Key Testimony in the Civil Trial

[weezer]

HARRY SCULL, free-lance photographer: (VT-RT) Took head-to-toe picture of Simpson in September 1993. Nov. 7, 1996:

DR. ROBERT HUIZENGA, former Los Angeles Raiders physician: Examined Simpson twice the week after killings, noted three cuts and seven abrasions on left hand; estimated wounds were five to seven days old, which would include date of killings; Simpson had arthritis and other football-related problems.

KENNETH BERRIS, Chicago police detective: (RT) Saw what appeared to be blood spots on sheets and pillowcase in Simpson's hotel room; found broken glass in bathroom sink, glass shards on bathroom counter; saw no blood on glass. Nov. 8, 1996:

DR. WERNER SPITZ, forensic pathologist, former Detroit coroner: Ms. Simpson died in about 15 seconds, Goldman about a minute; killings committed by one attacker with one knife; Simpson's hand injuries could have been caused by victims' fingernails as they struggled; all wounds inflicted in way that killer would have very little blood on him; raked his own arm with fingernails, drawing no blood, to show how Goldman could have torn at killer; Ms. Simpson punched near mouth. Nov. 12, 1996:

DOUGLAS DEEDRICK, special agent for FBI: Hair matching Simpson's found on Goldman's shirt, entwined in knit cap; hair matching both victims found on right glove; limb hair from unidentified black person found on right glove; Ms. Simpson's hair found on Goldman's shirt, on glove and hat found near bodies; carpet fibers matching samples taken from Simpson's 1994 Bronco found inside cap and on glove at Simpson's - such carpet was installed in 72,000 Ford Broncos, vans and trucks made after May 1993; Goldman's shirt had hair fragment that could have been Simpson's and cashmere strands that could have come from glove linings; glove found at Simpson home yielded a hair from Ms. Simpson, hairs from Goldman, limb hair from black person, bloody fibers from Goldman's shirt, carpet fiber and mysterious blue-black cotton strand; other blue-black strands found on Goldman's shirt and on socks from Simpson's bedroom; negroid hairs not belonging to Simpson found in cap.

ROBIN COTTON, director Cellmark Diagnostics: Simpson's genetic markers match those found in blood drops near bodies and in foyer of house; chances 1 in 170 million that someone else's type would match blood drop near bodies; less-sophisticated testing on four other blood drops gave better chance blood could have been someone else's, but calculations still overwhelmingly against him; unlikely Ms. Simpson's test tube blood was planted on socks because test results on samples so different - DNA in Ms. Simpson's blood vial degraded more than DNA in sock blood sample. Nov. 14-15, 1996:

GARY SIMS, biochemist for California Department of Justice: Conducted DNA tests confirming many Cellmark findings; chances of 1 in 57 billion to 1 in 150 billion that blood on back gate was not Simpson's. Nov. 18, 1996:

[weezer]

O.J. SIMPSON: Allegations he killed victims "absolutely not true"; never battered ex-wife, she lied when she said he hit her; she started lot of their fights but he responsible for New Year's 1989 battle; denied Paula Barbieri romance ended night of killings and said he never got phone message to that effect despite seemingly contradictory phone records; phoned ex-wife about 9 p.m. night of killings and asked to speak with daughter, congratulated her on dance recital; no person saw him during critical 80 minutes on killing night.

Couldn't explain cut hand; didn't know how his blood or victims' blood got into Bronco or how his blood and Ms. Simpson's blood got on socks; never owned shoes matching those linked to killings, photo showing him wearing such shoes "is a fraud"; had no fingernail gouges from victims; might have been cut while "rassling" with son; was hooked to polygraph to see how device worked but never took test; offered to take polygraph for police but they never pursued.

Had passport and fake mustache and goatee in bag during Bronco chase, in which he was heading for ex-wife's grave; "suicide" letter expressed no sorrow over killing, but "I felt the whole letter went to my sorrow"; did not ask Kaelin about thumps during call on flight from Chicago; did not try to contact security company, police or daughter on flight back; doesn't remember, when Barbieri visited him in jail, asking her about message he left on her answering machine shortly before slayings; he and Ms. Simpson had "few ups and downs"; accepted responsibility for 1989 fight because "didn't think Nicole and I should be in a courtroom explaining to the public what happened." Dec. 3, 1996:

[weezer]

AL "A.C." COWLINGS, Simpson's best friend: Took Ms. Simpson to hospital after 1989 fight; she told him Simpson hit her.

INDIA ALLEN, 1988 Playboy Playmate of the Year, dog groomer: Recounted 1980s fight between Simpsons in parking lot of veterinary office.

ALBERT AGUILERA, pharmacist: Saw Simpson strike wife in Laguna Beach shortly before July 4th weekend, 1986. Dec. 4, 1996:

NANCY N. NEY, volunteer at Sojourn House, battered women's shelter: Took call from woman identified as Nicole five days before killings; caller said famous ex-husband was stalking her, had beaten her and threatened to kill her if he caught her with another man.

[weezer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[weezer]

JUDITHA BROWN, Ms. Simpson's mother: Sobbed in describing daughter's final days; saw Simpson leaning over coffin, kissing her and saying, "I'm so sorry, Nicki. I'm so sorry"; Simpson was angry, in foul mood at recital; three weeks before killing, Simpson told her: "I'll tell you, the first time when she left me, I took the blame - it was my fault. The second time, it's going to hurt."

[weezer]

Jan. 14, 1997:

E.J. FLAMMER, free-lance photographer: Took 30 pictures of Simpson on Sept. 26, 1993, at Buffalo Bills-Miami Dolphins game; photos to promote 20th anniversary of Simpson's 2,003-yard rushing season; found pictures recently in basement darkroom and gave to plaintiffs; hired lawyer and agent and sold pictures to TV networks.

GERALD RICHARDS, former FBI photo analyst: Refuted Groden's claims that Scull picture was phony - photo not altered in any way; blue lines on negative were scratches from camera mechanism, frame not larger than other negatives, reddish tint was reflection of red football field, false edge on negative was start of film roll. Jan. 15, 1997

RICHARDS (continuing): Scull photo "100% not a fake"; backlighting created halo effect around shoes; in photo of crime-scene glove, what looked like hole was optical illusion created by debris.

GREGORY MATHESON, crime lab supervisor: Debris marred glove in picture; blood on glove matched Goldman's; Bronco console was smeared with blood in Sept. 1, 1994, photos, but appeared clean in pictures three weeks later.

