicole Pulvers, me. I think that was it.
OJ actually said he didn't know who the gloves belonged to and have no idea where they got them from.The proof on his statement is that the gloves did not fit his hands.
martin II
08-27-2009, 06:55 PM
Johnnie Cochran
"a litigator who'd taken the cases people said he might win when hell freezes over, then laughed all the way to the bank when the multimillion-dollar verdicts came rolling in."
:shrug:
Someone has to bring justice to people that have been abused by le.JC did this and gave victims money for what they had been made to go through. He is intitled to make money as any other lawyer does. Good for him.
martin II
08-27-2009, 06:58 PM
I'm glad we've cleared the air. Now we can get back to discussing the case instead of reopening old wounds. :)
For success or inlightment one must know what happened in the past to understand the present.
GreenIce
08-27-2009, 11:53 PM
OJ actually said he didn't know who the gloves belonged to and have no idea where they got them from.The proof on his statement is that the gloves did not fit his hands.
Martin,
I agree with you on this. I am pretty sure that Simpson learned about the gloves through the media. I don't remember him being asked about them during his police interview. Since was he was the prime suspect, wouldn't it be logical for Simpson to believe that the police thought they were his gloves?
Also, the police did find gloves in Simpson's home and they took them out but I don't remember if they took them into evidence. I believe they were left on coffee table or something.
What I find odd is that by not taking the gloves in Simpson's home, IMO, they knew the gloves weren't the murder gloves were not the same size and/or that the murder gloves were "old", they were very worn but the gloves they found in Simpson's home were not worn and torn. Again, IMO.
martin II
08-28-2009, 09:46 AM
Martin,
I agree with you on this. I am pretty sure that Simpson learned about the gloves through the media. I don't remember him being asked about them during his police interview. Since was he was the prime suspect, wouldn't it be logical for Simpson to believe that the police thought they were his gloves?
Also, the police did find gloves in Simpson's home and they took them out but I don't remember if they took them into evidence. I believe they were left on coffee table or something.
What I find odd is that by not taking the gloves in Simpson's home, IMO, they knew the gloves weren't the murder gloves were not the same size and/or that the murder gloves were "old", they were very worn but the gloves they found in Simpson's home were not worn and torn. Again, IMO.
I think that if any of the gloves le looked at at ojs house were the size of the murder gloves le would have brought them to court.The fact that they didn't
indicates that ojs house glover were all larger and the DA decided to just try to wing it in court using Rubin
Jason Simpson's deposition:
Mr. Petrocelli:
Q: Do you remember your father saying, "I loved her too much"?
A: I remember hearing my dad say that once, but I couldn't tell you when it was.
When did you hear your dad say, "I loved her too much"?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I just answered. I just said I couldn't tell you when.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: But it was sometime after her death. Right?
A: I don't know. I guess.
Q: At the funeral or at the wake?
A: I don't recall. Honestly. There's the 'I loved her too much' theme again. I can recall several people that he's told the same thing.
I don't understand how you can love someone too much. Is there a point when you love someone that you can go too far in the amount of love you have and it makes you kill them?
William Anthony
08-28-2009, 10:04 AM
There's the 'I loved her too much' theme again. I can recall several people that he's told the same thing.
I don't understand how you can love someone too much. Is there a point when you love someone that you can go too far in the amount of love you have and it makes you kill them?
You don't hurt the one you love, IMHO.
weezer
08-28-2009, 11:00 AM
There's the 'I loved her too much' theme again. I can recall several people that he's told the same thing.
I don't understand how you can love someone too much. Is there a point when you love someone that you can go too far in the amount of love you have and it makes you kill them?
I think this was his way of excusing what he'd done. Jason and ac both testified that they couldn't say whether or not orenthal was very jealous of Nicole but both did testify that he was controlling. Since we know that the loss of control is what drives the abuser to more violent and/or lethal responses, it would follow that when Nicole said she was through and when orenthal's IRS threat only made her mad, he lost all semblence of self control.
William Anthony
08-28-2009, 11:09 AM
I think this might have been Simpson's way of expressing his feelings for Ms. NBS and the difficulty he would have living without her, knowing that someone had murdered the mother of two of his children. I use might have been, because I am not convinced as to what he meant. That inexact language thing, again.
I think this was his way of excusing what he'd done.
I find his statement of loving her too much incompatible with being completely over her. They just don't fit. :shrug:
William Anthony
08-28-2009, 11:20 AM
I have known men, who loved women too much. Those men only ended up hurting themselves while in the relationship as they were often too jealous and suspicious of the woman. It is after they have resigned themselves to the fact that the relationship is completely over that the make the statement, I loved ( past tense) her too much. They do not say that they love her too much, if they have resigned themselves to the fact that the relationship is over.
weezer
08-28-2009, 11:28 AM
I find his statement of loving her too much incompatible with being completely over her. They just don't fit. :shrug:
most people find his actions/words do not support the 'he had moved on'. the bronco ride, the suicide note, and threats of suicide aren't the reactions to 'I loved her too much' -- they were certainly the reactions/words of a guilty person.
most people find his actions/words do not support the 'he had moved on'. the bronco ride, the suicide note, and threats of suicide aren't the reactions to 'I loved her too much' -- they were certainly the reactions/words of a guilty person.
I completely agree. The Bronco chase screamed with guilt on his part. Petrocelli was smart to make sure it was a part of the civil trial.
William Anthony
08-28-2009, 11:50 AM
Tvdinner,
I am completely at a loss, as I thought that you said you remained of the thought that Simpson was innocent and expected someone else to be arrested when you saw the bronco chase, although you said Simpson did not become a suspect in you mind until the bronco chase and you weren't firmly convinced he did it. However, you now say the bronco chase screamed of guilt.:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: Can you please explain?
weezer
08-28-2009, 12:24 PM
I completely agree. The Bronco chase screamed with guilt on his part. Petrocelli was smart to make sure it was a part of the civil trial.
I think what I appreciated most about the civil trial was that we finally got to see evidence and hear testimony that relevent to the case. and, of course, orenthal's lies finally caught up to him.
William Anthony
08-28-2009, 12:30 PM
It is too arduous for me to attempt to discern what evidence is relevant to the nonexistent animal of basically a civil murder trial. I would venture the best legal scholars would have a hard time making any knowledgeable and intelligent conclusion as to what evidence would be relevant to that nonexistent animal.
martin II
08-28-2009, 01:06 PM
I completely agree. The Bronco chase screamed with guilt on his part. Petrocelli was smart to make sure it was a part of the civil trial.
