Key Testimony in the Civil Trial

[martin II]

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.

Regardless is which comes first no civil trial can ever be about murder as murder calls for a criminal trial by law.

[martin II]

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.

Yes
see the testimony of the defence witness in the civil trial.

[martin II]

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.

Yes
see the testimony of the defence witness in the civil trial.

Have you ever seen the photos of the soles of some shoes that oj wore that allow you to know ther were the shoes that made the prints found at Bundy.

if so please post them.

[martin II]

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.


on 6/12 no one saw oj wearing BM shoes and none were found that he got rid of and none were ever presented in any court.

[martin II]

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.


Here is tthe problem as i see it. The prints at Bundy showed a full shoe print,Bottom of a shoe. The pictures of oj at the football game shows him stand on two feet with the bottom of his shoes facing the ground. The picture did not show the total bottom of any shoe oj had on so it was not possible to have a picture of the soles of the game shoe to compare to the bondy print.imo

[GreenIce]

on 6/12 no one saw oj wearing BM shoes and none were found that he got rid of and none were ever presented in any court.

Martin,

The negatives for the pictures were never produced, were they?

[GreenIce]

The two killers didn't care about who ron was. they killed him because he was there and no witnesses could be left.

Martin,

I disagree with you, the killers did care who Ron was. If they did not care, then no one would have wanted to purchase his files or steal them from Dr. Ameli, Robert Shapiro and if she is telling the truth, Faye Resnick.

Also, Ron had torture marks.

[martin II]

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

AGAIN
NO one has looked at those photos after the civil trial so we have no idea what 2009 technology could do with them.Unless you know someone that examined them in 2009.

[martin II]

Martin,

The negatives for the pictures were never produced, were they?

I don't think they were but no full picture of ojs game shoes were ever shown to compare it with the full sole found at bundy.

Again

We have a full shoe sole print at bundy. We have no full shoe sole picture of ojs game shoe. So it is impossible to compare the two to be sure they were the same.

[martin II]

Martin,

I disagree with you, the killers did care who Ron was. If they did not care, then no one would have wanted to purchase his files or steal them from Dr. Ameli, Robert Shapiro and if she is telling the truth, Faye Resnick.

Also, Ron had torture marks.

If his files were stolen then someone had a interest in him.i had forgotten about those break ins.

[martin II]

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.

I am pleased you used the word IF

[fgump2]

FGUMP2

AGAIN
NO one has looked at those photos after the civil trial so we have no idea what 2009 technology could do with them.Unless you know someone that examined them in 2009.

The are a lot of people still interested in the case. Bob Baker, Orenthal Simpson and Johnnie Cochran were all alive and had money when Simpson lost the civil suit. Any of the three should have realized that if the photos were faked (tampered with), there would be a good chance that future technology would be able to prove it.

I don't know if anyone has tried. I would keep my fingers crossed if someone checked them. I know that there has been a lot of improvement in computer based forensic photography so it should be possible to get some interesting results.

[fgump2]

Regardless is which comes first no civil trial can ever be about murder as murder calls for a criminal trial by law.

This sounds to me like legal hair splitting or maybe semantic hair splitting. THere have been civil suits about murder. They legal language in the civil trials may not have used the word murder, but that was what the subject was all about.
I am pretty sure that Ann Rule once wrote a book about a murder in which the killer lost the civil suit, and then was convicted of murder. I could probably find the book name.

[William Anthony]

on 6/12 no one saw oj wearing BM shoes and none were found that he got rid of and none were ever presented in any court.

That is the problem. The plaintiffs in the socio political production may have fooled some. However, if we are to believe that the wrongful death and battery charges were related to the shoes that Simpson wore on June 12th, then the onus of proof fell upon the plaintiffs to produce the shoes or by a preponderance of the evidence infer that Simpson wore those shoes on the night of June 12th and not some similar type of shoes he wore years or weeks before.

[William Anthony]

This sounds to me like legal hair splitting or maybe semantic hair splitting. THere have been civil suits about murder. They legal language in the civil trials may not have used the word murder, but that was what the subject was all about.
I am pretty sure that Ann Rule once wrote a book about a murder in which the killer lost the civil suit, and then was convicted of murder. I could probably find the book name.

The problem is that, if a person does not understand and appreciate the differences between the causes of action, it may seem like legal or semantic hair splitting but that is just what the differences were put forth to avoid, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

I believe the popular opinion is that orenthal could have been charged with perjury and would have been found guilty.

We all have opinions but the fact remains that only one person was charged and convicted of perjury in any trial in which Simpson was a defendant.;)

[tv]

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.

The claims that the photos were doctored is backed up by the testimony of a guy who runs assassination tours at Dealey Plaza (complete with simulated gunfire). This is the same guy who enlarged the photos at Kinko's which distorted the heck out of them. :rolleyes: A link from the claimant would be nice but... :shrug:

[William Anthony]

The photos are not evidence that Simpson wore any shoes on the night of June 12th. ;):):cool:

[weezer]

This sounds to me like legal hair splitting or maybe semantic hair splitting. THere have been civil suits about murder. They legal language in the civil trials may not have used the word murder, but that was what the subject was all about.
I am pretty sure that Ann Rule once wrote a book about a murder in which the killer lost the civil suit, and then was convicted of murder. I could probably find the book name.

". . How can someone be found innocent in a criminal trial and then be found guilty in a civil trial?

Alan Dershowitz: Simpson was neither found innocent in the criminal trial nor was he found guilty in the civil trial. He was found "not guilty" in the criminal trial, which is very different from innocent. Several jurors -- both white and black -- believed that he probably did it but that the police planted evidence against him and lied. And they were unwilling to convict on the basis of perjurious and tampered evidence.

In the civil case, he was found "liable," which is a very different standard from guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So the two verdicts are perfectly reconcilable. . ."

[William Anthony]

". . How can someone be found innocent in a criminal trial and then be found guilty in a civil trial?

Alan Dershowitz: Simpson was neither found innocent in the criminal trial nor was he found guilty in the civil trial. He was found "not guilty" in the criminal trial, which is very different from innocent. Several jurors -- both white and black -- believed that he probably did it but that the police planted evidence against him and lied. And they were unwilling to convict on the basis of perjurious and tampered evidence.

In the civil case, he was found "liable," which is a very different standard from guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So the two verdicts are perfectly reconcilable. . ."

This post is completely irrelevant, immaterial and superfluous to the issue being discussed, IMHO. The issue being discussed is not whether the verdicts are reconcilable but whether a civil suit can be about the crime of murder.

[tv]

". . How can someone be found innocent in a criminal trial and then be found guilty in a civil trial?

Alan Dershowitz: Simpson was neither found innocent in the criminal trial nor was he found guilty in the civil trial. He was found "not guilty" in the criminal trial, which is very different from innocent. Several jurors -- both white and black -- believed that he probably did it but that the police planted evidence against him and lied. And they were unwilling to convict on the basis of perjurious and tampered evidence.

In the civil case, he was found "liable," which is a very different standard from guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So the two verdicts are perfectly reconcilable. . ."

Thanks, weezer. This is a good explanation of the two different standards. I may not always agree with Dershowitz but he's one smart guy. :)

[William Anthony]

Thanks, weezer. This is a good explanation of the two different standards. I may not always agree with Dershowitz but he's one smart guy. :)

I will not deny that AD is smart but the poster pointed to a statement of his, which regards the burdens of proof in the two different types of trials and not the differences in the subject matter of the different suits or, if you will, the cause of actions. The civil action should have been used to find liability or non liability for the torts of wrongful death and battery and oppression. AD's statement as posted does not address this. If the civil action was about the crime of murder, then it was an abuse of the system and a socio political production, which I feel that AD is smart enough to agree with. Criminal charges are brought by the state and torts complaints are brought by individuals. "East is east and west is west...";):):cool:

[weezer]

Thanks, weezer. This is a good explanation of the two different standards. I may not always agree with Dershowitz but he's one smart guy. :)

I thought this was an interesting explanation --

Criminal trial
A criminal trial is designed to resolve accusations brought by the government against a person accused of a crime.

Civil trial
A civil trial is generally held to settle a dispute between private parties, (although the government can both sue and be sued in a civil capacity, in some countries).

[martin II]

I thought this was an interesting explanation --

Criminal trial
A criminal trial is designed to resolve accusations brought by the government against a person accused of a crime.

Civil trial
A civil trial is generally held to settle a dispute between private parties, (although the government can both sue and be sued in a civil capacity, in some countries).

OJ was not charged with murder in the civil trial but he was sued for money.

[martin II]

This sounds to me like legal hair splitting or maybe semantic hair splitting. THere have been civil suits about murder. They legal language in the civil trials may not have used the word murder, but that was what the subject was all about.
I am pretty sure that Ann Rule once wrote a book about a murder in which the killer lost the civil suit, and then was convicted of murder. I could probably find the book name.

If you want to ignore the RULES OF CIVIL TRIALS its ok.IF you have a civil trial where a jury form asked to find a defendant guilty of murder please share it with us.

[martin II]

I think it is kind of silly for some to try to change what the civil trial jury form said. Arguing about something that is not reality is a waste of words. That is my opinion.

[William Anthony]

If you want to ignore the RULES OF CIVIL TRIALS its ok.IF you have a civil trial where a jury form asked to find a defendant guilty of murder please share it with us.

I see you understand the difference and I truly do not know what is so hard to understand when they read something.

"Criminal trial
A criminal trial is designed to resolve accusations brought by the government against a person accused of a crime.

Civil trial
A civil trial is generally held to settle a dispute between private parties, (although the government can both sue and be sued in a civil capacity, in some countries)."

[martin II]

I see you understand the difference and I truly do not know what is so hard to understand when they read something.

"Criminal trial
A criminal trial is designed to resolve accusations brought by the government against a person accused of a crime.

Civil trial
A civil trial is generally held to settle a dispute between private parties, (although the government can both sue and be sued in a civil capacity, in some countries)."

People do try to change TRUTH/FACTS when they do not agree with it.

[martin II]

This sounds to me like legal hair splitting or maybe semantic hair splitting. THere have been civil suits about murder. They legal language in the civil trials may not have used the word murder, but that was what the subject was all about.
I am pretty sure that Ann Rule once wrote a book about a murder in which the killer lost the civil suit, and then was convicted of murder. I could probably find the book name.

You must know MURDER is a crime always charged by ther gov. Not a citizen.Criminal trials are only held in criminal courts. That is not a opinion.

[William Anthony]

People do try to change TRUTH/FACTS when they do not agree with it.

For instance, some are quick to point out that the criminal verdict of not guilty does not mean innocence but deny that the civil verdict does not mean that Simpson, murdered, stabbed to death or sliced anyone to death. Talk about a double standard. :):);):cool:

[martin II]

]


And this then led to the discovery of other incriminating evidence?


There were a number of policemen, all of whom were acting in concert. There were policemen like [Detective Philip] Vannatter, who had access to the blood samples, and there was Fuhrman, and there were others. They had a common goal, and their goal was to convict the man who they honestly in their hearts believed was responsible for this. They weren't trying to frame somebody based on his race. They weren't trying to put somebody in jail who they thought was innocent; that never occurred to them. They, in their own heart of hearts, knew who the guilty person was. They also knew that there were barriers, legal and constitutional barriers, to achieving justice, which is getting the right person. And so they were prepared to circumvent those barriers.

AD

[William Anthony]

Thanks, weezer. This is a good explanation of the two different standards. I may not always agree with Dershowitz but he's one smart guy. :)



And this then led to the discovery of other incriminating evidence?