DENNIS FUNG: Recanted testimony about hole in glove; no longer believes evidence glove different from one he collected near bodies; denied he was pressured to change story.

RICHARD FOX, private criminalist: Rebutted defense experts about microscopic balls of blood inside sock; blood could have transferred during testing or when wearer took socks off; defense theory that blood was smeared on sock in lab unlikely. Jan. 16, 1997

BRAD POPOVICH, chemical molecular geneticist: No evidence of contamination in DNA samples; results accurate, reliable; was paid $30,000 by criminal trial prosecutors but never called to testify.

GERALD RICHARDS (recalled): Flammer's 30 photos authentic, no signs of alteration or substitution of negatives; someone with motivation, time, equipment, money and talent could fake pictures.

WILLIAM BODZIAK: Shoes seen on Simpson's feet in Flammer's pictures are Lorenzo-style Bruno Maglis.

By The Associated Press

[weezer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also Monday:

Simpson denied he had a series of small, fingernail-shaped cuts on his hands the day after the murders despite police photos to the contrary.
Simpson said he had no idea how his blood and that of the victims got into his house, his Bronco or the murder scene.
Simpson called a "fraud" photos of him in shoes like those linked to the murders.
Shown pictures of him wearing gloves similar to those found at the murder scene, he denied they were his.
Shown pictures of him wearing a dark sweatsuit for an exercise video, he denied it was his. Fibers from such a suit were found on the bodies.
He again denied picking up a "Dear John" phone message on the day of the murders by ex-girlfriend Paula Barbieri. The families believe the call was the emotional trigger for Nicole's murder.
The denial conflicted with phone records and statements to police and domestic violence expert Lenore Walker, all cited by Petrocelli.

The Goldman and Brown families want Simpson held liable for the murders. He denies any involvement and was acquitted in a criminal trial.

By Jonathan T. Lovitt and Gale Holland, USA TODAY

[weezer]

10/18/96 - 07:41 PM ET - Excerpts from O.J. Simpson's deposition transcript

Excerpts from the deposition of O.J. Simpson, according to a transcript obtained by The Associated Press.

Alibi.

"When you were in the bedroom around 10:35 (p.m.) or so and you looked at the clock, what were doing in the bedroom?" asked lawyer Daniel Petrocelli.

"Sitting on my bed, kind of sitting, half laying, sitting on the pillows on my bed."

"How long had you been doing that?"

"Ten, 15 minutes."

"... And then you - when you saw the time, you got up?"

"Yes."

"And what did you do at that point?"

"Went (to the bathroom)."

"How long did that take?"

"I don't recall."

"Then what did you do?"

"Jumped in the shower."

"How long did that take?"

"I don't recall."

"Then what did you do?"

"Got out of the shower."

"Then what did you do?"

"Dried off."

"Then what?"

"Started to get dressed."

"Then what?"

"Started finishing packing my suitcase."

"... Was the limo driver there - "

"Yes."

"- when you finished dressing?"

"Yes."

"Was he there when you got out of the shower."

"Yes."

"How do you know?"

"Because I heard my phone continuing to ring."

"And you didn't answer it?"

"No."

Night golf around time of killings.

"From what location in your Rockingham property did you hit those golf balls?" asked Petrocelli.

"My front yard."

"On the grass?"

"Yes."

"Did you tee them up?"

"No."

"You just put them on the grass?"

"Just dropped them on the grass."

"Did you take full swings?"

"Once or twice I did, yes."

"... Did it hit anything?"

"No."

First cut on left hand, while getting ready to leave for Chicago.

"Where did you see the blood?" asked Petrocelli.

"On - just a drop really on the counter by my sink (in the kitchen), and then on this side of my hand."

"Now, for the record, you are referring to the outside of your left pinkie?"

"Yeah, sort of the fingernail area."

"... Did you have any idea how that happened?"

"No."

"Do you now know how it happened?"

"No."

"As you sit here now, you have no idea what caused that finger to produce a little blood?"

"If it produced blood, no."

"You don't even know if it came from that finger?"

"Correct."

"You think you might have touched something that was bloody?"

"I have no idea."

"Do you know if the blood that you saw was your blood?"

"No."

"You don't know?"

"No."

"Did you see anyone else bleeding that evening?"

"No."

Second cut on left hand, while getting ready to leave a Chicago hotel room after hearing of ex-wife's death.

"I was trying to scoop the (broken) glass into the sink with some toilet paper and I believe a towel ... I don't know (how the glass got broken). I was out of it, and I was doing a few things and the glass broke, and I was going back and forth to the phone, and maybe I slammed it down. Maybe I knocked it over. I really don't know."

Third cuts on left hand, at some point after Simpson was questioned by police the morning after the killings.

"Now, are you saying that you got some of the cuts that we have seen in these photographs (taken June 15) after you got back from Chicago?" asked Petrocelli.

"Obviously, yes. ... They weren't there when I came back from Chicago and was at the police station, and since I didn't leave town from that point until Wednesday when they took pictures of it, I obviously, you know, got it after I came back from Chicago."

"Tell me where you got the cut and how you got the cut above the joint on the middle?"

"I don't know."

Paula Barbieri's "Dear John" phone call the morning of the killings.

"I don't believe I ever retrieved any messages from her that day."

Telling Gretchen Stockdale, later that evening, that he was "totally unattached."

"Well, Paula and I was trying to get back together. I don't - I didn't consider Paula and I an attachment or unattachment. ... I don't think I was really thinking about Paula at that time."

Call to Nicole Brown Simpson's house less than two hours before slayings.

"What did you say when she answered?" asked Petrocelli.

"I need to speak to Sydney."

"Did you say hello to her?"

"I don't recall."

"Did she saying anything to you?"

"No."

"Did you say, 'This is O.J.?"'

"No."

"... You were angry with her, right?"

"No."

"You got into an argument on this call, didn't you?"

"No."

"And you made her cry, didn't you?"

"No."

Ms. Simpson's emotional state in the weeks before the slayings.

"She was just not herself. She was a different person every time I talked to her. When I was in Puerto Rico, she seemed to be having a nervous breakdown; she even said she was, and I suspected it was drinking. I had hoped it wasn't pills or drugs, which I knew her friends were involved in, and I was hoping and still hope to this day that she wasn't involved in that."

Ms. Simpson's drug use.

"You said that Nicole told you that she had used some drugs, illegal drugs, when was that?" Petrocelli asked.

"In January."

"Of what year?"