OJ decided that he was not ready to turn himself in.That he wanted to visit Nicoles grave first. He did that and then headed to his house as le had asked him to do. If he had been seen on a highway to Mexico or canada or at LAX then we could assume that he was fleeing. But he wasn't.
martin II
08-28-2009, 01:13 PM
I think what I appreciated most about the civil trial was that we finally got to see evidence and hear testimony that relevent to the case. and, of course, orenthal's lies finally caught up to him.
i guess i can assume that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not revelant to the case.
weezer
08-28-2009, 01:29 PM
Petrocelli: "The single biggest advantage that we enjoyed in this civil case was that we had the ability to call O.J. Simpson to the stand and force him to testify."
While the trial itself wasn't televised, some of Simpson's testimony was recorded. Petrocelli claims the tapes capture Simpson lying about virtually every key issue in the case -- starting with the cuts on his hands.
Tape:
Question: "How did you suffer the cut on your middle finger?"
Simpson: "I broke a glass when I was in Chicago."
Remember that well-publicized story about Simpson cutting his hand on a broken glass in a Chicago hotel room? That's what Simpson said under oath during the civil trial.
Tape:
Question: "Exactly how did you cut it with the glass?
Simpson: "I was trying to scoop the glass into the sink.
But Petrocelli says there was plenty of evidence that's not really the way it happened, including Simpson's very first interview with police the day after the murders. Although he mentioned Chicago, he told detectives he cut himself before that, back has his house.
Petrocelli: "He said, ‘I got it at my house last night, while I was rushing to get ready to go to the airport.’ This is all on a tape.
Tape:
Simpson: "It was cut before, but I think I just opened it again. I'm not sure ..."
LAPD: "Do you recall bleeding at all in the -- in your truck, in the Bronco?"
Simpson: "I recall bleeding at my house and then I went to the -- the Bronco."
Simpson remembered bleeding, but wasn't sure why.
Tape:
LAPD: "How did you get the injury on your hand?"
Simpson: "I don't know. "
Petrocelli: "So Simpson admitted to the detectives that he suffered a major wound to his finger that dripped blood all over his house, at the very same time that the murders occurred. And when they asked him, ‘Okay, well how did you get that cut?’ He said, ‘I don't know man.’"
Tape:
LAPD: "What do you think happened? Do you have any idea?"
Simpson: "I have no idea, man."
And it wasn't just one cut. There were others -- made by fingernails, Petrocelli argued, as Simpson's victims fought for their lives.
Phillips: "Not just a big one on his one finger."
Petrocelli: "He had 10 other smaller cuts, for a total of 11. And when I asked him, repeatedly, how he got those cuts, he was unable to tell the jury."
weezer
08-28-2009, 01:30 PM
And then there was the issue of whether Simpson ever abused Nicole. Simpson flatly denied it.
Tape: "Never once did I ever hit her with my fist, ever … Never once have I ever slapped Nicole."
Petrocelli: "That stands out as one of the most powerful moments of the trial. We put up a big image on a television screen, of a photograph of Nicole Brown Simpson. She had that photograph, preserved by putting it in a safe deposit box."
Phillips: "This was the 1989 incident?"
Petrocelli: "This was a New Year's Eve 1989 beating that she suffered at the hands of Simpson."
A screaming woman had called 911. Police found Nicole cowering in the bushes outside. Simpson was charged with spousal battery and pleaded no contest.
Petrocelli: "And there was a very vivid photograph of it. And we displayed the photograph that was within two feet of where Simpson was sitting on the witness stand."
Phillips: "It was withering questioning. ‘How many times did you strike Nicole?’ ‘Never.’ ‘How many times did you slap Nicole?’ ‘Never.’ ‘How many times did you beat her, sir?’ ‘Never.’
Petrocelli: "And yet the jury could see, looking at this pitiful picture of this woman who now lay dead in the grave, that she had been beaten to a pulp. And Simpson was lying to the jury about probably the most important issue in the case."
weezer
08-28-2009, 01:31 PM
And there were the shoes.
Tape:
Question: "Do you know why the shoe prints found at Bundy matched Bruno Magli shoes?"
Simpson: "No."
Instead of focusing on the bloody gloves, like at the criminal trial, Petrocelli focused on those rare size-12 Bruno Magli shoes. Under oath, Simpson had claimed he never wore them.
Tape:
Question: "Did you ever buy shoes that you knew were Bruno Magli shoes?"
Simpson: "No."
Question: "How do you know that?"
Simpson: "Because I know if Bruno Magli makes shoes that look like the shoes they had in court that's involved in this case, I would have never worn those ugly ass shoes."
Simpson claimed that a single photograph that seemed to show him wearing the murder shoes was a fake --but midway through the trial, there was a dramatic development.
Phillips: "There was a Christmas recess during the civil trial, and you got a little present sent during the break."
Petrocelli: "Well wouldn't you know, someone delivered 31 additional photographs of Simpson wearing the murder shoes."
Photographers covering the Buffalo Bills had taken them nine months before the murder, photo after photo with Simpson in the same "ugly ass" shoes.
Petrocelli: "So we called him back to the stand and we said, ‘Now Mr. Simpson, you said that this first photograph was doctored. Are you saying the next one is doctored, and the next one?’ And we proceeded to show him picture after picture, until the jurors couldn't even look at him anymore. And they started looking down at their shoes. And it was as obvious as it could possibly be that a witness was lying."
William Anthony
08-28-2009, 01:41 PM
“Petrocelli claims the tapes capture Simpson lying….But Petrocelli says ….There were others -- made by fingernails, Petrocelli argued….Petrocelli: And yet the jury could see, looking at this pitiful picture of this woman who now lay dead in the grave, that she had been beaten to a pulp. And Simpson was lying to the jury about probably the most important issue in the case….Petrocelli:…And it was as obvious as it could possibly be that a witness was lying."
And we know how Petrocelli tends to brag. Simpson was not convicted of perjury.
martin II
08-28-2009, 01:56 PM
And there were the shoes.
Tape:
Question: "Do you know why the shoe prints found at Bundy matched Bruno Magli shoes?"
Simpson: "No."
Instead of focusing on the bloody gloves, like at the criminal trial, Petrocelli focused on those rare size-12 Bruno Magli shoes. Under oath, Simpson had claimed he never wore them.
Tape:
Question: "Did you ever buy shoes that you knew were Bruno Magli shoes?"
Simpson: "No."
Question: "How do you know that?"
Simpson: "Because I know if Bruno Magli makes shoes that look like the shoes they had in court that's involved in this case, I would have never worn those ugly ass shoes."
Simpson claimed that a single photograph that seemed to show him wearing the murder shoes was a fake --but midway through the trial, there was a dramatic development.
Phillips: "There was a Christmas recess during the civil trial, and you got a little present sent during the break."
Petrocelli: "Well wouldn't you know, someone delivered 31 additional photographs of Simpson wearing the murder shoes."
Photographers covering the Buffalo Bills had taken them nine months before the murder, photo after photo with Simpson in the same "ugly ass" shoes.