There were a number of policemen, all of whom were acting in concert. There were policemen like [Detective Philip] Vannatter, who had access to the blood samples, and there was Fuhrman, and there were others. They had a common goal, and their goal was to convict the man who they honestly in their hearts believed was responsible for this. They weren't trying to frame somebody based on his race. They weren't trying to put somebody in jail who they thought was innocent; that never occurred to them. They, in their own heart of hearts, knew who the guilty person was. They also knew that there were barriers, legal and constitutional barriers, to achieving justice, which is getting the right person. And so they were prepared to circumvent those barriers.

AD-martin II

I agree that the evidence supports that LE manipulated/tampered with/planted evidence and that may have been done for many different reasons.

[GreenIce]

I agree that the evidence supports that LE manipulated/tampered with/planted evidence and that may have been done for many different reasons.

William,

And Johnnie Cochran made sure of this in his closing arguments. He threw the facts out about MF. However, he did not blanket accusation of racism against the LAPD. He made it clear that it was a rush to judgement because they were convinced that Simpson was guilty.

Which is why them lying about him not being a suspect is what bit them through the trial, IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

And Johnnie Cochran made sure of this in his closing arguments. He threw the facts out about MF. However, he did not blanket accusation of racism against the LAPD. He made it clear that it was a rush to judgement because they were convinced that Simpson was guilty.

Which is why them lying about him not being a suspect is what bit them through the trial, IMO.

The prosecution lost credibility when they decided to try a case with nothing more than a barking dog, which could not be impeached, IMHO.

[weezer]

this is the civil trial thread -- please take discussion about the criminal defense to the proper thread.

[GreenIce]

The prosecution lost credibility when they decided to try a case with nothing more than a barking dog, which could not be impeached, IMHO.

William,

What is the legal definition of "framing"? It appears to me that many people feel that it is the act of planting or tampering evidence against a person who they know to be innocent of a crime.

The word that allows throws me is the word innocent.

While you are at it, was does conspiracy mean? Does it have to have certain number of people involved before you can call it that? And if you are not involved in the planning or the actions but just know about it, is that person considered to be a conspirator?

[William Anthony]

this is the civil trial thread -- please take discussion about the criminal defense to the proper thread.

If I am not mistaken, it was you that brought a quote from AD, who was a member of the criminal defense team, which prompted another poster to remark how smart he was. Is it not fair for the rest of us to discuss other members of the dream team after you and another poster did or is fairness not a consideration?

[William Anthony]

William,

What is the legal definition of "framing"? It appears to me that many people feel that it is the act of planting or tampering evidence against a person who they know to be innocent of a crime.

The word that allows throws me is the word innocent.

While you are at it, was does conspiracy mean? Does it have to have certain number of people involved before you can call it that? And if you are not involved in the planning or the actions but just know about it, is that person considered to be a conspirator?

GreenIce,

That is an interesting question and I truly do not know the legal definition of framing but I do not think it only applies to the innocent.

In the state where I am it takes two or more to conspire to do something illegal, which indicates an agreement and there must be some overt act done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

That is an interesting question and I truly do not know the legal definition of framing but I do not think it only applies to the innocent.

In the state where I am it takes two or more to conspire to do something illegal, which indicates an agreement and there must be some overt act done in furtherance of the conspiracy.

William,

So just knowing that something was done and not saying a word about it, does not mean this person was a involved in a conspiracy?

[William Anthony]

William,

So just knowing that something was done and not saying a word about it, does not mean this person was a involved in a conspiracy?

GreenIce,

I think that the court may be able to construct and agreement, depending on when one gained the knowledge and, if there was a duty to speak and the person remained silent, then that might be considered an overt act. However, it may be simpler to charge the person with aiding and abetting, obstruction of justice or accessory after the fact, depending on the facts.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

I think that the court may be able to construct and agreement, depending on when one gained the knowledge and, if there was a duty to speak and the person remained silent, then that might be considered an overt act. However, it may be simpler to charge the person with aiding and abetting, obstruction of justice or accessory after the fact, depending on the facts.

William,

This might sound like a funny question but is it written in the police rules that if they see another officer doing something that is breaking the laws, they have to report it? That they have a duty to report it?

Or what are the guidelines for such reporting? IMO, I think Fung and AM knew something was going on and knew that evidence was tampered with, however, if they could not name names or give a witness, then they really have nothing to tell. It appears to me that members of LAPD who believed Simpson was innocent and/or believed evidence was tampered with or planted, really had to keep their opinons to themselves.

[William Anthony]

William,

This might sound like a funny question but is it written in the police rules that if they see another officer doing something that is breaking the laws, they have to report it? That they have a duty to report it?

Or what are the guidelines for such reporting? IMO, I think Fung and AM knew something was going on and knew that evidence was tampered with, however, if they could not name names or give a witness, then they really have nothing to tell. It appears to me that members of LAPD who believed Simpson was innocent and/or believed evidence was tampered with or planted, really had to keep their opinons to themselves.

GreenIce,

That is not a silly question. I am not sure, but like you, I think LE has a duty to report and investigate any suspicion of a crime. However, we are aware of the Blue Wall of Silence.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

That is not a silly question. I am not sure, but like you, I think LE has a duty to report and investigate any suspicion of a crime. However, we are aware of the Blue Wall of Silence.

William,

IMO, it is very sad that most people don't seem to understand that the Blue Wall of Silence has been built on other police officers and CSI personnel's fear.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, it is very sad that most people don't seem to understand that the Blue Wall of Silence has been built on other police officers and CSI personnel's fear.

Some people do not believe that the wall exists.

[tv]

The are a lot of people still interested in the case. Bob Baker, Orenthal Simpson and Johnnie Cochran were all alive and had money when Simpson lost the civil suit. Any of the three should have realized that if the photos were faked (tampered with), there would be a good chance that future technology would be able to prove it.

I don't know if anyone has tried. I would keep my fingers crossed if someone checked them. I know that there has been a lot of improvement in computer based forensic photography so it should be possible to get some interesting results.

If innocent of the murders, anyone in OJ Simpson's place would have gone to the ends of the earth to prove the photos were faked. He didn't do that because he knew they were authentic. I agree that it would be interesting to have the photos analyzed today. Also, if video cameras had been as prevalent in 1994 as they are today his activity at the trash can at LAX wouldn't have remained a mystery.

[GreenIce]

Some people do not believe that the wall exists.

William,

I am not sure about that. I think many people feel they need that wall to do their jobs. How many times have you the media say how it is for the cops to do their jobs by the laws that have been created because of their prior abuses.

IMO, you have work really, really, really hard at not seeing this wall. IMO, people who do not believe there is a blue wall are in the same category of those who believe the WWII holocaust did not happen.

Talk about faked photos!!!!!!!!! Apparently these people believed way back in the 40's man had the technology to fake photos and news reels.

I would want to make one thing clear, people who do not believe in the holocaust or in the blue wall, IMO are probably on the whole, very good people. I think they find it impossible to wrap their brain around such acts that goes against everything they believe in. I think the best defense of a non-believe I heard was that his God never would have allowed the holocaust to happen. I am sure people who have the same philosphy regarding police have similar beliefs. Again, IMO.

[William Anthony]

If innocent of the murders, anyone in OJ Simpson's place would have gone to the ends of the earth to prove the photos were faked. He didn't do that because he knew they were authentic. I agree that it would be interesting to have the photos analyzed today. Also, if video cameras had been as prevalent in 1994 as they are today his activity at the trash can at LAX wouldn't have remained a mystery.

There is no mystery, save in the minds for some. Nothing was found. :);):cool: The murders were not an issue at the time the photos came into place, remember? Simpson had been found not guilty of murder and no shoes were produced to match the ones the prosecution alleged he wore on June 12th.

[GreenIce]

There is no mystery, save in the minds for some. Nothing was found. :);):cool: The murders were not an issue at the time the photos came into place, remember? Simpson had been found not guilty of murder and no shoes were produced to match the ones the prosecution alleged he wore on June 12th.

William,

Didn't the Plaintiff's own expert testify that photos can be faked and that they could fool even experts--including himself?

It appears to me the only to positively prove a photo has been faked is a confession by the person who actually did it. There was testimony from anyone across the pond on this issue.

The fact that this photo was spirited out of the country for validation, IMO, means something is not right here.

I also think it is important to remember that if people were willing to kill Simpson because they felt he got away with murder, is really that much of leap in logic that people would be involved in faking a few photographs?

Chances of getting caught killing Simpson are much, much higher then faking a photo. IMO.

[weezer]

If innocent of the murders, anyone in OJ Simpson's place would have gone to the ends of the earth to prove the photos were faked. He didn't do that because he knew they were authentic. I agree that it would be interesting to have the photos analyzed today. Also, if video cameras had been as prevalent in 1994 as they are today his activity at the trash can at LAX wouldn't have remained a mystery.

I thought the photos were very damning -- especially after different photographers came forward and it was revealed that one of the photos had been published months before.

[tv]

I thought the photos were very damning -- especially after different photographers came forward and it was revealed that one of the photos had been published months before.

Agreed. The fact that the photo was in existence and sent out to so many people months before the murders is highly incriminating. Also, in reading testimony again, I found that Gerald Richards, the plantiff's expert did examine negatives which someone claimed he didn't.

Q. Now, in connection with this matter, did you examine various
materials relating to a photograph taken by Harry Scull of Mr.
Simpson at a football game on September 26, 1993?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. What did you examine?
A. I examined two sets of negatives from two rolls of film. In
addition to the negatives, I also examined contact sheets of those
negatives and also various enlargements which were all produced
under my direction. I examined them basically through a number --
a number of physical techniques.

[William Anthony]

William,

Didn't the Plaintiff's own expert testify that photos can be faked and that they could fool even experts--including himself?

It appears to me the only to positively prove a photo has been faked is a confession by the person who actually did it. There was testimony from anyone across the pond on this issue.

The fact that this photo was spirited out of the country for validation, IMO, means something is not right here.

I also think it is important to remember that if people were willing to kill Simpson because they felt he got away with murder, is really that much of leap in logic that people would be involved in faking a few photographs?

Chances of getting caught killing Simpson are much, much higher then faking a photo. IMO.

The photos prove nothing, except that Simpson may have worn shoes similar to the ones, the plaintiffs and prosecution claimed he wore but neither the plaintiff or prosecution could produce any shoes, which made the pictures, pictures similar to a wish. Its quite like seeing the mirage of an oasis in a desert when one is begging for water, IMHO.

[martin II]

Agreed. The fact that the photo was in existence and sent out to so many people months before the murders is highly incriminating. Also, in reading testimony again, I found that Gerald Richards, the plantiff's expert did examine negatives which someone claimed he didn't.

Q. Now, in connection with this matter, did you examine various
materials relating to a photograph taken by Harry Scull of Mr.
Simpson at a football game on September 26, 1993?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. What did you examine?
A. I examined two sets of negatives from two rolls of film. In
addition to the negatives, I also examined contact sheets of those
negatives and also various enlargements which were all produced
under my direction. I examined them basically through a number --
a number of physical techniques.


The poster asked a question about the negatives.
Martin,

The negatives for the pictures were never produced, were they?

I am not sure it makes a differance if the negatives were examined or not. It was very possible that the pictures presented in court were manipulated even at the time of the trial as the graphic artist ability to do so using computers were certainly available. I am not sure but i think these protos were made before the criminal trial.

The pictures did not show a complete bottom sole of the shoes oj had on so it was impossible to compare them to the sole print found at bundy.

[martin II]

The photos prove nothing, except that Simpson may have worn shoes similar to the ones, the plaintiffs and prosecution claimed he wore but neither the plaintiff or prosecution could produce any shoes, which made the pictures, pictures similar to a wish. Its quite like seeing the mirage of an oasis in a desert when one is begging for water, IMHO.