"'94."

Keith Zlomsowitch.

"That ass----."

Ms. Simpson's fling with Zlomsowitch.

"I'm mad today when I think about it."

Suicidal thoughts during slow-speed chase.

"I felt at peace that I was going to stop feeling the way I was feeling."

"... And what was the cause of that pain?"

"Losing Nicole."

By The Associated Press

[weezer]

10/18/96 - 07:41 PM ET - Click reload often for latest version
Friend of Nicole's tells of O.J.'s threats
NEW YORK - A close friend of Nicole Brown Simpson who has remained loyal to O.J. Simpson said in a deposition that Ms. Simpson once told her of a threat by her former husband.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A jury acquitted Simpson of murder charges last year in a criminal trial. The civil lawsuit on behalf of the stabbing victims seeks to hold him liable for their deaths.

By The Associated Press

[weezer]

10/18/96 - 07:41 PM ET -
Sources say Simpson called Nicole night of murder
LOS ANGELES - Less than two hours before Nicole Brown Simpson was slashed to death, O.J. Simpson telephoned her and demanded to speak to their daughter, according to sources who recounted Simpson's deposition.

Simpson testified last week that he talked with his daughter Sydney about her dance recital earlier that evening and avoided talking to his ex-wife, sources told The Associated Press on Thursday.

The call from Simpson's mansion, never disclosed during his trial, was made between one and two hours before the time prosecutors contend Ms. Simpson and her friend were killed, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Simpson testified that all he said to his ex-wife was, "Let me speak to Sydney." He said he was trying to avoid talking to Ms. Simpson because he - not she - had broken off their relationship a month earlier.

Simpson was acquitted Oct. 3 in the June 1994 killings of Ms. Simpson and Ron Goldman. The parents of the victims have filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Simpson, forcing him to testify under oath about the case for the first time.

Lawyers for both sides have refused to comment on the details of the closed-door sessions, which are to resume later this month after the release of Simpson's mail-order video.

Simpson testified for five days, answering questions from lawyer Daniel Petrocelli, who represents Goldman's father.

Simpson's phone call shortly before the slayings was his second to Ms. Simpson that day. He had made an earlier call from his cellular phone, prosecutors have said, to make arrangements to attend the dance recital.

During his trial, Simpson house guest Brian "Kato" Kaelin testified that Simpson appeared upset when he arrived home from the recital because Ms. Simpson wouldn't let Simpson see their daughter at the event.

After giving conflicting testimony about the timing of the second call, Simpson settled on saying that it was probably placed before going to McDonald's with Kaelin about 9:10 p.m. that night, the sources said.

Prosecutors have suggested that the killings happened as early as 10:15 p.m. or 10:20 p.m., meaning that under their timeline Simpson's second call, if made before the McDonald's run, would have been made less than two hours before the slayings.

Simpson also testified during the deposition that he cut his hand twice in the hours surrounding the slayings: once when he hurt his little finger before leaving for Chicago, and again when he pushed a broken glass into the sink in his Chicago hotel room, the sources said.

Simpson said he didn't know how the glass had been broken, they said. The explanation contradicts Simpson's lawyers, who have said he broke the glass in anger after hearing about his ex-wife's death.

Prosecutors contended Simpson cut his hand while committing the crimes.

In other testimony, Simpson said he called Kaelin after hearing about the killings, and that the pair discussed the wall thumps that Kaelin heard around 10:40 p.m., sources said.

Simpson "drew some association" between the thumps and the killings, but didn't discuss it much more with Kaelin, according to one source. Kaelin had told Simpson about the thumps as Simpson was preparing to leave for Chicago.

Prosecutors contended that the thumps were caused by Simpson crashing into a wall air conditioner behind Kaelin's room while trying to stash a bloody glove, which was later found below the air conditioner.

Simpson, in an excerpt from his upcoming video, ridiculed the notion that he would be so clumsy.

By The Associated Press

[tv]

Bravo, weezer. Thanks for posting these facts from the civil trial. :beer:

[tv]

Agree 100%. It's time other posters revisited the truth.Unfortunately some of them haven't visited the truth the first time. ;)

[William Anthony]

Unfortunately some of them haven't visited the truth the first time. ;)

A learned observation on your part, since many of the posts come from newspaper reports or articles and include hearsay from sources. I think that the truth lies in what was the actual testimony from the civil trial and not a report from a source. Again, I would like to offer youpraise on your recognition, although I understand the desires of some to be willing to accept the assessment of others who agree with their assessment.

[tv]

A learned observation on your part, since many of the posts come from newspaper reports or articles and include hearsay from sources. I think that the truth lies in what was the actual testimony from the civil trial and not a report from a source. Again, I would like to offer youpraise on your recognition, although I understand the desires of some to be willing to accept the assessment of others who agree with their assessment.I hope you're having a lovely evening. :)

[William Anthony]

I hope you're having a lovely evening. :)

I always do when I engage in intelligent and truthful discussions and I hope that you will find a way to make yours enjoyable. :)

[William Anthony]

Hi. An enjoyable post and I agree about the intelligent and truthful discussion. Let me ask you this question and you can choose whether or not to answer. Why did the jury, IYO, in the civil trial, find Simpson liable for the deaths of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman? Your opinion, if you have formed one, based on the trial accounts. I would be very interested to know.

Thank You. I have stated that the civil trial was in my opinion a political production. I said this, because I believe that the result was predetermined as a result of the outrage over the criminal verdict. I did not follow the civil trial and my limited knowledge of it was gained through the posters in this community and the little reading I did of the transcripts from the trial. There were some posts about what was included in the civil trial and what was left out, as a result of the judge's rulings. There were statements that were posted that the judge said to the jury; one was that they could Still find Simpson liable even though he had been found not guilty of murdering Ronald and Nicole (paraphrasing) and that "Basically, this is a civil murder trial."
When I read those statements my opinion of the trial was reinforced. I have stated that I accepted their verdict. I accept it, because I believe that based on the evidence they were allowed to hear and the lesser standard the plaintiffs were required to prove the jury reached the expected verdict. I find no fault with this jury but have question some of their statements that were posted. I cannot second guess their decision and believe that the verdict was correct based on how the trial was conducted.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9102118]Thank You. I have stated that the civil trial was in my opinion a political production.

OK. There are a few statements in your post that I don't agree with but you are honest enough to admit that you aren't up to speed with the civil trial. Fair enough. Perhaps you should read Weezer's posts that began this forum. These are factual recounts and worthwhile reading.