Petrocelli: "So we called him back to the stand and we said, ‘Now Mr. Simpson, you said that this first photograph was doctored. Are you saying the next one is doctored, and the next one?’ And we proceeded to show him picture after picture, until the jurors couldn't even look at him anymore. And they started looking down at their shoes. And it was as obvious as it could possibly be that a witness was lying."
As much as petro is loved by some even he could not produce the shoes he claimed made the prints. He asked the jury to believe him
William Anthony
08-28-2009, 02:44 PM
As much as petro is loved by some even he could not produce the shoes he claimed made the prints. He asked the jury to believe him
Martin,
As I did not follow the socio political production, do you know, if the plaintiffs put on witnesses to lay a foundation for the admissibility of the additional 31 photos or did the judge loosen the rules for them?
martin II
08-28-2009, 03:00 PM
Martin,
As I did not follow the socio political production, do you know, if the plaintiffs put on witnesses to lay a foundation for the admissibility of the additional 31 photos or did the judge loosen the rules for them?
I am not sure but the plaintiff did pretty much what they wanted to do which is why i quickly lost interest in that set up trial.The jury was allowed to hear only what the plaintiff lawyer thought they should hear.It was only about money for the plaintiffs which has not been collected as yet and oj cannot do much money making where he is. Unless he gets out on parol.
Jail is maby a good place to write a book.
William Anthony
08-28-2009, 03:47 PM
I am not sure but the plaintiff did pretty much what they wanted to do which is why i quickly lost interest in that set up trial.The jury was allowed to hear only what the plaintiff lawyer thought they should hear.It was only about money for the plaintiffs which has not been collected as yet and oj cannot do much money making where he is. Unless he gets out on parol.
Jail is maby a good place to write a book.
I would have thought that it would have taken some time to lay the proper foundation. Simpson has made $6,075.00 without lifting a finger.
William Anthony
08-28-2009, 06:48 PM
October 2 5th in the socio political production-Mr. Tanner is the witness.
I found it interesting that the judge reconsider his own ruling and stated the following after the cross was finished.
“MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli, I'm going to reconsider my ruling on the
question with regards to whether or not Goldman stated what his intent
was under 1251. It's not available. I think this comes within the
state of mind and statement of intent exception. Go ahead and ask.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q. Did Mr. Goldman tell you that he was going to see Nicole Brown
Simpson for a date?
A. No.
Q. To your knowledge, were they dating?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. That calls for hearsay, speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: No, he wasn't dating Nicole at all.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: No further questions.
THE COURT: Thank you. You're excused.”
I then looked up the evidence code referred to, which states the following in part (b)
“1251. Subject to Section 1252, evidence of a statement of the
declarant's state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation (including
a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or
bodily health) at a time prior to the statement is not made
inadmissible by the hearsay rule if:
(a) The declarant is unavailable as a witness; and
(b) The evidence is offered to prove such prior state of mind,
emotion, or physical sensation when it is itself an issue in the
action and the evidence is not offered to prove any fact other than
such state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation.”
I do not think it was an issue in the action as to whether or not they were dating and, consequently, the testimony was inadmissible, IMHO. As you can see the defense never suggested on cross that they were dating. I think this was just the court's desire to ensure that the jury believed the relationship between the victims was platonic.
"CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:
Q. Morning, Mr. Tanner. My name is Dan Leonard. I represent O.J.
Simpson.
A. Morning.
Q. Did you have a beeper?
A. Do I have one?
Q. Did you have one then?
A. Not at that time, no.
Q. You were planning to meet with Mr. Goldman and another gentleman at
the restaurant over in --
A. Marina Del Rey.
Q. Okay. And what time were you planning to meet?
A. There was no specific time.
Q. Mr. Goldman didn't have an automobile; is that right?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. He didn't own a car?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. You were interviewed by the police on a single occasion; is
that right?
A. I was interviewed, well, Monday, the 13th.
Q. Um-hum.
A. That would be correct. And in the early evening, one time only,
yes.
Q. And how long did that interview last?
A. Possibly in the neighborhood of 15, 20 minutes.
Q. Do you remember now, as you sit here today, everything that the
police asked you in that interview?
A. No, I couldn't say that. I mean, it was three years ago.
MR. LEONARD: If I may approach, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. LEONARD: This is on page 368.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Let me show you a document and ask you if -- I'd
like you to read the document -- ask you if that refreshes your
recollection as to what you were asked by the police.
(Witness reviews document.)
A. Okay.
Q. Does that refresh your memory, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it fair to say that the police asked you about Ron Goldman's
activities and whereabouts on the night of the 12th?
A. Correct.
Q. And that's all they asked you about, correct?
A. Yeah. I mean, they could have asked me more. I don't know if
there's more to this report or not.
Q. That's all you remember, right?
A. Right.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you."
William Anthony
08-28-2009, 08:31 PM
October 2 5th in the socio political production-Mr. Tanner is the witness.
I found it interesting that the judge reconsider his own ruling and stated the following after the cross was finished.
“MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli, I'm going to reconsider my ruling on the
question with regards to whether or not Goldman stated what his intent
was under 1251. It's not available. I think this comes within the
state of mind and statement of intent exception. Go ahead and ask.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q. Did Mr. Goldman tell you that he was going to see Nicole Brown
Simpson for a date?
A. No.
Q. To your knowledge, were they dating?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. That calls for hearsay, speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: No, he wasn't dating Nicole at all.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: No further questions.
THE COURT: Thank you. You're excused.”
I then looked up the evidence code referred to, which states the following in part (b)
“1251. Subject to Section 1252, evidence of a statement of the
declarant's state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation (including
a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or
bodily health) at a time prior to the statement is not made
inadmissible by the hearsay rule if:
(a) The declarant is unavailable as a witness; and
(b) The evidence is offered to prove such prior state of mind,
emotion, or physical sensation when it is itself an issue in the
action and the evidence is not offered to prove any fact other than
such state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation.”
I do not think it was an issue in the action as to whether or not they were dating and, consequently, the testimony was inadmissible, IMHO. As you can see the defense never suggested on cross that they were dating. I think this was just the court's desire to ensure that the jury believed the relationship between the victims was platonic.
"CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:
Q. Morning, Mr. Tanner. My name is Dan Leonard. I represent O.J.
Simpson.
A. Morning.
Q. Did you have a beeper?
A. Do I have one?
Q. Did you have one then?
A. Not at that time, no.
Q. You were planning to meet with Mr. Goldman and another gentleman at
the restaurant over in --
A. Marina Del Rey.
Q. Okay. And what time were you planning to meet?
A. There was no specific time.
Q. Mr. Goldman didn't have an automobile; is that right?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. He didn't own a car?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. You were interviewed by the police on a single occasion; is
that right?
A. I was interviewed, well, Monday, the 13th.
Q. Um-hum.
A. That would be correct. And in the early evening, one time only,
yes.
Q. And how long did that interview last?
A. Possibly in the neighborhood of 15, 20 minutes.
Q. Do you remember now, as you sit here today, everything that the
police asked you in that interview?