The pictures never showed the complete bottom of the sole of the shoes so there is no way to compare the picture to the bundy prints.

[William Anthony]

The pictures never showed the complete bottom of the sole of the shoes so there is no way to compare the picture to the bundy prints.

Maybe, they could have called on the ghost/soul that resided in the other machine to get into the pictures and look at the soles.:)

[weezer]

Agreed. The fact that the photo was in existence and sent out to so many people months before the murders is highly incriminating. Also, in reading testimony again, I found that Gerald Richards, the plantiff's expert did examine negatives which someone claimed he didn't.

Q. Now, in connection with this matter, did you examine various
materials relating to a photograph taken by Harry Scull of Mr.
Simpson at a football game on September 26, 1993?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. What did you examine?
A. I examined two sets of negatives from two rolls of film. In
addition to the negatives, I also examined contact sheets of those
negatives and also various enlargements which were all produced
under my direction. I examined them basically through a number --
a number of physical techniques.

". . .In the beginning, Petrocelli had only one photo--and he was concerned. Early in the trial, he had presented a single picture of Simpson wearing Bruno Maglis taken by photographer Harry Scull. The defense declared the photo was a fake, and Petrocelli was afraid the jury might buy into that claim--even though his partner Peter Gelblum had brutally discredited the defense photo expert, Robert Groden, a J.F.K.-assassination buff with no formal training in photography. Then came word that other pictures existed. "Oh, my God. Are they real?" Gelblum asked Petrocelli.

Frame after frame showed Simpson at a Sept. 26, 1993, football game at Rich Stadium in Buffalo, New York. John Kelly, the lawyer for the estate of Nicole Brown Simpson, had flown to Buffalo to pick up all the photographs that E.J. Flammer, a freelance photographer, had taken. Flammer had published one of the photos in the Buffalo Bills newsletter in November 1993. He had saved a dated invoice for the photo assignment and had a copy of his sideline pass for the game. In fact, the plaintiffs would eventually come into possession of additional pictures as amateur photographers began digging through their old contact sheets to find prints of Simpson wearing Bruno Maglis. Some photos were even faxed to the plaintiffs. But for Petrocelli and Gelblum, the package of 30 was dramatic enough. They would be the only ones the lawyers would present in court. . ."

[William Anthony]

None of the photos were photos of the shoes the plaintiffs claimed Simpson wore on June 12th.:)

[martin II]

William,

Didn't the Plaintiff's own expert testify that photos can be faked and that they could fool even experts--including himself?

It appears to me the only to positively prove a photo has been faked is a confession by the person who actually did it. There was testimony from anyone across the pond on this issue.

The fact that this photo was spirited out of the country for validation, IMO, means something is not right here.

I also think it is important to remember that if people were willing to kill Simpson because they felt he got away with murder, is really that much of leap in logic that people would be involved in faking a few photographs?

Chances of getting caught killing Simpson are much, much higher then faking a photo. IMO.

Logic tell me that the reason for sending the photos out of the country was that no one in the country would do it based on the problem they would have
if the act was uncovered.Sending them to the UK was a good place to have them doctored based on the amount of doctoring done in many of the rag magazines there.I remember some graphic artics put OPRAH'S head on another persons body and distributed it in some tabloids all over the country.
No one knew the differance until Oprah uncovered it.
But there was no picture of the soles of ojs football shoe.So no comparison could be made with the bundy sole prints.
lloyds was a shoe company that used the same die for their shoes that BM used. It was made by a company in JAPAN so we don't know if oj had on Lloyds or BM shoes.

[William Anthony]

If as some claim that MF is not an evidence planter because he lied about using the Nword, should not the same be said about Simpson being liable, if it is true that he lied about the shoes, but we know that MF lied.

[martin II]

". . .In the beginning, Petrocelli had only one photo--and he was concerned. Early in the trial, he had presented a single picture of Simpson wearing Bruno Maglis taken by photographer Harry Scull. The defense declared the photo was a fake, and Petrocelli was afraid the jury might buy into that claim--even though his partner Peter Gelblum had brutally discredited the defense photo expert, Robert Groden, a J.F.K.-assassination buff with no formal training in photography. Then came word that other pictures existed. "Oh, my God. Are they real?" Gelblum asked Petrocelli.

Frame after frame showed Simpson at a Sept. 26, 1993, football game at Rich Stadium in Buffalo, New York. John Kelly, the lawyer for the estate of Nicole Brown Simpson, had flown to Buffalo to pick up all the photographs that E.J. Flammer, a freelance photographer, had taken. Flammer had published one of the photos in the Buffalo Bills newsletter in November 1993. He had saved a dated invoice for the photo assignment and had a copy of his sideline pass for the game. In fact, the plaintiffs would eventually come into possession of additional pictures as amateur photographers began digging through their old contact sheets to find prints of Simpson wearing Bruno Maglis. Some photos were even faxed to the plaintiffs. But for Petrocelli and Gelblum, the package of 30 was dramatic enough. They would be the only ones the lawyers would present in court. . ."

There was no photo presented in the civil trial that showed the full sole of the shoes oj had on. Therefore there was no way to compare the photo with any print found at Bundy.

[martin II]

If innocent of the murders, anyone in OJ Simpson's place would have gone to the ends of the earth to prove the photos were faked. He didn't do that because he knew they were authentic. I agree that it would be interesting to have the photos analyzed today. Also, if video cameras had been as prevalent in 1994 as they are today his activity at the trash can at LAX wouldn't have remained a mystery.

Photos of oj wearing some shoes does not mean that he wore those shoes on 6/12 even if they were proven to be the same.That is the problem.

[tv]

". . .In the beginning, Petrocelli had only one photo--and he was concerned. Early in the trial, he had presented a single picture of Simpson wearing Bruno Maglis taken by photographer Harry Scull. The defense declared the photo was a fake, and Petrocelli was afraid the jury might buy into that claim--even though his partner Peter Gelblum had brutally discredited the defense photo expert, Robert Groden, a J.F.K.-assassination buff with no formal training in photography. Then came word that other pictures existed. "Oh, my God. Are they real?" Gelblum asked Petrocelli.

Frame after frame showed Simpson at a Sept. 26, 1993, football game at Rich Stadium in Buffalo, New York. John Kelly, the lawyer for the estate of Nicole Brown Simpson, had flown to Buffalo to pick up all the photographs that E.J. Flammer, a freelance photographer, had taken. Flammer had published one of the photos in the Buffalo Bills newsletter in November 1993. He had saved a dated invoice for the photo assignment and had a copy of his sideline pass for the game. In fact, the plaintiffs would eventually come into possession of additional pictures as amateur photographers began digging through their old contact sheets to find prints of Simpson wearing Bruno Maglis. Some photos were even faxed to the plaintiffs. But for Petrocelli and Gelblum, the package of 30 was dramatic enough. They would be the only ones the lawyers would present in court. . ."

The photos are indisputable proof Simpson lied about the Bruno Maglis. Lies, lies and more lies...

TRIUMPH OF JUSTICE, Daniel Petrocelli --

"...Two days of solid lying. It was time to wrap this up. Simpson said his passport was in his bag. (Paula said it was on the bedside table.) The judge asked him to pull the microphone closer to him; Simpson was so drained the judge was having trouble hearing him. He denied having the key to Nicole's condo. (The police had found it, on it's Smokey the Bear key ring, in his bag.) He said the fake goatee had been put in his grip when it first arrived at Rockingham well before the murders. (His housekeeper said it was on his desk as late as June 9.) I introduced his deposition testimony in which he said seven thousand dollars had not been taken from his closet by the police at Rockingham. Apparently the cops were willing to frame him for murder but wouldn't steal seven grand from his closet."

[William Anthony]

Braggadocios claims that prove nothing.

[weezer]

The photos are indisputable proof Simpson lied about the Bruno Maglis. Lies, lies and more lies...

TRIUMPH OF JUSTICE, Daniel Petrocelli --

"...Two days of solid lying. It was time to wrap this up. Simpson said his passport was in his bag. (Paula said it was on the bedside table.) The judge asked him to pull the microphone closer to him; Simpson was so drained the judge was having trouble hearing him. He denied having the key to Nicole's condo. (The police had found it, on it's Smokey the Bear key ring, in his bag.) He said the fake goatee had been put in his grip when it first arrived at Rockingham well before the murders. (His housekeeper said it was on his desk as late as June 9.) I introduced his deposition testimony in which he said seven thousand dollars had not been taken from his closet by the police at Rockingham. Apparently the cops were willing to frame him for murder but wouldn't steal seven grand from his closet."

I remember reading somewhere all the things that had to have been a coincidence and orenthal to have been the unluckiest so-and-so on the night/day of the murders -- for him not to be the murderer of Ron and Nicole.

I admired Petrocelli's demeanor and professionalism in this case. He was concise, logical, and very smart.

[martin II]

Braggadocios claims that prove nothing.

It was very easy for Times to manipulate oj picture and just as easy for someone to manipulate the shoe pictures.

[martin II]

Braggadocios claims that prove nothing.

Petrocelli was very slick. I have noticed that he had a habit asking questions of his witnesses framed as questions but really full of claims that he wanted to put into the jury's mind. He would make statement full of his claims and end it with 'IS THAT RIGHT' or 'IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID" having given the jury ideas of stuff that was not fact or evidence and he got by with it many times. Thats slick.

[martin II]

The photos are indisputable proof Simpson lied about the Bruno Maglis. Lies, lies and more lies...

TRIUMPH OF JUSTICE, Daniel Petrocelli --

"...Two days of solid lying. It was time to wrap this up. Simpson said his passport was in his bag. (Paula said it was on the bedside table.) The judge asked him to pull the microphone closer to him; Simpson was so drained the judge was having trouble hearing him. He denied having the key to Nicole's condo. (The police had found it, on it's Smokey the Bear key ring, in his bag.) He said the fake goatee had been put in his grip when it first arrived at Rockingham well before the murders. (His housekeeper said it was on his desk as late as June 9.) I introduced his deposition testimony in which he said seven thousand dollars had not been taken from his closet by the police at Rockingham. Apparently the cops were willing to frame him for murder but wouldn't steal seven grand from his closet."


Taking socks from his closet is different from stealing 7 grand in money.But we know some do that too as Ramport proved.

[tv]

I remember reading somewhere all the things that had to have been a coincidence and orenthal to have been the unluckiest so-and-so on the night/day of the murders -- for him not to be the murderer of Ron and Nicole.

I admired Petrocelli's demeanor and professionalism in this case. He was concise, logical, and very smart.

Petrocelli was all of those things. He left no stone unturned in putting the case together and talking to everyone even remotely involved. He did a brilliant job.

I think I've read the coincidence list too -- maybe in Rantella?

[martin II]

I remember reading somewhere all the things that had to have been a coincidence and orenthal to have been the unluckiest so-and-so on the night/day of the murders -- for him not to be the murderer of Ron and Nicole.

I admired Petrocelli's demeanor and professionalism in this case. He was concise, logical, and very smart.

Any lawyer could have won the civil trial. Petro had no special skills and he proved this in his next case, ENRON, where he got his client a long jail term and the client sued him for misrepresentation of his case.The client wanted his money back.

[William Anthony]

Any lawyer could have won the civil trial. Petro had no special skills and he proved this in his next case, ENRON, where he got his client a long jail term and the client sued him for misrepresentation of his case.The client wanted his money back.

Petrocelli was curt, long-winded and very smug, IMHO, but even those characteristics was not enough for him to lose that particular socio political production.