Why and how was the civil trial 'a political production?' By 'political' do you mean LA County, the State of California or the US Govt?

No, what I mean is that the plaintiffs had the legal right to bring the cause of actions against Simpson. However, I believe the judge was responding to political pressure and allowed and excluded evidence based on that pressure. When I read the posts on what the judge said, my opinion was reinforced. Most of America wanted to find Simpson guilty of murder, rightly or wrongly. There is no such thing as a civil murder trial and the judge was well aware of that, imho. I also have some disagreement with his allocation of the burden of proof in some instances.

[William Anthony]

There seems to be a defect in the board as to who posted what. I hope the problem will soon be remedied. :)

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9102126]

OK William. What political pressure do you know that the judge in the civil trial was responding to and who was applying this pressure? I would really like to know.:)

The political pressure I was speaking of was the vast amount of public outcry over the verdict. I think, if you read what I originally posted, if you are able to pull it up, and there have been several occasions that I have stated the civil trial was a political production, imho. I do not think it is necessary to say that it is a poster's opinion, once he has stated it and it is common knowledge. However, the judge's statements evidence my opinion. I want to thank you for directing me to fbg's first post. I will respond to a portion of that post to you in a moment, after I make sure that my initial research is true.

[William Anthony]

This from the cross of Spitz on November 12th

"Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now is it your view then, that the assailant that had one knife that was single, single sharp-sided knife that made all five of those wounds in very rapid succession, the four underneath the left ear and the slash that ultimately severed the carotid?

A. It is my opinion that all the wounds were inflicted with a knife, consistent or compatible with a single-edged sharp knife.

Q. Didn't ask you that question. Maybe it was a poor one, I apologize.

Is it your testimony that those four wounds underneath the left ear were made with this compatible single-edge knife and they were a precursor, they were made all in rapid succession just prior to the lashing wounds from left to right across Ms. Brown Simpson's neck that turned out to be fatal?

A. You mean all five wounds?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, the one directly under Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson's ear has -- the blunt part of that wound is vertical and towards the ear lobe, true?

A. No.

Q. Did you look at the diagrams drawn by doctor --

A. I've -- I have looked at the diagram. If you like me to I'll be glad to explain to you why I'm saying, no.

Q. Your view of the photographs, you believe, is better evidence of the angle of the cuts than the diagram of the autopsy surgeon who made the diagram, correct?

A. Please, let me explain to you why I'm saying that.

Q. Can you answer my question for a change?

A. No. I'm not. I'm not in agreement with you because what you're doing is misleading.

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court --

THE WITNESS: I would like the opportunity, sir.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) No. No, have you --

MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, there's no need for Mr. Baker to behave like this.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) He's here to answer questions. He's not here to give a speech.

MR. MEDVENE: There's no reason for Mr. Baker to talk like this or behave like this, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Ask your question.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Your view then, Dr. Spitz, is that you're looking at -- a photograph is more reliable than the drawing made by the autopsy surgeon at the time he did the autopsy, correct?

A. My view is that I need to explain it.

THE COURT: You can agree or disagree, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's misleading for me to give a definitive opinion on somebody's observation of a wound when I know full well what the relevance is and it's not coming out.

THE COURT: Excuse me. You will answer the question that's asked.

THE WITNESS: I will, Your Honor, of course.

THE COURT: Answer yes or no or you can't answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Well I can't answer the question without qualifying it.

THE COURT: All right. Move on to the next question.

I have never heard a judge say move on to the next question after the witness said he could answer the question.

[weezer]

seems logical and right that the court would say 'move on to the next question' when the witness says there is not a yes or no answer without an explanation but the defense attorney doesn't want the explanation. imo

[William Anthony]

The court told the witness that he could agree or disagree. He chose to do neither and the court did not instruct the witness to follow the court's ruling. Instead, the court ordered the defense to move on. In fact the court changed its ruling and offered the witness an out by annexing to its prior ruling by saying or just say you can't answer.

[weezer]

"THE COURT: Answer yes or no or you can't answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Well I can't answer the question without qualifying it.

THE COURT: All right. Move on to the next question."

[William Anthony]

THE COURT: You can agree or disagree, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's misleading for me to give a definitive opinion on somebody's observation of a wound when I know full well what the relevance is and it's not coming out.

THE COURT: Excuse me. You will answer the question that's asked.

THE WITNESS: I will, Your Honor, of course.

THE COURT: Answer yes or no or you can't answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Well I can't answer the question without qualifying it.

THE COURT: All right. Move on to the next question.

The judge's annexation is a clear instruction to the witness on how to answer the question, imho.

[William Anthony]

Thank you Joseph Bell. I will continue to look at the first post on this thread, if you would like, so that both sides of a witness' testimony can be placed on the board and not what the media may want to say was the testimony. I hope my most recent posts help to explain why I refer to the civil trial as a political production.

[William Anthony]

I wonder if the witness had some legal training or had been a judge as he is informing the judge to a legal conclusion, which is that the question is misleading. I think most judges would have admonished the witness at that point that it was not the witness' job to inform the jury as to what the law is but that it was the judge's.

[martin II]

I wonder if the witness had some legal training or had been a judge as he is informing the judge to a legal conclusion, which is that the question is misleading. I think most judges would have admonished the witness at that point that it was not the witness' job to inform the jury as to what the law is but that it was the judge's.

william

The witness showed his bias for the prosecution in his refusal to answer.
He knew the results of his requested answer but because of who he thought he was, he dicided to assume the judges position. This was a biased plaintiffs witness.

[William Anthony]

william

The witness showed his bias for the prosecution in his refusal to answer.
He knew the results of his requested answer but because of who he thought he was, he dicided to assume the judges position. This was a biased plaintiffs witness.

I agree totally and the judge showed his bias, imho.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9102129][QUOTE=Joseph Bell;9102128]

The political pressure I was speaking of was the vast amount of public outcry over the verdict.

Over the criminal trial outcome. I understand. Where does this amount to political pressure on the judge of the civil trial? If I'm following your reasoning then surely the judge would have been leaning towards Simpson's side, given that Simpson had been found not guilty in a criminal trial. The excerpts that you highlight as being evidence of the judge favouring the plaintiffs seem, whichever way I read them, to be sensible directions in the course of proceedings.