A. No, I couldn't say that. I mean, it was three years ago.
MR. LEONARD: If I may approach, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. LEONARD: This is on page 368.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Let me show you a document and ask you if -- I'd
like you to read the document -- ask you if that refreshes your
recollection as to what you were asked by the police.
(Witness reviews document.)
A. Okay.
Q. Does that refresh your memory, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it fair to say that the police asked you about Ron Goldman's
activities and whereabouts on the night of the 12th?
A. Correct.
Q. And that's all they asked you about, correct?
A. Yeah. I mean, they could have asked me more. I don't know if
there's more to this report or not.
Q. That's all you remember, right?
A. Right.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you."
Correction-I found it interesting that the judge reconsidered...
GreenIce
08-29-2009, 12:10 AM
OJ decided that he was not ready to turn himself in.That he wanted to visit Nicoles grave first. He did that and then headed to his house as le had asked him to do. If he had been seen on a highway to Mexico or canada or at LAX then we could assume that he was fleeing. But he wasn't.
Martin,
IMO, had Simpson turned himself in, the very same people who claim that he was running from the police, would say by turning himself, he was conceding that he was guilty. Why would he willing surrender to the police if he was innocent and knew he was being framed?
Also, Simpson and his lawyers already knew there was no place he could run. He was too famous as well as every avenue out of the country was already on alert to prevent this from happening. His money was frozen. Where could he go?
martin II
08-29-2009, 09:46 AM
Martin,
IMO, had Simpson turned himself in, the very same people who claim that he was running from the police, would say by turning himself, he was conceding that he was guilty. Why would he willing surrender to the police if he was innocent and knew he was being framed?
Also, Simpson and his lawyers already knew there was no place he could run. He was too famous as well as every avenue out of the country was already on alert to prevent this from happening. His money was frozen. Where could he go?
Nowhere but to Nicoles grave and home.Which is exactly what he did.
GreenIce
08-29-2009, 02:08 PM
Nowhere but to Nicoles grave and home.Which is exactly what he did.
Martin,
I agree with you and I think that is another reason why the DA's did not introduce the Bronco Chase. Had they entered this into evidence, then all the facts and telephone conversations Simpson had would have come into evidence.
Also, it was an escape attempt, AC Cowlings would have been arrested and he would have went on trial for his part. IMO, I think they tried to lean on AC to flip on Simpson and when they realized that he nothing to "flip", they dropped the charges. Again, IMO.
martin II
08-29-2009, 04:00 PM
Martin,
I agree with you and I think that is another reason why the DA's did not introduce the Bronco Chase. Had they entered this into evidence, then all the facts and telephone conversations Simpson had would have come into evidence.
Also, it was an escape attempt, AC Cowlings would have been arrested and he would have went on trial for his part. IMO, I think they tried to lean on AC to flip on Simpson and when they realized that he nothing to "flip", they dropped the charges. Again, IMO.
Darden was the one that held the investigation of AC. He couldn't find anything so he was told to drop it. There was nothing about the Bronco ride or anything that oj said that the prosecution thought they could use.
bobaugust
08-29-2009, 04:07 PM
Nowhere but to Nicoles grave and home.Which is exactly what he did.
Sure he did after his failed attempt to kill himself at the Bel Air Church.
bobaugust
martin II
08-29-2009, 04:10 PM
October 2 5th in the socio political production-Mr. Tanner is the witness.
I found it interesting that the judge reconsider his own ruling and stated the following after the cross was finished.
“MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli, I'm going to reconsider my ruling on the
question with regards to whether or not Goldman stated what his intent
was under 1251. It's not available. I think this comes within the
state of mind and statement of intent exception. Go ahead and ask.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q. Did Mr. Goldman tell you that he was going to see Nicole Brown
Simpson for a date?
A. No.
Q. To your knowledge, were they dating?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. That calls for hearsay, speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.
THE WITNESS: No, he wasn't dating Nicole at all.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: No further questions.
THE COURT: Thank you. You're excused.”
I then looked up the evidence code referred to, which states the following in part (b)
“1251. Subject to Section 1252, evidence of a statement of the
declarant's state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation (including
a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, or
bodily health) at a time prior to the statement is not made
inadmissible by the hearsay rule if:
(a) The declarant is unavailable as a witness; and
(b) The evidence is offered to prove such prior state of mind,
emotion, or physical sensation when it is itself an issue in the
action and the evidence is not offered to prove any fact other than
such state of mind, emotion, or physical sensation.”
I do not think it was an issue in the action as to whether or not they were dating and, consequently, the testimony was inadmissible, IMHO. As you can see the defense never suggested on cross that they were dating. I think this was just the court's desire to ensure that the jury believed the relationship between the victims was platonic.
"CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:
Q. Morning, Mr. Tanner. My name is Dan Leonard. I represent O.J.
Simpson.
A. Morning.
Q. Did you have a beeper?
A. Do I have one?
Q. Did you have one then?
A. Not at that time, no.
Q. You were planning to meet with Mr. Goldman and another gentleman at
the restaurant over in --
A. Marina Del Rey.
Q. Okay. And what time were you planning to meet?
A. There was no specific time.
Q. Mr. Goldman didn't have an automobile; is that right?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. He didn't own a car?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. You were interviewed by the police on a single occasion; is
that right?
A. I was interviewed, well, Monday, the 13th.
Q. Um-hum.
A. That would be correct. And in the early evening, one time only,
yes.
Q. And how long did that interview last?
A. Possibly in the neighborhood of 15, 20 minutes.
Q. Do you remember now, as you sit here today, everything that the
police asked you in that interview?
A. No, I couldn't say that. I mean, it was three years ago.
MR. LEONARD: If I may approach, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. LEONARD: This is on page 368.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Let me show you a document and ask you if -- I'd
like you to read the document -- ask you if that refreshes your
recollection as to what you were asked by the police.
(Witness reviews document.)
A. Okay.
Q. Does that refresh your memory, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it fair to say that the police asked you about Ron Goldman's
activities and whereabouts on the night of the 12th?
A. Correct.
Q. And that's all they asked you about, correct?
A. Yeah. I mean, they could have asked me more. I don't know if
there's more to this report or not.
Q. That's all you remember, right?
A. Right.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you."
There is testimony from two of nicoles friends that Ron had made several direct approaches to nicole for imtimacy prior to her death and that she had expressed to one friend that when he arrived with the glasses nicole had plans to 'Try him out" I am not sure Rons friend knew this.
martin II
08-29-2009, 04:14 PM
Sure he did after his failed attempt to kill himself at the Bel Air Church.
bobaugust
I don't see it as a failed attempt. i see it as a change of mind. Was he hidding in the church.NO
William Anthony
08-29-2009, 05:08 PM
There is testimony from two of nicoles friends that Ron had made several direct approaches to nicole for imtimacy prior to her death and that she had expressed to one friend that when he arrived with the glasses nicole had plans to 'Try him out" I am not sure Rons friend knew this.