[Hipcheck]

Any lawyer could have won the civil trial. Petro had no special skills and he proved this in his next case, ENRON, where he got his client a long jail term and the client sued him for misrepresentation of his case.The client wanted his money back.

What was Johnnie Cockran's record in jury trials where he was the defense lawyer?

I bet he lost more than he won.

[fgump2]

William,

I am not sure about that. I think many people feel they need that wall to do their jobs. How many times have you the media say how it is for the cops to do their jobs by the laws that have been created because of their prior abuses.

IMO, you have work really, really, really hard at not seeing this wall. IMO, people who do not believe there is a blue wall are in the same category of those who believe the WWII holocaust did not happen.

Talk about faked photos!!!!!!!!! Apparently these people believed way back in the 40's man had the technology to fake photos and news reels.

I would want to make one thing clear, people who do not believe in the holocaust or in the blue wall, IMO are probably on the whole, very good people. I think they find it impossible to wrap their brain around such acts that goes against everything they believe in. I think the best defense of a non-believe I heard was that his God never would have allowed the holocaust to happen. I am sure people who have the same philosphy regarding police have similar beliefs. Again, IMO.

Try looking up books on the blue wall of silence, and also on the holocaust somewhere, a library or amazon.com. There are quite a few more books on the holocaust than on the blue wall of silence. That shows a difference in the credibility level of the two things. Granted cops sometimes cover up for each other. So do people in other professions. But the NGs seem to think there is a blue wall of such strength and reliability that cops can tamper with evidence and not worry about being caught. I doubt this. I started a thread on the blue wall of silence, and some people contributed, and nobody had any evidence that there is a reliable blue wall of silence that exists in most police dept.
I gave my reasons on this thread for thinking that the blue wall is unreliable. Nobody refuted them.

Proving that some cops have misbehaved in one way or another isn't much different than showing that some black people or some jews have misbehaved.

Have you heard the saying that four people can keep a secret if three of them are dead? Actually it would work better if all 4 are dead.

It would have taken more than 2 or 3 people to frame Simpson by the NGs on this board, 4 of the cops who first visited the Rockingham house, and others as well.

It is true that people in the 1940s were faking photos. The question which I raise is that if the photos were faked with 1996- 1997 technology, could they be detected by 2009 (or even say 2004) technology? There has been a lot of progress in forensic photography in the last 10 - 15 years. I don't see anything sinister about doing some of the photographic work in England. England and the US are both big countries. Neither has a monopoy on competence or dishonesty.

There are a wide variety of people who have both the motives and enough money to analyze the shoe photos with modern forensic techniques. To name some: Simpson, Bob Baker, the lawyers from the dream team, the criminlogists who worked for the dream team (Henry Lee and at least one other). All of these people have a motive to weaken the case against Simpson.
It probably cost a lot of money to develope these new forensic photography analysis techniques, but very little to run some 1996-1997 photos through them. As one poster wrote (Tv dinner I think), if Simpson were innocent he would be willing to go to the ends of the earth to show these photos were false. The fact that none of these people has made the effort to prove these photos to be faked shows a lot.

[William Anthony]

What was Johnnie Cockran's record in jury trials where he was the defense lawyer?

I bet he lost more than he won.

I did a quick search and couldn't find anything extolling the accolades of Petrocelli but I did find one espousing the preposterous position he took in a case.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117885982.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1

[fgump2]

I think the magnificent one's awards, acknowledgments and accomplishments have been posted. Does anyone know of any for Petrocelli, other than those Petrocelli claims?
Is discussing the relative merits of Petrocelli VS Cochran a part of this thread?

I think most people know that lawyers often muddy the waters (confuse the jury) to win case. Cochran isn't the first to do this.

Ever heard of the story about a woman who say a grave stone with the writing:
Here lies John ---, an honest man and a lawyer. The woman looked shocked and said:" a terrible thing has been done, they've buried two men in one grave".

[William Anthony]

Try looking up books on the blue wall of silence, and also on the holocaust somewhere, a library or amazon.com. There are quite a few more books on the holocaust than on the blue wall of silence. That shows a difference in the credibility level of the two things. (It only shows that one is more well known than the other, or, if you will, more talked about.) Granted cops sometimes cover up for each other. So do people in other professions. But the NGs seem to think there is a blue wall of such strength and reliability that cops can tamper with evidence and not worry about being caught. I doubt this. I started a thread on the blue wall of silence, and some people contributed, and nobody had any evidence that there is a reliable blue wall of silence that exists in most police dept.
I gave my reasons on this thread for thinking that the blue wall is unreliable. Nobody refuted them. (Then you do not believe MF or Serpico.)

Proving that some cops have misbehaved in one way or another isn't much different than showing that some black people or some jews have misbehaved. (WTH? Are cops a race? Do you think any Caucasians ever misbehave? Are you intentionally making these types of posts?)

Have you heard the saying that four people can keep a secret if three of them are dead? Actually it would work better if all 4 are dead.

It would have taken more than 2 or 3 people to frame Simpson by the NGs on this board, 4 of the cops who first visited the Rockingham house, and others as well.

It is true that people in the 1940s were faking photos. The question which I raise is that if the photos were faked with 1996- 1997 technology, could they be detected by 2009 (or even say 2004) technology? There has been a lot of progress in forensic photography in the last 10 - 15 years. I don't see anything sinister about doing some of the photographic work in England. England and the US are both big countries. Neither has a monopoy on competence or dishonesty.

There are a wide variety of people who have both the motives and enough money to analyze the shoe photos with modern forensic techniques. To name some: Simpson, Bob Baker, the lawyers from the dream team, the criminlogists who worked for the dream team (Henry Lee and at least one other). All of these people have a motive to weaken the case against Simpson.
It probably cost a lot of money to develope these new forensic photography analysis techniques, but very little to run some 1996-1997 photos through them. As one poster wrote (Tv dinner I think), if Simpson were innocent he would be willing to go to the ends of the earth to show these photos were false. The fact that none of these people has made the effort to prove these photos to be faked shows a lot.

Have you ever heard of a cost-benefit analysis? Why spend money to prove something proves nothing when it is obvious that something proves nothing?

[martin II]

Try looking up books on the blue wall of silence, and also on the holocaust somewhere, a library or amazon.com. There are quite a few more books on the holocaust than on the blue wall of silence. That shows a difference in the credibility level of the two things. Granted cops sometimes cover up for each other. So do people in other professions. But the NGs seem to think there is a blue wall of such strength and reliability that cops can tamper with evidence and not worry about being caught. I doubt this. I started a thread on the blue wall of silence, and some people contributed, and nobody had any evidence that there is a reliable blue wall of silence that exists in most police dept.
I gave my reasons on this thread for thinking that the blue wall is unreliable. Nobody refuted them.

Proving that some cops have misbehaved in one way or another isn't much different than showing that some black people or some jews have misbehaved.

Have you heard the saying that four people can keep a secret if three of them are dead? Actually it would work better if all 4 are dead.

It would have taken more than 2 or 3 people to frame Simpson by the NGs on this board, 4 of the cops who first visited the Rockingham house, and others as well.

It is true that people in the 1940s were faking photos. The question which I raise is that if the photos were faked with 1996- 1997 technology, could they be detected by 2009 (or even say 2004) technology? There has been a lot of progress in forensic photography in the last 10 - 15 years. I don't see anything sinister about doing some of the photographic work in England. England and the US are both big countries. Neither has a monopoy on competence or dishonesty.

There are a wide variety of people who have both the motives and enough money to analyze the shoe photos with modern forensic techniques. To name some: Simpson, Bob Baker, the lawyers from the dream team, the criminlogists who worked for the dream team (Henry Lee and at least one other). All of these people have a motive to weaken the case against Simpson.
It probably cost a lot of money to develope these new forensic photography analysis techniques, but very little to run some 1996-1997 photos through them. As one poster wrote (Tv dinner I think), if Simpson were innocent he would be willing to go to the ends of the earth to show these photos were false. The fact that none of these people has made the effort to prove these photos to be faked shows a lot.


See LAPD RAMPART SCANDLE.

Photos meant nothing.

Again ;There was not photo of the full sole of the shoes oj had on in the pictures to compare with the foot prints found at Bundy.Therefore the pictures proved nothing.
Then; the photos were no proof that oj had those shoes on on 6/12.

sorry.

[William Anthony]

Is discussing the relative merits of Petrocelli VS Cochran a part of this thread?

I think most people know that lawyers often muddy the waters (confuse the jury) to win case. Cochran isn't the first to do this.

Ever heard of the story about a woman who say a grave stone with the writing:
Here lies John ---, an honest man and a lawyer. The woman looked shocked and said:" a terrible thing has been done, they've buried two men in one grave".

Since this thread is about the socio political production, I could not understand why you would mention the magnificent one. Here is your post, which was in response to Martin's about Petrocelli.

Originally Posted by Hipcheck View Post
What was Johnnie Cockran's record in jury trials where he was the defense lawyer?

I bet he lost more than he won.

Ever hear the story about the man, who thought he was all that and no one else was half what he was, so he petitioned the court to grant him a license to marry himself-but his buddy that owned a skrimp boat stopped him?

[Hotwater]

Where is this conversation headed?

[fgump2]

Have you ever heard of a cost-benefit analysis? Why spend money to prove something proves nothing when it is obvious that something proves nothing?A cost benefit analysis is hard to run if you don't know the costs. How about you running it for me?

I don't know how much it would cost to do some analysis on the shoe photos, but there would be benefits in that it would perhaps help Simpson gain a retrial, and rehabilitate the damaged reps of some of the people; it would give them some respectibililty.

The Simpson trials are still a source of bitterness and curiosity. Truth matters. If someone could prove these photos to be faked they could probably sell an article on it to some magazine, maybe Nat Enq. That would pay for the forensic photography work with a profit left over.

As for the photos proving nothing - well if you ignore the massive coincidences involved, and of the fact that it shows that Simpson lied about the shoes. Most people don't ignore coincidences so easily. A lot of people are in prison because the juries thought there were too many coincidences for them to be innocent.

I was being unnecesarily inflamatory when I compared some cops mishbehaving with some blacks misbehaving:
Proving that some cops have misbehaved in one way or another isn't much different than showing that some black people or some jews have misbehaved. (WTH? Are cops a race? Do you think any Caucasians ever misbehave? Are you intentionally making these types of posts?)

But there is some truth to the comparison I made, even though slandering an ethnic group is worse than slandering a profession.

[martin II]

I did a quick search and couldn't find anything extolling the accolades of Petrocelli but I did find one espousing the preposterous position he took in a case.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117885982.html?categoryid=1236&cs=1

Another big case lost by petrocelli. Is he a copyright lawyer?

The Disney Co.'s attempted end run around the Winnie the Pooh licensing mess ended in failure Friday when a federal judge rejected a copyright claim made by Disney and Clare Milne, granddaughter of Pooh author A.A. Milne.

[fgump2]

See LAPD RAMPART SCANDLE.

Photos meant nothing.

Again ;There was not photo of the full sole of the shoes oj had on in the pictures to compare with the foot prints found at Bundy.Therefore the pictures proved nothing.
Then; the photos were no proof that oj had those shoes on on 6/12.

sorry.

I haven't read the LAPD Rampart Scandal. Maybe I will someday. The level of trust that people have for their police dept is important. Anything that interferes with that is important. The blue wall of silence is important even if it basically absent in some PDs.
To make a blanket accusation of all police depts is wrong. The saying "keep telling a man he is no good and pretty soon he will prove you right" applies to a lot of situations.

I realize that the LAPD is far from perfect. It is important when criticizing either individuals or organizations to make the criticisms be fair, to not pile it on. The cause of justice is not well served when we turn either individuals or organizations into scapegoats.