Did you forget how Ito was criticized? Most of America believed Simpson was guilty, the verdict was wrong and Simpson got away with murder. This amounted to the political pressure that the judge was under to find him guilty, which explains his statements that the jury could still find him liable even though he had been acquitted for murder and that Basically, this is a civil murder trial. You may not like the term political and I am willing to change it to social. When a judge instructs a witness to answer, he expects and answer, i.e. to agree or disagree. The witness did not answer and made a legal conclusion. The judge should have sternly admonished him, imho. Instead, the judge offered the witness a way out and in doing so informed the witness how to answer the question, imho. This was not the first time the witness testified and was familiar with how to answer questions and what is allowed in a trial, imho.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=Joseph Bell;9102176][QUOTE=William Anthony;9102129]

Did you forget how Ito was criticized? Most of America believed Simpson was guilty, the verdict was wrong and Simpson got away with murder. This amounted to the political pressure that the judge was under to find him guilty, which explains his statements that the jury could still find him liable even though he had been acquitted for murder and that Basically, this is a civil murder trial. You may not like the term political and I am willing to change it to social. When a judge instructs a witness to answer, he expects and answer, i.e. to agree or disagree. The witness did not answer and made a legal conclusion. The judge should have sternly admonished him, imho. Instead, the judge offered the witness a way out and in doing so informed the witness how to answer the question, imho. This was not the first time the witness testified and was familiar with how to answer questions and what is allowed in a trial, imho.


William
my menory is cloudy on this issue but i remember that prior to the civil trial there was some special meeting of the ca legislators that passed a special piece of legistration to allow some evidence or testimony in favor of the plaintiffe and against oj simpson. Does anyone have that . I will look for it.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9102126][QUOTE=Joseph Bell;9102125]

There is no such thing as a civil murder trial


That is not your opintion a few posts on.

What??? if you are saying that is not my opinion, then you are correct. The judge in the civil trial said, "Basically, this is a civil murder trial", as reflected in the civil trial transcripts. It is a fact that there is no such thing as a civil murder trial. There are basically (pun intended) only 3 types of trials that I know about, Criminal for crimes such as murder, civil to address torts, such as wrongful death, divorce, negligence, contract disputes, etc.and equity, seeking injunctions to stop or to make a person do something.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9102179][QUOTE=Joseph Bell;9102176]


William
my menory is cloudy on this issue but i remember that prior to the civil trial there was some special meeting of the ca legislators that passed a special piece of legistration to allow some evidence or testimony in favor of the plaintiffe and against oj simpson. Does anyone have that . I will look for it.

I think something was posted about something the California legislature passed. I don't remember the specifics. I am interested in finding out, also.

[martin II]

the post seem to be mixed again.

[Kate Sachel]

william

The witness showed his bias for the prosecution in his refusal to answer.
He knew the results of his requested answer but because of who he thought he was, he dicided to assume the judges position. This was a biased plaintiffs witness.

What I believe the witness showed was a respect for his profession that would not allow him to anwer as asked and a refusal to be bullied.

Excellent job on his part in my opinion.

Kate

[William Anthony]

The witness was not a stranger to the courtroom and could have disagreed or agreed as the judge instructed him, or he could have said he couldn't answer it as asked, as the judge later annexed. What this knowledgeable witness on testifying did was to state a legal conclusion, which the judge did not admonish him for doing and punished the defense, imho, by telling them to move on and ask another question. I am sure that you are aware that the plaintiffs had a chance to rehabilitate the witness by asking him to further explain his answer.

[weezer]

THE COURT: You can agree or disagree, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's misleading for me to give a definitive opinion on somebody's observation of a wound when I know full well what the relevance is and it's not coming out.
THE COURT: Excuse me. You will answer the question that's asked.

THE WITNESS: I will, Your Honor, of course.

THE COURT: Answer yes or no or you can't answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Well I can't answer the question without qualifying it.

THE COURT: All right. Move on to the next question.

[William Anthony]

THE COURT: You can agree or disagree, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's misleading for me to give a definitive opinion on somebody's observation of a wound when I know full well what the relevance is and it's not coming out.
THE COURT: Excuse me. You will answer the question that's asked.

THE WITNESS: I will, Your Honor, of course.

THE COURT: Answer yes or no or you can't answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Well I can't answer the question without qualifying it.

THE COURT: All right. Move on to the next question.

As you will see the court modified its options allowed the witness to make a legal conclusion in front of the jury and then instructed the defense to move on.

[weezer]

I guess we need to notify someone that keeps track of historic firsts that according to william: no witness had ever said they couldn't answer yes or no to a question and no judge ever said move on. :eek:

[weezer]

THE COURT: You can agree or disagree, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's misleading for me to give a definitive opinion on somebody's observation of a wound when I know full well what the relevance is and it's not coming out.
THE COURT: Excuse me. You will answer the question that's asked.

THE WITNESS: I will, Your Honor, of course.

THE COURT: Answer yes or no or you can't answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Well I can't answer the question without qualifying it.

THE COURT: All right. Move on to the next question.

As you will see the court modified its options allowed the witness to make a legal conclusion in front of the jury and then instructed the defense to move on.

so why do you think baker was so adamant about not letting the witness explain the answer?

[William Anthony]

Of course, a witness has answered he can't answer but it is odd that a judge would instruct the witness to agree or disagree and then. when the witness stated a legal conclusion to the jury, change his instruction, telling the witness how to answer, and then tell the defense to move on. Maybe, some review of courtroom rules may be in order.

[William Anthony]

so why do you think baker was so adamant about not letting the witness explain the answer?

Probably, because he would have been doing the plaintiff's job and not getting paid for it.:) :)

[weezer]

when does the statement "I can't answer without explaining" become a 'legal conclusion? geez

[weezer]

Probably, because he would have been doing the plaintiff's job and not getting paid for it.:) :)

so I guess the 'seeking justice' thing only kicks in when it's the prosecution?

[William Anthony]

It never has to my understanding been a legal conclusion to say that I can't answer without explaining.

[William Anthony]

Seeking justice requires the defense to provide the client the best defense possible and not to do the plaintiff's job without just compensation.:)

[William Anthony]

Just for informational purposes and with all due respect and not wanting to seem too knowledgeable on the law, for those poster, who may not be knowledgeable on the law, the parties offer objections, such as misstates the testimony or misleading. The judge then rules/forms a legal conclusion as to whether or not the question misstated the testimony or was misleading. It is the court's, i.e. the judge's responsibility and not the witness' to make that determination, imho.