I do not think that whether or not they were or were not dating was an issue in the wrongful death action, which means that to me the judge's sua sponte reconsideration of his ruling was more prejudicial than probative and that evidence should not have been admitted. I agree that the statement was hearsay and I am of the opinion that it should have not been admitted.
William Anthony
08-29-2009, 05:26 PM
October 25th-Hiedstra
"A. Because -- yeah, but it was around about a minute there, all of a
sudden, when the dogs keep barking, I heard the first voice, a clear
voice, saying, "Hey, hey, hey," for three, four times.
Q. Can you tell if it was a male or female?
A. It was a male; no doubt about it.
Q. Younger or older male?
A. Sounded clear, young voice.
Q. And what did you then hear next?
A. Immediately after "hey, hey, hey, hey," I heard another voice
talking very fast, a deeper voice, very fast, sounded like an argument
or something like that.
Q. Was that a male or female?
A. Male.
Q. Okay. Older or younger than the first voice?
MR. BAKER: Foundation.
THE WITNESS: Sounds --
THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You may answer.
A. Older.
Q. Okay. And you said it was deeper than the first voice?
A. Yeah. Pretty deep voice.
Q. Now, could you hear any actual words being spoken by the second,
deeper voice?
A. No, because the dogs were barking so loud, it was impossible to
hear."
martin II
08-29-2009, 06:18 PM
And there were the shoes.
Tape:
Question: "Do you know why the shoe prints found at Bundy matched Bruno Magli shoes?"
Simpson: "No."
Instead of focusing on the bloody gloves, like at the criminal trial, Petrocelli focused on those rare size-12 Bruno Magli shoes. Under oath, Simpson had claimed he never wore them.
Tape:
Question: "Did you ever buy shoes that you knew were Bruno Magli shoes?"
Simpson: "No."
Question: "How do you know that?"
Simpson: "Because I know if Bruno Magli makes shoes that look like the shoes they had in court that's involved in this case, I would have never worn those ugly ass shoes."
Simpson claimed that a single photograph that seemed to show him wearing the murder shoes was a fake --but midway through the trial, there was a dramatic development.
Phillips: "There was a Christmas recess during the civil trial, and you got a little present sent during the break."
Petrocelli: "Well wouldn't you know, someone delivered 31 additional photographs of Simpson wearing the murder shoes."
Photographers covering the Buffalo Bills had taken them nine months before the murder, photo after photo with Simpson in the same "ugly ass" shoes.
Petrocelli: "So we called him back to the stand and we said, ‘Now Mr. Simpson, you said that this first photograph was doctored. Are you saying the next one is doctored, and the next one?’ And we proceeded to show him picture after picture, until the jurors couldn't even look at him anymore. And they started looking down at their shoes. And it was as obvious as it could possibly be that a witness was lying."
All of the photos were doctered and some photos did not put oj in BM shoes at Bundy. Smoke and mirrors is all that was.
martin II
08-29-2009, 06:30 PM
I do not think that whether or not they were or were not dating was an issue in the wrongful death action, which means that to me the judge's sua sponte reconsideration of his ruling was more prejudicial than probative and that evidence should not have been admitted. I agree that the statement was hearsay and I am of the opinion that it should have not been admitted.
It may have been reconsidered by the judge at the personal request of Petorcelli.
And there were the shoes.
Tape:
Question: "Do you know why the shoe prints found at Bundy matched Bruno Magli shoes?"
Simpson: "No."
Instead of focusing on the bloody gloves, like at the criminal trial, Petrocelli focused on those rare size-12 Bruno Magli shoes. Under oath, Simpson had claimed he never wore them.
Tape:
Question: "Did you ever buy shoes that you knew were Bruno Magli shoes?"
Simpson: "No."
Question: "How do you know that?"
Simpson: "Because I know if Bruno Magli makes shoes that look like the shoes they had in court that's involved in this case, I would have never worn those ugly ass shoes."
Simpson claimed that a single photograph that seemed to show him wearing the murder shoes was a fake --but midway through the trial, there was a dramatic development.
Phillips: "There was a Christmas recess during the civil trial, and you got a little present sent during the break."
Petrocelli: "Well wouldn't you know, someone delivered 31 additional photographs of Simpson wearing the murder shoes."
Photographers covering the Buffalo Bills had taken them nine months before the murder, photo after photo with Simpson in the same "ugly ass" shoes.
Petrocelli: "So we called him back to the stand and we said, ‘Now Mr. Simpson, you said that this first photograph was doctored. Are you saying the next one is doctored, and the next one?’ And we proceeded to show him picture after picture, until the jurors couldn't even look at him anymore. And they started looking down at their shoes. And it was as obvious as it could possibly be that a witness was lying."
The photos were very damning and exposed Simpson's false testimony. The defense made a feeble attempt to prove the photos were fake but were unable to make a credible argument.
The plantiff's photo expert in the civil trial was Jerry Richards, 23 year veteran of the FBI and had been chief of the FBI's questioned documents examination unit. He was an expert in forensic photography which he taught at George Washington University, twice past president of the Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists, member of the Evidence Photography International Council, member of the Photographic Historic Society; writer of numerous published articles, including "Applications of Electronic Video Techniques to Infrared and Ultraviolet Examinations."
The defense 'expert' gave tours of Dealey Plaza complete with simulated gunfire.
GreenIce
08-29-2009, 07:18 PM
I do not think that whether or not they were or were not dating was an issue in the wrongful death action, which means that to me the judge's sua sponte reconsideration of his ruling was more prejudicial than probative and that evidence should not have been admitted. I agree that the statement was hearsay and I am of the opinion that it should have not been admitted.
William,
I disagree that the true relationship of Ron and Nicole was not or should not have been an issue in either trial. IMO, the DA's as well as the Goldman family went to great length to hide the true relationship between Ron and Nicole. It also appears the defense did not want to go down that road either.
The reason why I think it should have been issue is because of Faye Resnick and Dr. Ameli. Faye could not have know about Ron coming over unless she spoke to Nicole much later then she claimed to.
Dr. Ameli is the only person that has Nicole terrrified of OJ that night and suggested that Nicole call a friend over to wait until OJ left for Chicago. I also believe the phone call to the police station asking about 2 bodies on Bundy also is key to this case.
The depth of their friendship did not have to include a romantic relationship, it could have been business or a just deep friendship. It just appears to me that there is much more to this and it has been buried as deep as possible. Again, IMO.
And then there was the issue of whether Simpson ever abused Nicole. Simpson flatly denied it.
Tape: "Never once did I ever hit her with my fist, ever … Never once have I ever slapped Nicole."