We have to buy into a lot of coinicidences to think Simpson was innocent. Showing that he did have and wear Br. M. shoes doesn't come close proving he was guilty, but it certainly adds to the list of coincidences and also the list of lies he told.

[William Anthony]

A cost benefit analysis is hard to run if you don't know the costs. How about you running it for me?

I don't know how much it would cost to do some analysis on the shoe photos, but there would be benefits in that it would perhaps help Simpson gain a retrial, and rehabilitate the damaged reps of some of the people; it would give them some respectibililty.

The Simpson trials are still a source of bitterness and curiosity. Truth matters. If someone could prove these photos to be faked they could probably sell an article on it to some magazine, maybe Nat Enq. That would pay for the forensic photography work with a profit left over.

As for the photos proving nothing - well if you ignore the massive coincidences involved, and of the fact that it shows that Simpson lied about the shoes. Most people don't ignore coincidences so easily. A lot of people are in prison because the juries thought there were too many coincidences for them to be innocent.

I was being unnecesarily inflamatory when I compared some cops mishbehaving with some blacks misbehaving:
Proving that some cops have misbehaved in one way or another isn't much different than showing that some black people or some jews have misbehaved. (WTH? Are cops a race? Do you think any Caucasians ever misbehave? Are you intentionally making these types of posts?)

But there is some truth to the comparison I made, even though slandering an ethnic group is worse than slandering a profession.

Martin has graciously delineated the things that the photos did and could not prove. Additionally, since no shoes were ever produced that belonged to Simpson that were alleged to have been worn on the night of the murders by him, the photos of what can best be described as shoes similar to the ones alleged to be worn proves nothing.

I would now like to venture an educated guess and say that sending the pictures out to be tested would cost more than orally pointing out that they prove nothing. I doubt that a retrial in the socio political production would have ended any differently based upon the posts on this board.

It matters not whether they are fake or genuine as the photos prove nothing. The trial is a source of bitterness, only if you allow it to be.

These alleged coincidences took place in the course of a trial. The question in my mind is what do these coincidences prove as it related to the standard of proof.

You were being unnecessarily inflammatory. How much is necessary?

Do Caucasians misbehave and is there any truth in that comparison?

[martin II]

I haven't read the LAPD Rampart Scandal. Maybe I will someday. The level of trust that people have for their police dept is important. Anything that interferes with that is important. The blue wall of silence is important even if it basically absent in some PDs.
To make a blanket accusation of all police depts is wrong. The saying "keep telling a man he is no good and pretty soon he will prove you right" applies to a lot of situations.

I realize that the LAPD is far from perfect. It is important when criticizing either individuals or organizations to make the criticisms be fair, to not pile it on. The cause of justice is not well served when we turn either individuals or organizations into scapegoats.

We have to buy into a lot of coinicidences to think Simpson was innocent. Showing that he did have and wear Br. M. shoes doesn't come close proving he was guilty, but it certainly adds to the list of coincidences and also the list of lies he told.

If you are interested in knowing whether the blue wall of silence existed in the lapd during the simpson trial, you only need to look for the Rampart scandle.If you haven't by now there is much you don't know about how that department worked.imo

[William Anthony]

I haven't read the LAPD Rampart Scandal. Maybe I will someday. The level of trust that people have for their police dept is important. Anything that interferes with that is important. The blue wall of silence is important even if it basically absent in some PDs.
To make a blanket accusation of all police depts is wrong. The saying "keep telling a man he is no good and pretty soon he will prove you right" applies to a lot of situations.

I realize that the LAPD is far from perfect. It is important when criticizing either individuals or organizations to make the criticisms be fair, to not pile it on. The cause of justice is not well served when we turn either individuals or organizations into scapegoats.

We have to buy into a lot of coinicidences to think Simpson was innocent. Showing that he did have and wear Br. M. shoes doesn't come close proving he was guilty, but it certainly adds to the list of coincidences and also the list of lies he told.

I am asking you to explain what you mean by the cause of justice, meaning the not well served part. I guess I am asking you what you consider justice to be.

It is not whether Simpson was innocent or guilty, but guilty or not guilty. It is not whether Simpson was innocent but liable or not liable.

[martin II]

I haven't read the LAPD Rampart Scandal. Maybe I will someday. The level of trust that people have for their police dept is important. Anything that interferes with that is important. The blue wall of silence is important even if it basically absent in some PDs.
To make a blanket accusation of all police depts is wrong. The saying "keep telling a man he is no good and pretty soon he will prove you right" applies to a lot of situations.

I realize that the LAPD is far from perfect. It is important when criticizing either individuals or organizations to make the criticisms be fair, to not pile it on. The cause of justice is not well served when we turn either individuals or organizations into scapegoats.

We have to buy into a lot of coinicidences to think Simpson was innocent. Showing that he did have and wear Br. M. shoes doesn't come close proving he was guilty, but it certainly adds to the list of coincidences and also the list of lies he told.

Reporting on the activities of the lapd is not scapegoating. it is exposing what they do.

You only have to look at the testimony and the cross to understand that the prosecution did not prove their case but you cannot be biased against the defense when you do this.

[martin II]

I haven't read the LAPD Rampart Scandal. Maybe I will someday. The level of trust that people have for their police dept is important. Anything that interferes with that is important. The blue wall of silence is important even if it basically absent in some PDs.
To make a blanket accusation of all police depts is wrong. The saying "keep telling a man he is no good and pretty soon he will prove you right" applies to a lot of situations.

I realize that the LAPD is far from perfect. It is important when criticizing either individuals or organizations to make the criticisms be fair, to not pile it on. The cause of justice is not well served when we turn either individuals or organizations into scapegoats.

We have to buy into a lot of coinicidences to think Simpson was innocent. Showing that he did have and wear Br. M. shoes doesn't come close proving he was guilty, but it certainly adds to the list of coincidences and also the list of lies he told.

i think every lie that lapd was caught in or every prosecution witness testimony was proven wrong on defense cross, you call it mistake or bad memory. you attack Cochran, Scheck and lee with unproven claims. I think there is a biase
that does not allow you to understand what actually happened in the case.
You make statements about blacks and jews that have racial overtones to them.But like all posters here you have a right to post your opinions.

[martin II]

What was Johnnie Cockran's record in jury trials where he was the defense lawyer?

I bet he lost more than he won.

I posted his record and his bio and his awards here last week.So i am not sure why you ask that question

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9215643]Try looking up books on the blue wall of silence, and also on the holocaust somewhere, a library or amazon.com. There are quite a few more books on the holocaust than on the blue wall of silence. That shows a difference in the credibility level of the two things.


fgump2,

I truly don't understand some of your posts and/or replies. I was very clear in my post. I was posting my opinon on why I believe many people doubt the Holocaust as well as the Blue Wall of Silence. The number of books written on these subjects has nothing to do with the credibililty level of these two things.

How many books and commisson reports have you read about LE departments in our country? Do you remember the Abner Loumia incident? Do you remember what the mayor said about the cops who did report this and how they did this? Didn't the mayor have to give a press conference regarding these police officers and state how they should not face any reprecussions for doing the right thing?

Why do we have whistle blower laws? What happened to the one police officer who testified against the other police officers in the Rodney King case?
Name me one police officer who has ever gone to jail or given the death sentence for tampering and/or planting evidence?

Our police forces are the coroner stone of our legal system. Their credibility and their honor is paramount to the success of their mission. The LAPD has no credbility because any credibility they did have, they lost it and this just did not happen over night.

What you fail to understand is that it is obvious Mark Fuhrman held the criminal case hostage with that glove as well as his racial remarks. He knew what was at stake and put his fellow officers in a position where they had to lie for him or risk their case. Yes, MF took several swipes at VA and Lange, however, he could talk the talk knowing full well Lange and VA would never say they believed he planted the glove. Vanatter was in too deep to back away from his testimony.

However, have you ever considered why, knowing what they knew and knowing what they couldn't prove, why did they take the risk of introducing the glove "found" at Rockingham? By covering for MF, they not only put their credibility at risk but also the judges and the DA's.

I believe there are a lot more good cops then bad cops. However, it is obvious that the good cops do cover for bad cops and because of this, they tarnish their own reputations. I do believe VA took several hits for the home team, I do believe that VA was trying to save a case where he truly believed OJ Simpson was the killer. However, in my opinons, I have to also take into consideration what the jurors said about VA, that his credibililty problems and his demeanor on the stand were obvious and they felt that he was not being honest.

VA took a chance and decided to play "hero" for the LAPD and the DA's office and instead of getting the credit for taking all these hits, the LAPD and the DA's office had nothing nice to say about him or Lange. I think it was the DA's that named them "Dumb and Dumber". That didn't come from the defense. It came from their own side.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9215643]Try looking up books on the blue wall of silence, and also on the holocaust somewhere, a library or amazon.com. There are quite a few more books on the holocaust than on the blue wall of silence. That shows a difference in the credibility level of the two things.


fgump2,

I truly don't understand some of your posts and/or replies. I was very clear in my post. I was posting my opinon on why I believe many people doubt the Holocaust as well as the Blue Wall of Silence. The number of books written on these subjects has nothing to do with the credibililty level of these two things.

How many books and commisson reports have you read about LE departments in our country? Do you remember the Abner Loumia incident? Do you remember what the mayor said about the cops who did report this and how they did this? Didn't the mayor have to give a press conference regarding these police officers and state how they should not face any reprecussions for doing the right thing?

Why do we have whistle blower laws? What happened to the one police officer who testified against the other police officers in the Rodney King case?
Name me one police officer who has ever gone to jail or given the death sentence for tampering and/or planting evidence?

Our police forces are the coroner stone of our legal system. Their credibility and their honor is paramount to the success of their mission. The LAPD has no credbility because any credibility they did have, they lost it and this just did not happen over night.

What you fail to understand is that it is obvious Mark Fuhrman held the criminal case hostage with that glove as well as his racial remarks. He knew what was at stake and put his fellow officers in a position where they had to lie for him or risk their case. Yes, MF took several swipes at VA and Lange, however, he could talk the talk knowing full well Lange and VA would never say they believed he planted the glove. Vanatter was in too deep to back away from his testimony.

However, have you ever considered why, knowing what they knew and knowing what they couldn't prove, why did they take the risk of introducing the glove "found" at Rockingham? By covering for MF, they not only put their credibility at risk but also the judges and the DA's.

I believe there are a lot more good cops then bad cops. However, it is obvious that the good cops do cover for bad cops and because of this, they tarnish their own reputations. I do believe VA took several hits for the home team, I do believe that VA was trying to save a case where he truly believed OJ Simpson was the killer. However, in my opinons, I have to also take into consideration what the jurors said about VA, that his credibililty problems and his demeanor on the stand were obvious and they felt that he was not being honest.

VA took a chance and decided to play "hero" for the LAPD and the DA's office and instead of getting the credit for taking all these hits, the LAPD and the DA's office had nothing nice to say about him or Lange. I think it was the DA's that named them "Dumb and Dumber". That didn't come from the defense. It came from their own side.


i gave fgump2 a prime example of lapd misconduct and the blue wall of silence. Rampart. his response was ' I MAY READ IT AT SOMETIME" etc

I DON.T think any amount of proof interest him if it is against what he currently thinks.
"As william said you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink"
not calling fgump2 a horse just quoting another.

[martin II]

I haven't read the LAPD Rampart Scandal. Maybe I will someday. The level of trust that people have for their police dept is important. Anything that interferes with that is important. The blue wall of silence is important even if it basically absent in some PDs.
To make a blanket accusation of all police depts is wrong. The saying "keep telling a man he is no good and pretty soon he will prove you right" applies to a lot of situations.