[weezer]

Just for informational purposes and with all due respect and not wanting to seem too knowledgeable on the law, for those poster, who may not be knowledgeable on the law, the parties offer objections, such as misstates the testimony or misleading. The judge then rules/forms a legal conclusion as to whether or not the question misstated the testimony or was misleading. It is the court's, i.e. the judge's responsibility and not the witness' to make that determination, imho.

I still don't see how the witness saying "I can't answer that as yes or no" is a legal conclusion. No one said the question was misstated or was misleading. The witness said an answer of only yes or no without an explanation would be misleading the court.

I thought the witness did an excellent job.

[William Anthony]

I still don't see how the witness saying "I can't answer that as yes or no" is a legal conclusion. No one said the question was misstated or was misleading. The witness said an answer of only yes or no without an explanation would be misleading the court.

I thought the witness did an excellent job.

I see what you are saying but I think if you look at the witness' statement and the court's response, you will see that the witness was talking about the question and so was the judge. I think that the judge did slightly admonish the witness but not as sternly as needed. Here is the relevant portion.

"THE COURT: You can agree or disagree, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's misleading for me to give a definitive opinion on somebody's observation of a wound when I know full well what the relevance is and it's not coming out.
THE COURT: Excuse me. You will answer the question that's asked."

The excuse me was a polite way of telling the witness that he should not be stating that the question was misleading and to answer the question as asked.

[William Anthony]

Additionally, the witness seems to want a career as a judge as he is discussing what is relevant. Again, it is the judge's responsibility to determine relevancy.

[Kate Sachel]

I see what you are saying but I think if you look at the witness' statement and the court's response, you will see that the witness was talking about the question and so was the judge. I think that the judge did slightly admonish the witness but not as sternly as needed. Here is the relevant portion.

"THE COURT: You can agree or disagree, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's misleading for me to give a definitive opinion on somebody's observation of a wound when I know full well what the relevance is and it's not coming out.
THE COURT: Excuse me. You will answer the question that's asked."

The excuse me was a polite way of telling the witness that he should not be stating that the question was misleading and to answer the question as asked.

From the testimony that you reposted I see where the witness stated that it is misleading for him to give a definitive opinion ... I do not see that he stated that the question was misleading.

I still believe he was respecting his profession.

Kate

[William Anthony]

From the testimony that you reposted I see where the witness stated that it is misleading for him to give a definitive opinion ... I do not see that he stated that the question was misleading.

I still believe he was respecting his profession.

Kate

I see respecting your profession as answering the questions that are asked of you as they are asked and to not favor one side or another with your answer. His answer was;

"THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's misleading for me to give a definitive opinion on somebody's observation of a wound when I know full well what the relevance is and it's not coming out."

The answer is that his answer to the question would be misleading and that means that the question was misleading to him. That was a legal conclusion. The answer could only be misleading, if he thought the question was misleading by calling for an answer that was misleading. I know that you are well aware that the party offering the witness can on rebuttal rehabilitate the witness by making clear his response to a question asked on cross. The witness then went on to say that he understood the relevance of the question but the full relevance was not coming out. The witness spoke of relevance in the terms of the question being misleading, which was less than an artful expression of a legal conclusion, imho.

It was at this point that the judge told him "Excuse me". I do not think the judge was apologizing for interrupting him but was informing him that he was out of line. The judge then went on tell him. "You will" answer the question that is asked. The judge did not tell him that the plaintiff's will have the opportunity to let him explain his answer. The judge spoke to the question, because, imho, the judge knew exactly what the witness was saying and doing. It was clear that the question concerning the use of more than one knife by the cuts, was one that the witness did not want to answer and the judge then told him, he could say he could not answer, which is what the witness finally said and the judge told the defense to move on and ask another question. I think that if you look at the testimony in its entirety that it is plainly obvious what occurred.

The witness had previously, on direct, given definite opinions on the observations of another, who had created and completed the autopsy report and observed the wounds. I think the witness was biased, being evasive and disingenuous and that the judge's bias showed through in this exchange.

[Kate Sachel]

I see respecting your profession as answering the questions that are asked of you as they are asked and to not favor one side or another with your answer. His answer was;

"THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's misleading for me to give a definitive opinion on somebody's observation of a wound when I know full well what the relevance is and it's not coming out."

The answer is that his answer to the question would be misleading and that means that the question was misleading to him. That was a legal conclusion. The answer could only be misleading, if he thought the question was misleading by calling for an answer that was misleading. I know that you are well aware that the party offering the witness can on rebuttal rehabilitate the witness by making clear his response to a question asked on cross. The witness then went on to say that he understood the relevance of the question but the full relevance was not coming out. The witness spoke of relevance in the terms of the question being misleading, which was less than an artful expression of a legal conclusion, imho.

It was at this point that the judge told him "Excuse me". I do not think the judge was apologizing for interrupting him but was informing him that he was out of line. The judge then went on tell him. "You will" answer the question that is asked. The judge did not tell him that the plaintiff's will have the opportunity to let him explain his answer. The judge spoke to the question, because, imho, the judge knew exactly what the witness was saying and doing. It was clear that the question concerning the use of more than one knife by the cuts, was one that the witness did not want to answer and the judge then told him, he could say he could not answer, which is what the witness finally said and the judge told the defense to move on and ask another question. I think that if you look at the testimony in its entirety that it is plainly obvious what occurred.

The witness had previously, on direct, given definite opinions on the observations of another, who had created and completed the autopsy report and observed the wounds. I think the witness was biased, being evasive and disingenuous and that the judge's bias showed through in this exchange.

I have stated why I disagree and I remain firm on that.

In addition, I cannot count the number of times Daniel Petrocelli was reprimanded by the judge but it was quite a bit.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I have stated why I disagree and I remain firm on that.

In addition, I cannot count the number of times Daniel Petrocelli was reprimanded by the judge but it was quite a bit.

Kate

yes, and I stand by mine. I am sure the judge told both parties, "Basically, this is a civil murder trial."

[weezer]

yes, and I stand by mine. I am sure the judge told both parties, "Basically, this is a civil murder trial."


and orenthal james simpson was found liable for the deaths of two human beings: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

[William Anthony]

and orenthal james simpson was found liable for the deaths of two human beings: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

Not quite accurate. orenthal james simpson was found liable for the wrongful death of Ron Goldman.

[William Anthony]

This is a question from a link and I believe it was from the damage part of the civil trial. I believe it was from the same judge and this is what he ruled in regard to a question that Simpson's witness wanted to explain. This is from the cnn link supplied by another poster.