*snipped*
Testimony of Albert Aguilera who saw Simpson hit Nicole on the beach:
Q. And how far away were you from Mr. Simpson and Nicole when you first observed them?
A. Oh, probably were about 50, 60 yards away.
Q. And after first observing them, what, if anything, did you continue to observe about them at this time?
A. Well, she was standing in front of him, he was facing the beach, she had her back to us and she was --
Q. When you say he was facing the beach, you mean the water or the sand?
A. He was facing the water.
Q. Okay.
And she was facing?
A. She was facing him. She was standing in front of him so she had her back to us. She was -- looked -- appeared like she was teasing, him or laughing and kind of animated in front of him.
Q. Were you able to observe him at that time also?
A. Yes. He had a more serious look on his face, and was standing still.
Q. Okay.
And what, if anything, did you observe next?
A. Well, I was -- as we watched him and -- we would walk, and as we got almost directly in front of him, suddenly he slapped her and she fell down.
Q. All right.
When you say he slapped her, what exactly did you observe Mr. Simpson do at that time?
A. He swung his right hand and hit her across the face. And she went down.
Q. And how far were you from them when you made this observation?
A. About 30 yards.
Q. Okay.
What, if anything, happened next?
A. We kept walking and watching. And he crouched down over her. First looked like he was consoling her. Then he became agitated. And she -- couple times I heard her say, no, no, and it appeared to be in a crying voice.
Q. When you saw her go down, did she fall to the side, or how did she exactly fall?
A. Almost straight down.
Q. Okay.
And she was -- when she was on the ground, what position was she in on the ground at this time?
A. She was on her knees.
Q. Okay.
A. On the sand.
Q. Okay.
A. He was crouching over her.
Q. Okay.
And you indicated there was some conversation between them?
A. Couldn't hear the conversation. I heard her say no, no, at least twice.
Q. Okay.
What happened next?
A. We kept walking, and looking back, and didn't know what to think. She suddenly stood up and ran away from the -- towards the back of the beach, away from the beach area.
Q. Okay.
Directly away from the water at this time?
A. Um-hum. Yes.
Q. What happened next?
A. Then we -- we -- at this point we were turning around, walking back, and we kept looking to see if he was going to pursue her. And he didn't; he stayed a little while longer. And we looked back once, and he was walking away in her direction.
Q. Okay.
I'm going to ask you to look up on the screen there, Mr. Aguilera (referring to Exhibit 2194).
Do you recognize the individual in that photograph?
A. Yes. Nicole Simpson.
Q. Is that the person you saw Mr. Simpson hit that day on the beach?
A. Yes.
weezer
08-29-2009, 09:46 PM
Sure he did after his failed attempt to kill himself at the Bel Air Church.
bobaugust
hello bobaugust -- good to see you posting. I thought orenthal's final assault and show of disrespect to and for Nicole was him saying he wanted to kill himself at her grave. what a narcissitic psychopath --
William Anthony
08-29-2009, 11:11 PM
Testimony of Albert Aguilera who saw Simpson hit Nicole on the beach:
Q. And how far away were you from Mr. Simpson and Nicole when you first observed them?
A. Oh, probably were about 50, 60 yards away.
Q. And after first observing them, what, if anything, did you continue to observe about them at this time?
A. Well, she was standing in front of him, he was facing the beach, she had her back to us and she was --
Q. When you say he was facing the beach, you mean the water or the sand?
A. He was facing the water.
Q. Okay.
And she was facing?
A. She was facing him. She was standing in front of him so she had her back to us. She was -- looked -- appeared like she was teasing, him or laughing and kind of animated in front of him.
Q. Were you able to observe him at that time also?
A. Yes. He had a more serious look on his face, and was standing still.
Q. Okay.
And what, if anything, did you observe next?
A. Well, I was -- as we watched him and -- we would walk, and as we got almost directly in front of him, suddenly he slapped her and she fell down.
Q. All right.
When you say he slapped her, what exactly did you observe Mr. Simpson do at that time?
A. He swung his right hand and hit her across the face. And she went down.
Q. And how far were you from them when you made this observation?
A. About 30 yards.
Q. Okay.
What, if anything, happened next?
A. We kept walking and watching. And he crouched down over her. First looked like he was consoling her. Then he became agitated. And she -- couple times I heard her say, no, no, and it appeared to be in a crying voice.
Q. When you saw her go down, did she fall to the side, or how did she exactly fall?
A. Almost straight down.
Q. Okay.
And she was -- when she was on the ground, what position was she in on the ground at this time?
A. She was on her knees.
Q. Okay.
A. On the sand.
Q. Okay.
A. He was crouching over her.
Q. Okay.
And you indicated there was some conversation between them?
A. Couldn't hear the conversation. I heard her say no, no, at least twice.
Q. Okay.
What happened next?
A. We kept walking, and looking back, and didn't know what to think. She suddenly stood up and ran away from the -- towards the back of the beach, away from the beach area.
Q. Okay.
Directly away from the water at this time?
A. Um-hum. Yes.
Q. What happened next?
A. Then we -- we -- at this point we were turning around, walking back, and we kept looking to see if he was going to pursue her. And he didn't; he stayed a little while longer. And we looked back once, and he was walking away in her direction.
Q. Okay.
I'm going to ask you to look up on the screen there, Mr. Aguilera (referring to Exhibit 2194).
Do you recognize the individual in that photograph?
A. Yes. Nicole Simpson.
Q. Is that the person you saw Mr. Simpson hit that day on the beach?
A. Yes.
Simpson was found liable by a preponderance, meaning more likely than not, of committing battery and oppression on Ms. NBS, which tells me that that particular suburban jury did not Simpson credible on that issue. Simpson was not convicted of perjury. :)
William Anthony
08-29-2009, 11:15 PM
William,
I disagree that the true relationship of Ron and Nicole was not or should not have been an issue in either trial. IMO, the DA's as well as the Goldman family went to great length to hide the true relationship between Ron and Nicole. It also appears the defense did not want to go down that road either.
The reason why I think it should have been issue is because of Faye Resnick and Dr. Ameli. Faye could not have know about Ron coming over unless she spoke to Nicole much later then she claimed to.
Dr. Ameli is the only person that has Nicole terrrified of OJ that night and suggested that Nicole call a friend over to wait until OJ left for Chicago. I also believe the phone call to the police station asking about 2 bodies on Bundy also is key to this case.
The depth of their friendship did not have to include a romantic relationship, it could have been business or a just deep friendship. It just appears to me that there is much more to this and it has been buried as deep as possible. Again, IMO.
GreenIce,
I did not say that the type and depth of the relationship should not have been an issue, although that is my personal belief. I said that at the point the judge decided to sua sponte reconsider his prior ruling it was not an issue and, for some reason, the judge felt that jury should hear the relationship was innocent and platonic.