I realize that the LAPD is far from perfect. It is important when criticizing either individuals or organizations to make the criticisms be fair, to not pile it on. The cause of justice is not well served when we turn either individuals or organizations into scapegoats.

We have to buy into a lot of coinicidences to think Simpson was innocent. Showing that he did have and wear Br. M. shoes doesn't come close proving he was guilty, but it certainly adds to the list of coincidences and also the list of lies he told.

FGUMP2
Do you know about this case Abner Loumia where several cops that were present refused to talk to internal affairs or the DA. it was several months before the da and internasl affairs threatned to prosecute one that he finally told the truth

Do you know about the black man that cops shot 40 times as he stoiood on his house steps unarmed.All of the cops refused to tell the truth and the man finally won Civil case lawyered by Cochran and others.

i could giver you many others but don't think you would consider them.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9215944]


i gave fgump2 a prime example of lapd misconduct and the blue wall of silence. Rampart. his response was ' I MAY READ IT AT SOMETIME" etc

I DON.T think any amount of proof interest him if it is against what he currently thinks.
"As william said you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink"
not calling fgump2 a horse just quoting another.

Martin,

I am sue you realize that I was not calling Fgump2 a horse and was only speaking figuratively.

[martin II]

I haven't read the LAPD Rampart Scandal. Maybe I will someday. The level of trust that people have for their police dept is important. Anything that interferes with that is important. The blue wall of silence is important even if it basically absent in some PDs.
To make a blanket accusation of all police depts is wrong. The saying "keep telling a man he is no good and pretty soon he will prove you right" applies to a lot of situations.

I realize that the LAPD is far from perfect. It is important when criticizing either individuals or organizations to make the criticisms be fair, to not pile it on. The cause of justice is not well served when we turn either individuals or organizations into scapegoats.

We have to buy into a lot of coinicidences to think Simpson was innocent. Showing that he did have and wear Br. M. shoes doesn't come close proving he was guilty, but it certainly adds to the list of coincidences and also the list of lies he told.

i hope you know that a list of coincidences is not proof beyond a reasonable dout and not enough to convict in a criminal trial.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;9215959]

Martin,

I am sue you realize that I was not calling Fgump2 a horse and was only speaking figuratively.

i understand that completely and was speaking as you were figuratively. just wanted to make sure he understood my intent.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9215963]

i understand that completely and was speaking as you were figuratively. just wanted to make sure he understood my intent.

I understand and I would drink the water as opposed to becoming dehydrated from a lack thereof, speaking figuratively.

[tv]

Is discussing the relative merits of Petrocelli VS Cochran a part of this thread?

I think most people know that lawyers often muddy the waters (confuse the jury) to win case. Cochran isn't the first to do this.

Ever heard of the story about a woman who say a grave stone with the writing:
Here lies John ---, an honest man and a lawyer. The woman looked shocked and said:" a terrible thing has been done, they've buried two men in one grave".

I made the mistake of putting this in the wrong thread so I'm reposting it here -- :) I think it's unfair to drag up other cases of Petrocelli's so this is just to balance it out.

Here's a prime example of Johnnie Cochran promoting his usual battle cry of victimization. What a shyster.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0121/p11s02-coop.html

[martin II]

I made the mistake of putting this in the wrong thread so I'm reposting it here -- :) I think it's unfair to drag up other cases of Petrocelli's so this is just to balance it out.

Here's a prime example of Johnnie Cochran promoting his usual battle cry of victimization. What a shyster.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0121/p11s02-coop.html

What is the intent of your post about cochran? not to start another bashing of him i hope.

[William Anthony]

I made the mistake of putting this in the wrong thread so I'm reposting it here -- :) I think it's unfair to drag up other cases of Petrocelli's so this is just to balance it out.

Here's a prime example of Johnnie Cochran promoting his usual battle cry of victimization. What a shyster.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0121/p11s02-coop.html

You seem to be reading yesterday's newspaper today. Did you not read Hotwater's post, asking where this conversation is going, or do you have the moderators on ignore?

I think that I should explain. I was simply asking did the poster miss the posts, as she may not have been aware of recent posts. Please, understand my use of figurative language and do not take offense. Thanks

[martin II]

I made the mistake of putting this in the wrong thread so I'm reposting it here -- :) I think it's unfair to drag up other cases of Petrocelli's so this is just to balance it out.

Here's a prime example of Johnnie Cochran promoting his usual battle cry of victimization. What a shyster.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0121/p11s02-coop.html

To be correct cochran was not a part of the civil trial so your megative post about him does not belong on the civil trial thread.

[William Anthony]

I made the mistake of putting this in the wrong thread so I'm reposting it here -- :) I think it's unfair to drag up other cases of Petrocelli's so this is just to balance it out.

Here's a prime example of Johnnie Cochran promoting his usual battle cry of victimization. What a shyster.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0121/p11s02-coop.html

Let's set the record straight as to how the magnificent one got to this thread and the comparisons.

Originally Posted by fgump2 View Post
Is discussing the relative merits of Petrocelli VS Cochran a part of this thread?

I think most people know that lawyers often muddy the waters (confuse the jury) to win case. Cochran isn't the first to do this.

Ever heard of the story about a woman who say a grave stone with the writing:
Here lies John ---, an honest man and a lawyer. The woman looked shocked and said:" a terrible thing has been done, they've buried two men in one grave".

Since this thread is about the socio political production, I could not understand why you would mention the magnificent one. Here is your post, which was in response to Martin's about Petrocelli.-William Anthony

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hipcheck View Post
What was Johnnie Cockran's record in jury trials where he was the defense lawyer?

I bet he lost more than he won.
Ever hear the story about the man, who thought he was all that and no one else was half what he was, so he petitioned the court to grant him a license to marry himself-but his buddy that owned a skrimp boat stopped him?-William Anthony

[martin II]

GI

i would like to thank you for all of the important information you haver posted on the various threads. Your readings,books, have given you insight that most
don't have. i have learned a lot from your post and thought i would tell you this.:cool::beer::beer:

[William Anthony]

GI

i would like to thank you for all of the important information you haver posted on the various threads. Your readings,books, have given you insight that most
don't have. i have learned a lot from your post and thought i would tell you this.:cool::beer::beer:

Ditto, Ditto, Ditto, Ditto and so forth and so on.

[Hipcheck]

I posted his record and his bio and his awards here last week.So i am not sure why you ask that question

So what was Johnnie's record as a defense lawyer? Did you post that one?

[William Anthony]

So what was Johnnie's record as a defense lawyer? Did you post that one?

His record was what Tony the Tiger said, "greaaaaaaaaaat.

[Hipcheck]

His record was what Tony the Tiger said, "greaaaaaaaaaat.

So I guess you don't know what his record was as a defense lawyer.

Do you know that most jury trials are won by the prosecution? That is why most prosecutors conviction rate is in the high 90's percent wise which mens defese lawyers are around 2%.

[fgump2]

Martin has graciously delineated the things that the photos did and could not prove. Additionally, since no shoes were ever produced that belonged to Simpson that were alleged to have been worn on the night of the murders by him, the photos of what can best be described as shoes similar to the ones alleged to be worn proves nothing.

I would now like to venture an educated guess and say that sending the pictures out to be tested would cost more than orally pointing out that they prove nothing. I doubt that a retrial in the socio political production would have ended any differently based upon the posts on this board.

It matters not whether they are fake or genuine as the photos prove nothing. The trial is a source of bitterness, only if you allow it to be.

These alleged coincidences took place in the course of a trial. The question in my mind is what do these coincidences prove as it related to the standard of proof.

You were being unnecessarily inflammatory. How much is necessary?

Do Caucasians misbehave and is there any truth in that comparison?
The term "unnecessarily inflammatory" wasn't a good one; at least not as you read it. We cannot discuss controversial ideas or events without getting people upset; but we can get people upset without adding any ideas or viewpoints to the discussion. That difference should be obvious.

Diplomacy has been described as getting points accross without stabbing people. Most people posting on this board have often been way short in terms of diplomacy. That includes me.

As for the question "do caucasions get misbehave?". I guess so. What do you think? So do cablinasians and other groups as well.

[William Anthony]

So I guess you don't know what his record was as a defense lawyer.

Do you know that most jury trials are won by the prosecution? That is why most prosecutors conviction rate is in the high 90's percent wise which mens defese lawyers are around 2%.

Which would mean that if the magnificent one's record was 2&1/2% his record was magnificently greaaaaaaaat.

[William Anthony]

The term "unnecessarily inflammatory" wasn't a good one; at least not as you read it. We cannot discuss controversial ideas or events without getting people upset; but we can get people upset without adding any ideas or viewpoints to the discussion. That difference should be obvious.

Diplomacy has been described as getting points accross without stabbing people. Most people posting on this board have often been way short in terms of diplomacy. That includes me.

As for the question "do caucasions get misbehave?". I guess so. What do you think? So do cablinasians and other groups as well.

This is the way I read it with the letters i, l and y added to the root of unnecessar to denote an adverb modifying the passive verb is. The difference as I understand what you are posting is that one can get upset and decide not to post but I think one can get upset and post so long as one follows the rules.

I think that if one does the latter he/she has exhibited diplomacy. You are sure that Blacks and Jews misbehave but are not sure about Caucasians. I think all people are human and as such are not perfect.

[fgump2]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9215643]Try looking up books on the blue wall of silence, and also on the holocaust somewhere, a library or amazon.com. There are quite a few more books on the holocaust than on the blue wall of silence. That shows a difference in the credibility level of the two things.


fgump2,

I truly don't understand some of your posts and/or replies. I was very clear in my post. I was posting my opinon on why I believe many people doubt the Holocaust as well as the Blue Wall of Silence. The number of books written on these subjects has nothing to do with the credibililty level of these two things.

How many books and commisson reports have you read about LE departments in our country? Do you remember the Abner Loumia incident? Do you remember what the mayor said about the cops who did report this and how they did this? Didn't the mayor have to give a press conference regarding these police officers and state how they should not face any reprecussions for doing the right thing?

Why do we have whistle blower laws? What happened to the one police officer who testified against the other police officers in the Rodney King case? you tell meName me one police officer who has ever gone to jail or given the death sentence for tampering and/or planting evidence?

Our police forces are the coroner stone of our legal system. Their credibility and their honor is paramount to the success of their mission. The LAPD has no credbility because any credibility they did have, they lost it and this just did not happen over night.

What you fail to understand is that it is obvious Mark Fuhrman held the criminal case hostage with that glove as well as his racial remarks. He knew what was at stake and put his fellow officers in a position where they had to lie for him or risk their case. Yes, MF took several swipes at VA and Lange, however, he could talk the talk knowing full well Lange and VA would never say they believed he planted the glove. Vanatter was in too deep to back away from his testimony.

However, have you ever considered why, knowing what they knew and knowing what they couldn't prove, why did they take the risk of introducing the glove "found" at Rockingham? By covering for MF, they not only put their credibility at risk but also the judges and the DA's.

I believe there are a lot more good cops then bad cops. However, it is obvious that the good cops do cover for bad cops and because of this, they tarnish their own reputations. I do believe VA took several hits for the home team, I do believe that VA was trying to save a case where he truly believed OJ Simpson was the killer. However, in my opinons, I have to also take into consideration what the jurors said about VA, that his credibililty problems and his demeanor on the stand were obvious and they felt that he was not being honest.