" Q. He also plays golf regularly, right? You
11 know that --
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. -- don't you?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Green fees?
16 A. Where he plays it's $17 a day, but --
17 yeah, it's $17.
18 Q. Okay.
19 Golf carts, golf clubs, all that
20 equipment?
21 A. Well, you know, that's a one-time cost,
22 but yeah, he's got golf clubs if he plays golf.
23 Q. But he's got no means of income, right?
24 A. He's been -- that's right, but --
25 Q. Okay. Thank you. That's the answer to
26 the question then.
27 A. May I explain that?
28 Q. No, you may not.

17
1 MR. BAKER: He's trying to explain that.
2 MR. GELBLUM: Your attorney can ask you.
3 MR. BAKER: I think's he entitled to explain
4 that. Every other witness seems to be entitled to
5 explain things.
6 THE COURT: You may explain it on your redirect
7 examination.

The judge did not tell the plaintiffs to move and ask another question and would not allow the witness a chance to explain. However, the witness did not inform the judge that to answer it was misleading. He simply answered the question that was asked.

[martin II]

I see respecting your profession as answering the questions that are asked of you as they are asked and to not favor one side or another with your answer. His answer was;

"THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it's misleading for me to give a definitive opinion on somebody's observation of a wound when I know full well what the relevance is and it's not coming out."

The answer is that his answer to the question would be misleading and that means that the question was misleading to him. That was a legal conclusion. The answer could only be misleading, if he thought the question was misleading by calling for an answer that was misleading. I know that you are well aware that the party offering the witness can on rebuttal rehabilitate the witness by making clear his response to a question asked on cross. The witness then went on to say that he understood the relevance of the question but the full relevance was not coming out. The witness spoke of relevance in the terms of the question being misleading, which was less than an artful expression of a legal conclusion, imho.

It was at this point that the judge told him "Excuse me". I do not think the judge was apologizing for interrupting him but was informing him that he was out of line. The judge then went on tell him. "You will" answer the question that is asked. The judge did not tell him that the plaintiff's will have the opportunity to let him explain his answer. The judge spoke to the question, because, imho, the judge knew exactly what the witness was saying and doing. It was clear that the question concerning the use of more than one knife by the cuts, was one that the witness did not want to answer and the judge then told him, he could say he could not answer, which is what the witness finally said and the judge told the defense to move on and ask another question. I think that if you look at the testimony in its entirety that it is plainly obvious what occurred.

The witness had previously, on direct, given definite opinions on the observations of another, who had created and completed the autopsy report and observed the wounds. I think the witness was biased, being evasive and disingenuous and that the judge's bias showed through in this exchange.

William thanks
That amounts to judge and witness attempting to help the plaintiff case.
political civil trial.

[William Anthony]

William thanks
That amounts to judge and witness attempting to help the plaintiff case.
political civil trial.

Yes, especially when the judge would not allow the same for a defense witness.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9102191][QUOTE=martin II;9102189]

Now this is REALLY INTERESTING. I never posted this.

No, Martin did. It seems the board is acting up.

[fgump2]

so why do you think baker was so adamant about not letting the witness explain the answer?
I think you have a point there; although I am inclined to give W. Spitz the benefit of a doubt on this issue. It would have been interesting to question him about it after the civil trial, and ask other pathologists what they thought of the issue.
If we are interested in looking at the honesty of witnesses in the OJS trials, we should look at the testimony of Michael Baden. I think he there is more evidence of him bending the truth, than there is of Dr Spitz bending the truth.
In the civil trial, Dr Spitz testified that pictures of one of the arms of OJS (probably the left arm) had scratches on the day after the murders which weren’t there on a photo of OJS after the recital. Dr. Spitz testified that he thought RG put those scratches there. Dr Baden testified that RG’s fingernails were too short to do that.
I decided to do some experimentation of my own. I thought that RG would have fingernails long enough to conveniently pick up both credit cards and dimes. So I thought that if I cut my fingernails on my non dominant hand short enough so that I couldn’t conveniently pick up a credit card or dime, and could still put scratches on my dominant hand, this would disprove Dr Baden’s assertion.
I completed this experiment, got my fingernails short enough so that with my non dominant hand, I could pick up a dime or a credit card off the ground only by licking my fingers. This would be quite inconvenient for a waiter.
I was able to put scratches on my dominant arm that would have showed up on a photo for more than 24 hours later. The scratches on the arm of OJS showed up on a photo no more than about 18 hours later. The scratches on my arm and the scratches on the arm of OJS didn’t draw blood; they were barely visible.
I concluded that Dr Baden was giving dishonest testimony.
I have also wondered about Dr Baden’s testimony that the cuts on the left hand of OJS looked like there were caused by glass. I wonder how he came to that conclusion. Was it on the basis of a photo by either the police or the defense, or was it from examining the cuts. I think he didn’t examine the cuts till 2 or three days after the murders. In any case I would like to know how he concluded that the cuts were probably made by glass. I would also like to know what other pathologists thought his thinking on this.
I think that Dr Baden showed a lack of integrity on his testimony.
Many legal experts have complained about technical experts who tailor their testimony for their clients. This is an old problem.

[William Anthony]

I think you have a point there; although I am inclined to give W. Spitz the benefit of a doubt on this issue. It would have been interesting to question him about it after the civil trial, and ask other pathologists what they thought of the issue.
If we are interested in looking at the honesty of witnesses in the OJS trials, we should look at the testimony of Michael Baden. I think he there is more evidence of him bending the truth, than there is of Dr Spitz bending the truth.
In the civil trial, Dr Spitz testified that pictures of one of the arms of OJS (probably the left arm) had scratches on the day after the murders which weren’t there on a photo of OJS after the recital. Dr. Spitz testified that he thought RG put those scratches there. Dr Baden testified that RG’s fingernails were too short to do that.
I decided to do some experimentation of my own. I thought that RG would have fingernails long enough to conveniently pick up both credit cards and dimes. So I thought that if I cut my fingernails on my non dominant hand short enough so that I couldn’t conveniently pick up a credit card or dime, and could still put scratches on my dominant hand, this would disprove Dr Baden’s assertion.
I completed this experiment, got my fingernails short enough so that with my non dominant hand, I could pick up a dime or a credit card off the ground only by licking my fingers. This would be quite inconvenient for a waiter.
I was able to put scratches on my dominant arm that would have showed up on a photo for more than 24 hours later. The scratches on the arm of OJS showed up on a photo no more than about 18 hours later. The scratches on my arm and the scratches on the arm of OJS didn’t draw blood; they were barely visible.
I concluded that Dr Baden was giving dishonest testimony.
I have also wondered about Dr Baden’s testimony that the cuts on the left hand of OJS looked like there were caused by glass. I wonder how he came to that conclusion. Was it on the basis of a photo by either the police or the defense, or was it from examining the cuts. I think he didn’t examine the cuts till 2 or three days after the murders. In any case I would like to know how he concluded that the cuts were probably made by glass. I would also like to know what other pathologists thought his thinking on this.
I think that Dr Baden showed a lack of integrity on his testimony.
Many legal experts have complained about technical experts who tailor their testimony for their clients. This is an old problem.