William Anthony
08-29-2009, 11:22 PM
hello bobaugust -- good to see you posting. I thought orenthal's final assault and show of disrespect to and for Nicole was him saying he wanted to kill himself at her grave. what a narcissitic psychopath --
Sometimes a cry for help comes in many forms and may be disguised as a salutation. I think that Simpson, saying he wanted to kill himself at the grave of NBS, was a cry for help, alerting the world to the difficulty he would have raising the children by himself and the emptiness that would be in his life caused by the permanent loss of a woman he admittedly said he had once loved too much.
GreenIce
08-29-2009, 11:26 PM
GreenIce,
I did not say that the type and depth of the relationship should not have been an issue, although that is my personal belief. I said that at the point the judge decided to sua sponte reconsider his prior ruling it was not an issue and, for some reason, the judge felt that jury should hear the relationship was innocent and platonic.
William,
In all fairness, if the judge felt the jury should hear the relationship was innocent and platonic, shouldn't he have allowed in evidence that perhaps would could have been used as yard stick to "measure" that relationship? I consider attending group sessions or plans to open a business to be two people were very close.
Also, I think it was you that posted Stewart Tanner's testimony. I noticed during the criminal trial he refused to give a time on when they were to meet. I always found this strange.
In the Goldmans' book, they said the received Ron's answering machine after the trial. On it was a message and I think one of the messages that was left was about what time he was suppose to meet friends that night. I don't know if was Steward Tanner or not--I can't remember.
William Anthony
08-29-2009, 11:47 PM
William,
In all fairness, if the judge felt the jury should hear the relationship was innocent and platonic, shouldn't he have allowed in evidence that perhaps would could have been used as yard stick to "measure" that relationship? I consider attending group sessions or plans to open a business to be two people were very close.
Also, I think it was you that posted Stewart Tanner's testimony. I noticed during the criminal trial he refused to give a time on when they were to meet. I always found this strange.
In the Goldmans' book, they said the received Ron's answering machine after the trial. On it was a message and I think one of the messages that was left was about what time he was suppose to meet friends that night. I don't know if was Steward Tanner or not--I can't remember.
The statement was hearsay but the judge ruled it could come in, because it fell within the hearsay exception to show state of mind or intent. However, such evidence that was privy to the exception by the law must be evidence of an issue in the action, which the issue of their dating was not.
I likewise found it questionable that a time was not given. If I had some business to take care of be it of a romantic nature or not, I would tell my friends, if I am not there by such and such a time, then I won't be coming.
bobaugust
08-30-2009, 05:44 AM
I don't see it as a failed attempt. i see it as a change of mind. Was he hidding in the church.NO
Sure he changed his mind, after he put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger and it malfunctioned.
bobaugust
bobaugust
08-30-2009, 05:45 AM
All of the photos were doctered and some photos did not put oj in BM shoes at Bundy. Smoke and mirrors is all that was.
Wrong. There was no evidence that any of the over 30 Flammer photographs were doctored. All of them showed Simpson wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzo style shoes.
bobaugust
William Anthony
08-30-2009, 06:50 AM
Sure he changed his mind, after he put a gun to his head and pulled the trigger and it malfunctioned.
bobaugust
An omen or divine intervention.
GreenIce
08-30-2009, 09:56 AM
The statement was hearsay but the judge ruled it could come in, because it fell within the hearsay exception to show state of mind or intent. However, such evidence that was privy to the exception by the law must be evidence of an issue in the action, which the issue of their dating was not.
I likewise found it questionable that a time was not given. If I had some business to take care of be it of a romantic nature or not, I would tell my friends, if I am not there by such and such a time, then I won't be coming.
William,
I don't think there dating was an issue. I think the judge cut off another avenue, IMO, that was relavent to the case, namely Faye Resnick and Dr. Ameli.
While I don't think their dating was an issue, I don't buy the friends who came out and said that had Ron been dating Nicole, they would have known about it. If Ron wanted to take the relationship further and wanted Nicole to know he was serious, talking to his friends is not a sign of maturity, IMO.
It may also be possible that Ron and Nicole were talking about starting a buisness together. He had the plans drawn up, had menus, etc., IMO, he was getting prepared and making a business plan for a presentation to his hopeful investors. Perhaps Nicole was one of these.
BTW, IMO, Nicole was not focused on her love life, it appeared to me that she was more intent on being able to take care of herself and her children in the life style that they had with Simpson. Nicole did realize her settlement was running out and her child support was based on the amount of money Simpson made. It is very likely that Simpson could not hide or would not hide if he was making less money then he was before.
It is also very unlikely a judge would have granted her more money based on the property and cash she received in the settlement. It makes sense to me that Nicole would have been interested in looking at businesses to invest in.
William Anthony
08-30-2009, 10:48 AM
William,
I don't think there dating was an issue. I think the judge cut off another avenue, IMO, that was relavent to the case, namely Faye Resnick and Dr. Ameli.
While I don't think their dating was an issue, I don't buy the friends who came out and said that had Ron been dating Nicole, they would have known about it. If Ron wanted to take the relationship further and wanted Nicole to know he was serious, talking to his friends is not a sign of maturity, IMO.
It may also be possible that Ron and Nicole were talking about starting a buisness together. He had the plans drawn up, had menus, etc., IMO, he was getting prepared and making a business plan for a presentation to his hopeful investors. Perhaps Nicole was one of these.
BTW, IMO, Nicole was not focused on her love life, it appeared to me that she was more intent on being able to take care of herself and her children in the life style that they had with Simpson. Nicole did realize her settlement was running out and her child support was based on the amount of money Simpson made. It is very likely that Simpson could not hide or would not hide if he was making less money then he was before.
It is also very unlikely a judge would have granted her more money based on the property and cash she received in the settlement. It makes sense to me that Nicole would have been interested in looking at businesses to invest in.
This is why I say the judge wanted to that jury to hear that the relationship between the two victims was innocent and platonic but, in so doing, he allowed inadmissible evidence that was more prejudicial than probative.
GreenIce
08-30-2009, 11:14 AM
This is why I say the judge wanted to that jury to hear that the relationship between the two victims was innocent and platonic but, in so doing, he allowed inadmissible evidence that was more prejudicial than probative.
William,
IMO, Faye's knowledge of Ron being there as well as Dr. Ameli's saying that she advised Nicole to call over a friend that night were attempts to explain why Ron was there.
IMO, there is no evidence to suggest that the killers were surprised that another adult was there. I think the killers were surprised that Ron put up the fight that he did and that is why he was hacked up then Nicole was.
Also, IMO, the control wounds on Ron, if Simpson was the killer, what information could he get out of Ron? I would assume any question Simpson would have had for Goldman would have been answered by interior of Nicole's condo. If he asked Goldman if he was sleeping with Nicole and Goldman said no, would he have just let him go?
There is more to this, IMO.
William Anthony
08-30-2009, 11:26 AM
William,
IMO, Faye's knowledge of Ron being there as well as Dr. Ameli's saying that she advised Nicole to call over a friend that night were attempts to explain why Ron was there.