VA took a chance and decided to play "hero" for the LAPD and the DA's office and instead of getting the credit for taking all these hits, the LAPD and the DA's office had nothing nice to say about him or Lange. I think it was the DA's that named them "Dumb and Dumber". That didn't come from the defense. It came from their own side.
If a cop covers up for the bad deeds of a bad cop, then I question whether you could call the cop doing the covering up a good cop. I think there has been a lot of cops covering up for other cops, and a lot of it is racial, or at least involves race. In the thread on the blue wall of silence I mentioned a book about one case in New Jersey about a case in which a cop killed a black teenager and and other cops covered up for him. All the cops were white. So
there is evidence for a blue wall of silence. But the question I raised in that thread was about the reliability of the blue wall of silence. I admit that it does exist and does include covering up for murder. I think that is serious; but the very fact that it is serious means that it is important to find out in what circumstances this blue wall of silence will be a factor; and where it is likely to be strong, and where it is likely to be weak.
There have been other cases as well. I started the blue wall of silence thread discuss these questions, not provide an answer to them. My belief is that cops covering for other cops is common, and probably impossible to eliminate, but not so reliable as to make M. Fuhrman, Vannatter, or anyone else think that anything goes, that the blue wall will protect anything.
I live near Washington, D.C. In the last year or two there was a case in Prince Georges County, Maryland (borders Washington), in which the evidence was that a black prisoner in jail for killing a cop was strangled by jail employees. I don't know how air tight the evidence was or if there is still investigation. I think some of the jail employees were black, so it wasn't purely racial.

I feel irritated that so many people believe in the blue wall of silence, that it does such an effective job of protecting bad cops, and yet has been no systematic studies of this - that I know of. I find it strange that people would rather post about the Simpson case that about things relating to the blue wall of silence.

This board has raised some interesting questions, but to expect people - amateurs - to make meaningful posts about edta and crime labs one day, search warrants another day, and the blue wall of silence the another day is not realistic.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9215944]
If a cop covers up for the bad deeds of a bad cop, then I question whether you could call the cop doing the covering up a good cop. I think there has been a lot of cops covering up for other cops, and a lot of it is racial, or at least involves race. In the thread on the blue wall of silence I mentioned a book about one case in New Jersey about a case in which a cop killed a black teenager and and other cops covered up for him. All the cops were white. So
there is evidence for a blue wall of silence. But the question I raised in that thread was about the reliability of the blue wall of silence. I admit that it does exist and does include covering up for murder. I think that is serious; but the very fact that it is serious means that it is important to find out in what circumstances this blue wall of silence will be a factor; and where it is likely to be strong, and where it is likely to be weak.
There have been other cases as well. I started the blue wall of silence thread discuss these questions, not provide an answer to them. My belief is that cops covering for other cops is common, and probably impossible to eliminate, but not so reliable as to make M. Fuhrman, Vannatter, or anyone else think that anything goes, that the blue wall will protect anything.
I live near Washington, D.C. In the last year or two there was a case in Prince Georges County, Maryland (borders Washington), in which the evidence was that a black prisoner in jail for killing a cop was strangled by jail employees. I don't know how air tight the evidence was or if there is still investigation. I think some of the jail employees were black, so it wasn't purely racial.

I feel irritated that so many people believe in the blue wall of silence, that it does such an effective job of protecting bad cops, and yet has been no systematic studies of this - that I know of. I find it strange that people would rather post about the Simpson case that about things relating to the blue wall of silence.

This board has raised some interesting questions, but to expect people - amateurs - to make meaningful posts about edta and crime labs one day, search warrants another day, and the blue wall of silence the another day is not realistic.

It is unrealistic to think that jurors do not come from all walks of life and have various interests. It is exactly that variety that a trial should seek to ensure. Juries are not and should not be composed of experts, because experts are trained to regurgitate what they read and most believe what they read to be the gospel until it is proven wrong. Therefore, those "amateurs" bring their respective life experiences and commons sense to the jury room and deliberation table. That is the variety that is most likely to ensure justice, IMHO.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9215944]
If a cop covers up for the bad deeds of a bad cop, then I question whether you could call the cop doing the covering up a good cop. I think there has been a lot of cops covering up for other cops, and a lot of it is racial, or at least involves race. In the thread on the blue wall of silence I mentioned a book about one case in New Jersey about a case in which a cop killed a black teenager and and other cops covered up for him. All the cops were white. So
there is evidence for a blue wall of silence. But the question I raised in that thread was about the reliability of the blue wall of silence. I admit that it does exist and does include covering up for murder. I think that is serious; but the very fact that it is serious means that it is important to find out in what circumstances this blue wall of silence will be a factor; and where it is likely to be strong, and where it is likely to be weak.
There have been other cases as well. I started the blue wall of silence thread discuss these questions, not provide an answer to them. My belief is that cops covering for other cops is common, and probably impossible to eliminate, but not so reliable as to make M. Fuhrman, Vannatter, or anyone else think that anything goes, that the blue wall will protect anything.
I live near Washington, D.C. In the last year or two there was a case in Prince Georges County, Maryland (borders Washington), in which the evidence was that a black prisoner in jail for killing a cop was strangled by jail employees. I don't know how air tight the evidence was or if there is still investigation. I think some of the jail employees were black, so it wasn't purely racial.

I feel irritated that so many people believe in the blue wall of silence, that it does such an effective job of protecting bad cops, and yet has been no systematic studies of this - that I know of. I find it strange that people would rather post about the Simpson case that about things relating to the blue wall of silence.

This board has raised some interesting questions, but to expect people - amateurs - to make meaningful posts about edta and crime labs one day, search warrants another day, and the blue wall of silence the another day is not realistic.

The fact that there are many cases where cops lie in their testimony to protect bad cfops is proof that the wall exist. The fact that this untrue testimony results in many defendants beeing unfairly convicted indicated the results of the wall of silence. In rampart 70 cops remained silent.Some lie until caught some forever.

I don;t understand why you ignore that fact that the DOJ took control of the lapd for this same reason.

[martin II]

Any interested person can look at almost any police department in our country and find instances of cops covering up for other cops in the 'BROTHERHOOD' it is really no secrete.To suggest that there is no research or history on this issue is just not accurate.imo

I think people look for information that supports their standing opinions not what conflicts with them. It is sometimes difficult to accept truth that conflicts with standing beliefs.

It was obvious to many legal minds and stated publically that the prosecution failed to prove their case based on the prosecution presentation of their case.Yet many still claim that oj was guilty and the jury was just some ignorant uneducated groups of black people that ignored the evidence.imo

[martin II]

fgump2

your comment
I feel irritated that so many people believe in the blue wall of silence, that it does such an effective job of protecting bad cops, and yet has been no systematic studies of this - that I know of. I find it strange that people would rather post about the Simpson case that about things relating to the blue wall of silence.


1. The christopher report
2. The Napp Commission
3. PBS Report
4. N.Y.Times report
5. L.A. Times report
6. U.S. DOJ investigation

These are all reports that examined The Blue Wall Of Silence issue. It is not true that there has been no studies/reports on this issue. After the completion of these reports there was no question of its existance and the damage it did to le,the courts and citizens. Althought you have stated you "may read" the Rampart report ,it documented 70 police officers semained quite about a murder commited by a le officer.

This activity was happening during the oj trial by lapd officers so it is not a stretch to believe that those officers lied. the proof was in their testimony.:cool:

[martin II]

Try looking up books on the blue wall of silence, and also on the holocaust somewhere, a library or amazon.com. There are quite a few more books on the holocaust than on the blue wall of silence. Thats a sill comparison. The holocaust was a world wide event that impacted on 4-5 million people. the BWS impacts local police departments. Why you would compare the two makes no sense. imoThat shows a difference in the credibility level of the two things.Absolutely not true. Granted cops sometimes cover up for each other. So do people in other professions. People in other profession are not the same as leBut the NGs seem to think there is a blue wall of such strength and reliability that cops can tamper with evidence and not worry about being caught.cops are frequently caught I doubt this. I started a thread on the blue wall of silence, and some people contributed, and nobody had any evidence that there is a reliable blue wall of silence that exists in most police dept. There is reliable evidence but you seem not to be interested in being informed. Your Rampasrt comment proves this
I gave my reasons on this thread for thinking that the blue wall is unreliable. Nobody refuted them.The reports i have posted proves this statement wrong.

Proving that some cops have misbehaved in one way or another isn't much different than showing that some black people or some jews have misbehaved. can you explain this comment?

Have you heard the saying that four people can keep a secret if three of them are dead? Actually it would work better if all 4 are dead.

It would have taken more than 2 or 3 people to frame Simpson by the NGs on this board, 4 of the cops who first visited the Rockingham house, and others as well.

It is true that people in the 1940s were faking photos. The question which I raise is that if the photos were faked with 1996- 1997 technology, could they be detected by 2009 (or even say 2004) technology? There has been a lot of progress in forensic photography in the last 10 - 15 years. I don't see anything sinister about doing some of the photographic work in England. England and the US are both big countries. Neither has a monopoy on competence or dishonesty.

There are a wide variety of people who have both the motives and enough money to analyze the shoe photos with modern forensic techniques. To name some: Simpson, Bob Baker, the lawyers from the dream team, the criminlogists who worked for the dream team (Henry Lee and at least one other). All of these people have a motive to weaken the case against Simpson.
It probably cost a lot of money to develope these new forensic photography analysis techniques, but very little to run some 1996-1997 photos through them. As one poster wrote (Tv dinner I think), if Simpson were innocent he would be willing to go to the ends of the earth to show these photos were false. The fact that none of these people has made the effort to prove these photos to be faked shows a lot.

Please see the various reports i posted on BWS. maby that will help you to understrand.

[martin II]

So what was Johnnie's record as a defense lawyer? Did you post that one?

Obviously you don't understand. his record is contained in my post. :read:

[tv]

Since the defense got nowhere with their false claims about LE misconduct in the CIVIL TRIAL it's more appropriate to discuss the Domestic Violence that was proven Orenthal James Simpson perpetrated against one of the victims Nicole Brown Simpson.

What is domestic violence?

Domestic violence is a pattern of behavior that one intimate partner, such as a spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend, exerts over another as a means of control. Domestic violence can physically harm, arouse fear, prevent an individual from doing what they wish, or force an individual to behave in ways they
do not wish to. The severity of domestic violence usually increases over time. It often begins with emotional abuse and progresses toward physical threats or bodily harm. Abusive episodes are often interspersed with periods of affectionate behavior.
http://www.mass.gov/mova/pdfs/DomesticViolenceFacts.pdf


In 1994, women separated from their spouses had a victimization rate 1 1/2 times
higher than separated men, divorced men, or divorced women. – Sex Differences in
Violent Victimization, 1994, U.S. Department of Justice, September, 1997
http://www.odmhsas.org/News%20Stories%20PDF/10-03%20National%20Domestic%20Violence%20Stats.pdf

[William Anthony]

Since the defense got nowhere with their false claims about LE misconduct in the CIVIL TRIAL it's more appropriate to discuss the Domestic Violence that was proven Orenthal James Simpson perpetrated against one of the victims Nicole Brown Simpson.

What is domestic violence?

Domestic violence is a pattern of behavior that one intimate partner, such as a spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend, exerts over another as a means of control. Domestic violence can physically harm, arouse fear, prevent an individual from doing what they wish, or force an individual to behave in ways they
do not wish to. The severity of domestic violence usually increases over time. It often begins with emotional abuse and progresses toward physical threats or bodily harm. Abusive episodes are often interspersed with periods of affectionate behavior.
http://www.mass.gov/mova/pdfs/DomesticViolenceFacts.pdf


In 1994, women separated from their spouses had a victimization rate 1 1/2 times
higher than separated men, divorced men, or divorced women. – Sex Differences in
Violent Victimization, 1994, U.S. Department of Justice, September, 1997
http://www.odmhsas.org/News%20Stories%20PDF/10-03%20National%20Domestic%20Violence%20Stats.pdf

The DV evidence, exculding that which was hearsay, was rightly a part of the civil trial, since Simpson was charged with battery and oppression on Ms. NBS, IMHO.