IMO, there is no evidence to suggest that the killers were surprised that another adult was there. I think the killers were surprised that Ron put up the fight that he did and that is why he was hacked up then Nicole was.
Also, IMO, the control wounds on Ron, if Simpson was the killer, what information could he get out of Ron? I would assume any question Simpson would have had for Goldman would have been answered by interior of Nicole's condo. If he asked Goldman if he was sleeping with Nicole and Goldman said no, would he have just let him go?
There is more to this, IMO.
Now, you see that we are discussing the judge's reconsideration of his prior ruling, which leads to a lot of speculation about irrelevant issues, since Simpson was accused of being responsible for Mr RG's wrongful death and battery and oppression on Ms. NBS. The issue was not the nature of the relationship between the two but whether there was evidence to show that Simpson committed the torts alleged by a preponderance of the evidence. Unless it was alleged in the complaint that Simpson committed the aforementioned torts because of the nature of the relationship between Mr. RG and Ms. NBS, then the nature of the relationship is irrelevant. However, it would be relevant to show motive in criminal charge, which is why I have called the civil trial a socio political production.
martin II
08-30-2009, 01:14 PM
The two killers didn't care about who ron was. they killed him because he was there and no witnesses could be left.
Hipcheck
08-30-2009, 04:16 PM
The thirty-two pictures of O.J. Simpson taken before the murders occured wearing Bruno Magli shoes the same type which left the bloody shoe print at Bundy and in his Ford Bronco is what sunk him.
O.J. Simpson said he would never where those ugly ***** shoes but the thirty-two pictures say otherwise.
O.J. Simpson testimony at the civil trial also hurt his case if all the lies he told like never hitting Nicole.
weezer
08-30-2009, 04:22 PM
The thirty-two pictures of O.J. Simpson taken before the murders occured wearing Bruno Magli shoes the same type which left the bloody shoe print at Bundy and in his Ford Bronco is what sunk him.
O.J. Simpson said he would never where those ugly ***** shoes but the thirty-two pictures say otherwise.
O.J. Simpson testimony at the civil trial also hurt his case if all the lies he told like never hitting Nicole.
the fact that the pictures were from different photographers AND had been published before the murders --
Hipcheck
08-30-2009, 05:29 PM
the fact that the pictures were from different photographers AND had been published before the murders --
Some claim those 32 photos have been doctored which they can show no proof of that at all. So claiming those photos were doctored with no proof is insane.
weezer
08-30-2009, 05:37 PM
Some claim those 32 photos have been doctored which they can show no proof of that at all. So claiming those photos were doctored with no proof is insane.
the folks that make thoe claims have to - if LE didn't frame orenthal then the evidence proves him guilty. the fact that those same folks ignore reality as far as planting, etc., speaks for itself. :shrug:
William Anthony
08-30-2009, 06:00 PM
Some claim those 32 photos have been doctored which they can show no proof of that at all. So claiming those photos were doctored with no proof is insane.
Claiming Simpson wore the BM's on the night of the murders with no proof is equally insane and saying that a shoe print was found in the Bronco is quite insane, IMHO. Where are the BM's that the people making the insane claim Simpson wore on the night of the murders?
William Anthony
08-30-2009, 06:18 PM
Let's see what Simpson's actual testimony was in regard to the BM's
Simpson deposition, January 26th
Q: Did you ever buy shoes that you knew were Bruno Magli shoes?
A: No.
Q: How do you know that?
A: Because I know, if Bruno Magli makes shoes that look like the shoes they had in court that's involved in this case, I would have never owned those ugly-a** shoes.
Q: You thought those were ugly-ass shoes?
A: Yes.
Q: Why were they ugly-a** shoes?
A: Because in my mind they were.
Q: What about them was ugly, Mr. Simpson?
A: The look of them, the style of them.
Q: What about the style?
A: I don't know. They were ugly to me. Aesthetically I felt they were ugly, and I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and to me they were ugly shoes.
Q: Were they dress shoes?
A: They didn't appear to be.
Q: What did they appear to be?
A: All-purpose casual shoes.
Q: Did you own prior to June 12, 1994 all-purpose casual shoes?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you own any dark all-purpose casual shoes?
A: I don't know.
Q: You don't remember the all-purpose casual shoes that you owned as of June 12, 1994?
A: Well, it's --"all-purpose" is what throws me.
Q: That was your word. I'm using your word.
A: Yeah. I would say no, I didn't.
Q: You didn't what?
A: Wear the type of shoe -- the type of shoe I saw in court. The Bruno Magli shoe I saw in court seemed to be the type of shoe you could wear in anything but rain. To me that's what they looked to be.
Q: Why couldn't you wear it in rain?
A: They didn't look like they were waterproof to me. But they also looked like shoes you can wear on a normal day also.
Q: And you have shoes like that. Right?
A: No. I think the type of shoes that I wear like that, I wear for rain and cold."
I guess pictures taken at a football game would have been shoes of the type that Simpson would have worn in the cold and rain and not BMs and I don't think it rained or was cold on June 12th, 1994 in LA.
fgump2
08-30-2009, 06:22 PM
All of the photos were doctered and some photos did not put oj in BM shoes at Bundy. Smoke and mirrors is all that was.
In the past you have asked me for links to my claims. Do you have a link for the claims you make here? For the photos to be doctored, tampered with, would mean that the culprits did their dirty work with 1996- 1997 technology, and it isn't detectable by 2009 technology. Hard to believe.
fgump2
08-30-2009, 06:30 PM
“Petrocelli claims the tapes capture Simpson lying….But Petrocelli says ….There were others -- made by fingernails, Petrocelli argued….Petrocelli: And yet the jury could see, looking at this pitiful picture of this woman who now lay dead in the grave, that she had been beaten to a pulp. And Simpson was lying to the jury about probably the most important issue in the case….Petrocelli:…And it was as obvious as it could possibly be that a witness was lying."
And we know how Petrocelli tends to brag. Simpson was not convicted of perjury.
I don't think the law goes after everyone who commits perjury. I would guess that people loose civil trials every day. Most of them could probably be prosecuted for perjury, and I am guessing that few are.
Another point I'd like to make is that it is fairly unusual for a civil suit to be about murder, but not as unusual as some people imply. I have heard about other cases. In some cases the civil suit proceeds the criminal trial, in other cases there is a civil trial, but no criminal trial.
weezer
08-30-2009, 06:33 PM
I don't think the law goes after everyone who commits perjury. I would guess that people loose civil trials every day. Most of them could probably be prosecuted for perjury, and I am guessing that few are.
Another point I'd like to make is that it is fairly unusual for a civil suit to be about murder, but not as unusual as some people imply. I have heard about other cases. In some cases the civil suit proceeds the criminal trial, in other cases there is a civil trial, but no criminal trial.
I believe the popular opinion is that orenthal could have been charged with perjury and would have been found guilty.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.