[Hotwater]

The Moderator will not give more than one warning regarding problem behavior.
The Moderator will determine member timeouts based on lack of civility, which includes:
· Rudeness to others
· Foul language
· Failure to follow the guidelines of discussion
· Repeated bashing of each other -- everyone's entitled to their opinion. Please find a way to be respectful even if you don't agree.


A TIMEOUT IS A BAN OF ANYWHERE FROM 3-10 DAY'S TBD BY THE MODERATOR. REPEAT OFFENDERS RISK BEING PERMANENTLY BANNED!

[GreenIce]

The DV evidence, exculding that which was hearsay, was rightly a part of the civil trial, since Simpson was charged with battery and oppression on Ms. NBS, IMHO.

William,

The DA's could not have DV expert testify in their case in chief because the expert could only testify about Nicole's behaviors and how they fit the profile of a battered woman. Nicole did not fit the profile and they could not put someone on the stand to say other wise.

The DA's DV case ended long before Denise Brown took the stand, it ended with Nicole's own words, that Simpson only hit her once. I believe AC also testified that it only happened once.

In regards to the other witness, the chauffer driver and India Allen, my question to them is simple, if you witnessed a woman being beaten up, why did you do nothing? Why did wait almost 10 years later and after 1 trial where the defendant was trial for the murder?

The one witness, India Allen made it seem like Nicole's cheating was why she was getting hit, there is no evidence to suggest that Nicole ever cheated on Simpson. And again, I ask, why didn't she call the police. She didn't have to give a name.

And the other guy, the driver, he was 60 yards away and the reason he didn't call the police was........he was afraid the black man was rich and famous and would track him down until the ends of the earth?

I asked Marcia Clark if Nicole killed OJ, would she be able to use the battered woman's syndrome as a defense and Clark said no, she would not have been allowed. There was only 1 phsyical incident and the verbal encounters were a two way street and were not out of the norm of other relationships.

In many ways, the belief that Nicole was a battered woman has established some good in this world, however, the problem is, Nicole should not and would not be considered a battered woman had she killed Simpson.

I am sure I have just earned the wrath of several posters but you can only take their distortions for so long. IMO.

[tv]

This fits Nicole's situation perfectly:

Often the most frustrating thing for the victim, many batterers are excellent actors. They may appear to function well at work, with friends and family, etc. Sometimes only the battered spouse is aware of the true "nature of the beast". This often makes it difficult for a victim to reach out for support from friends and family, because those persons may try to talk the victim out of thinking that their spouse is a batterer. Often friends and family of the victim will go on and on about "what a great partner you've got there" - because the batterer has successfully hidden their violence at home. It's even MORE frustrating for the victim when members of their support system try to turn the tables and say things like "well, just don't make him/her mad". They're putting the blame on the VICTIM and not on the offender where it belongs! When this happens, the violent partner gets backup from the very people the victim NEEDS for support and they too fall into the trap of myths about the nature and causes of relationship violence.

http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/batterer.shtml

[William Anthony]

William,

The DA's could not have DV expert testify in their case in chief because the expert could only testify about Nicole's behaviors and how they fit the profile of a battered woman. Nicole did not fit the profile and they could not put someone on the stand to say other wise.

The DA's DV case ended long before Denise Brown took the stand, it ended with Nicole's own words, that Simpson only hit her once. I believe AC also testified that it only happened once.

In regards to the other witness, the chauffer driver and India Allen, my question to them is simple, if you witnessed a woman being beaten up, why did you do nothing? Why did wait almost 10 years later and after 1 trial where the defendant was trial for the murder?

The one witness, India Allen made it seem like Nicole's cheating was why she was getting hit, there is no evidence to suggest that Nicole ever cheated on Simpson. And again, I ask, why didn't she call the police. She didn't have to give a name.

And the other guy, the driver, he was 60 yards away and the reason he didn't call the police was........he was afraid the black man was rich and famous and would track him down until the ends of the earth?

I asked Marcia Clark if Nicole killed OJ, would she be able to use the battered woman's syndrome as a defense and Clark said no, she would not have been allowed. There was only 1 phsyical incident and the verbal encounters were a two way street and were not out of the norm of other relationships.

In many ways, the belief that Nicole was a battered woman has established some good in this world, however, the problem is, Nicole should not and would not be considered a battered woman had she killed Simpson.

I am sure I have just earned the wrath of several posters but you can only take their distortions for so long. IMO.

GreenIce,

I do feel that the DV evidence was handled properly in the criminal trial as that was a trial brought on a charge of murder. The civil trial alleged battery and oppression and, as such, it was proper to admit more evidence of DV, providing the evidence fell within one of the hearsay exceptions. Of course, what is credible would remain to the jury to decide.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

I do feel that the DV evidence was handled properly in the criminal trial as that was a trial brought on a charge of murder. The civil trial alleged battery and oppression and, as such, it was proper to admit more evidence of DV, providing the evidence fell within one of the hearsay exceptions. Of course, what is credible would remain to the jury to decide.

William,

I understand the reasoning behind the rules of evidence in both type of trials. However, to be fair, I think when it comes to such accusations, the rules of evidence should be the same in both trials. It is too easy for someone to get up and say what they want to say and not have to prove it. It doesn't matter if the witness is lying or embellishing, the defendant is sunk.

And while I respect the verdict in the civil trial, Gumby could have testified that when Simpson took a swing at Nicole, he missed and knocked Pokey on his butt and that would have been allowed in. IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

I understand the reasoning behind the rules of evidence in both type of trials. However, to be fair, I think when it comes to such accusations, the rules of evidence should be the same in both trials. It is too easy for someone to get up and say what they want to say and not have to prove it. It doesn't matter if the witness is lying or embellishing, the defendant is sunk.

And while I respect the verdict in the civil trial, Gumby could have testified that when Simpson took a swing at Nicole, he missed and knocked Pokey on his butt and that would have been allowed in. IMO.

I understand but depending on what is alleged determines in part what is relevant and admissible. I cannot disagree as to what the jury may have believed nor can I agree. I just know if jurors said some of the things attributed to them, which I can't specifically remember, then they did not understand their reason for being there.

[martin II]

This fits Nicole's situation perfectly:

Often the most frustrating thing for the victim, many batterers are excellent actors. They may appear to function well at work, with friends and family, etc. Sometimes only the battered spouse is aware of the true "nature of the beast". This often makes it difficult for a victim to reach out for support from friends and family, because those persons may try to talk the victim out of thinking that their spouse is a batterer. Often friends and family of the victim will go on and on about "what a great partner you've got there" - because the batterer has successfully hidden their violence at home. It's even MORE frustrating for the victim when members of their support system try to turn the tables and say things like "well, just don't make him/her mad". They're putting the blame on the VICTIM and not on the offender where it belongs! When this happens, the violent partner gets backup from the very people the victim NEEDS for support and they too fall into the trap of myths about the nature and causes of relationship violence.

http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/batterer.shtml

There are many instances of abuce women against men and men against women but fewer murders.

[fgump2]

William,

The DA's could not have DV expert testify in their case in chief because the expert could only testify about Nicole's behaviors and how they fit the profile of a battered woman. Nicole did not fit the profile and they could not put someone on the stand to say other wise.

In many ways, the belief that Nicole was a battered woman has established some good in this world, however, the problem is, Nicole should not and would not be considered a battered woman had she killed Simpson.

I am sure I have just earned the wrath of several posters but you can only take their distortions for so long. IMO.
The main reason the DA's didn't put on a DV expert is because most of that type of testimony is kept out by coutroom rules. In the civil trial Petrocelli got some respected experts who were willing to testify that Simpson fit the profile of both a wife beater and a wife killer, the judge wouldn't allow that type of testimony.

The legal reasoning is that the DA's cannot use an argument like "Simpson fits the profile of a wife killer therefore he likely did it". The reasoning of "Nicole fits the profile of a battered wife therefore ...." would probably be rejected for the same reason.
The experts on spousal murder and the legal reasons on why this testimoney is kept out are quoted in Petrocelli's book. Whether Simpson fits the profile of a wife killer is more important than whether Nicole met the profile as a battered woman.
I don't find it important that Lenore Walker said that Simpson didn't fit the profile of a wife killer or beater or some such thing.
Ann Rule has written quite a few books which involve a certain amount of psychological studies of killers. She has a degree in psychology, and has probably read books on it in to help her write books. She wrote that sociopaths are usually better at fooling members of the opposite sex. In other words a male sociopath/psychopath could more easily fool a woman than a man. This means in this case, that Saul Faerstein could probably do a better job of judging whether Simpson is a sociopath than could Lenore Walker. Simpson had a lot of charm in him and I could picture him pulling the wool over a lot of people's eyes - men and women both.

Whether Nicole could have met the profile of a battered woman if she had killed Simpson is something we do not know. What Marcial Clark said is probably not the last word, althought I could see that many would value it more than mine. Marcia Clark probably gave the question at most a few minutes of thought. Do you also value Marcia Clark's opinion on Orenthal Simpson's guilt?
If you have trouble taking the distortions of others, I hope you don't pay much attention to politics - and a lot of other things as well.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9216933]The main reason the DA's didn't put on a DV expert is because most of that type of testimony is kept out by coutroom rules. In the civil trial Petrocelli got some respected experts who were willing to testify that Simpson fit the profile of both a wife beater and a wife killer, the judge wouldn't allow that type of testimony.


Whether Nicole could have met the profile of a battered woman if she had killed Simpson is something we do not know. What Marcial Clark said is probably not the last word, althought I could see that many would value it more than mine. Marcia Clark probably gave the question at most a few minutes of thought. Do you also value Marcia Clark's opinion on Orenthal Simpson's guilt?

fgump2,

The DV expert would have had to evaluate Nicole's behavior, if Nicole's pattern of behavior fit that of a battered woman, the expert would have been able to testify.

The battered woman's syndrome is probably the most difficult defense there is and it very rarely works. No judge in the land would have allowed Nicole to use the battered woman syndrome. However, if a judge did, Marcia Clark would have ate Nicole's lunch in the trial. Clark would have had no problem proving that there was only two events that involved physical contact and both of those happened when both of them were very drunk.

I had the opportunity to ask her the question and she did say what a great question it was and she explained why Nicole would not have been able to use it. Using DV as a defense for Nicole would have sunk quicker then the DV case the DA's put on. It just wasn't there.

[GreenIce]

Has any one noticed that Petrocelli seems to have several answers to the same question that the DA's never even got close to? And have you noticed the answers he gets from his witnesses, doesn't even have to be in the ball park, they just have to be in the same universe?

[William Anthony]

Has any one noticed that Petrocelli seems to have several answers to the same question that the DA's never even got close to? And have you noticed the answers he gets from his witnesses, doesn't even have to be in the ball park, they just have to be in the same universe?

GreenIce,

Are you sure about the universe?

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

Are you sure about the universe?

William,

I am scientifcally challenged---I can't even spell it! I take it there are more then one universe? Which only makes sense when you look at the Plaintiff's witness list:)

[William Anthony]

William,

I am scientifcally challenged---I can't even spell it! I take it there are more then one universe? Which only makes sense when you look at the Plaintiff's witness list:)

GreenIce,

I must agree as the term "universally accepted" must have had a different meaning to Petrocelli as he tried to connect the dots and claimed he proved certain things.:)