The witness is instructed to answer the question that's asked, or say he does not understand, or say he cannot answer. That is the way trials are conducted. They should not allow the witness to make legal conclusions. Are you agent Martz? Did you save your underlying data? Do you have any before and after photos?

[tv]

I think you have a point there; although I am inclined to give W. Spitz the benefit of a doubt on this issue. It would have been interesting to question him about it after the civil trial, and ask other pathologists what they thought of the issue.
If we are interested in looking at the honesty of witnesses in the OJS trials, we should look at the testimony of Michael Baden. I think he there is more evidence of him bending the truth, than there is of Dr Spitz bending the truth.
In the civil trial, Dr Spitz testified that pictures of one of the arms of OJS (probably the left arm) had scratches on the day after the murders which weren’t there on a photo of OJS after the recital. Dr. Spitz testified that he thought RG put those scratches there. Dr Baden testified that RG’s fingernails were too short to do that.
I decided to do some experimentation of my own. I thought that RG would have fingernails long enough to conveniently pick up both credit cards and dimes. So I thought that if I cut my fingernails on my non dominant hand short enough so that I couldn’t conveniently pick up a credit card or dime, and could still put scratches on my dominant hand, this would disprove Dr Baden’s assertion.
I completed this experiment, got my fingernails short enough so that with my non dominant hand, I could pick up a dime or a credit card off the ground only by licking my fingers. This would be quite inconvenient for a waiter.
I was able to put scratches on my dominant arm that would have showed up on a photo for more than 24 hours later. The scratches on the arm of OJS showed up on a photo no more than about 18 hours later. The scratches on my arm and the scratches on the arm of OJS didn’t draw blood; they were barely visible.
I concluded that Dr Baden was giving dishonest testimony.
I have also wondered about Dr Baden’s testimony that the cuts on the left hand of OJS looked like there were caused by glass. I wonder how he came to that conclusion. Was it on the basis of a photo by either the police or the defense, or was it from examining the cuts. I think he didn’t examine the cuts till 2 or three days after the murders. In any case I would like to know how he concluded that the cuts were probably made by glass. I would also like to know what other pathologists thought his thinking on this.
I think that Dr Baden showed a lack of integrity on his testimony.
Many legal experts have complained about technical experts who tailor their testimony for their clients. This is an old problem.

Kudos to you for not just speculating but doing your own experiments instead. I believe that it's probable that RG made the scratches on OJ Simpson during the struggle. I've always been skeptical of Dr. Baden's testimony in this case. For instance, the estimate of fighting with RG for 20 minutes is ludicrous. Even in professional boxing a minute or two is exhausting for the particpants. IMO, Dr. Lee is a another prime example of legal experts who customize their testimony to fit the cllient.

[William Anthony]

Kudos to you for not just speculating but doing your own experiments instead. I believe that it's probable that RG made the scratches on OJ Simpson during the struggle. I've always been skeptical of Dr. Baden's testimony in this case. For instance, the estimate of fighting with RG for 20 minutes is ludicrous. Even in professional boxing a minute or two is exhausting for the particpants. IMO, Dr. Lee is a another prime example of legal experts who customize their testimony to fit the cllient.

Correction, alleged experiment unless the results have been published and peer reviewed. I will have to look up the testimony but I think it was testimony on how long it would have taken Ronald Goldman to die. I don't think Lee claimed they had a boxing match.:) He might be like Spitz, Fung, Vannatter, MF, Kessler, Deedrick, Martz and Matheson.

[William Anthony]

August 10

MR. SHAPIRO: How long--if you've told us--well, let me ask you this in this way. How long could someone survive after having a jugular vein cut? How long could they survive?

DR. BADEN: Assuming it's a transection, a cut as in Mr. Goldman, cut completely through, a person with a jugular vein cut could stay alive, not necessarily conscious, for 10, 20 minutes if it's untreated. Much of that time, he might be unconscious.

[tv]

Correction, alleged experiment unless the results have been published and peer reviewed. I will have to look up the testimony but I think it was testimony on how long it would have taken Ronald Goldman to die. I don't think Lee claimed they had a boxing match.:) He might be like Spitz, Fung, Vannatter, MF, Kessler, Deedrick, Martz and Matheson.I choose to believe fgump2 when he/she says they conducted the experiment. He's not asking anyone in the scientific or forensic community to believe his experiment so it's not necessary to submit it for peer review. His peers in this case are his fellow posters. Perhaps some of your wild allegations that aren't substantiated by anything except your own fertile imagination should also be scrutinized.

[tv]

Correction, alleged experiment unless the results have been published and peer reviewed. I will have to look up the testimony but I think it was testimony on how long it would have taken Ronald Goldman to die. I don't think Lee claimed they had a boxing match.:) He might be like Spitz, Fung, Vannatter, MF, Kessler, Deedrick, Martz and Matheson.This is amusing. You think that fgump2 should have to submit his informal experiment for peer review to be valid yet Dr. Michael Baden who you think is the holy grail of forensic science had no special expertise in what he was testifying about.

AUGUST 10
On cross-examination prosecutor Brian Kelberg had Dr. Baden reveal that he has billed the defense around $100,000 for his services and may bill another $65,000 for additional hours spent on the case. The doctor also told the court that he never published any article in the areas that he was testifying about and that his primary area of expertise is death by drug abuse.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/ojsimpson/weekly/29.html

[martin II]

I choose to believe fgump2 when he/she says they conducted the experiment. He's not asking anyone in the scientific or forensic community to believe his experiment so it's not necessary to submit it for peer review. His peers in this case are his fellow posters. Perhaps some of your wild allegations that aren't substantiated by anything except your own fertile imagination should also be scrutinized.

can someone tell me who took pictures of ojs bare arms after the recital on 6/12.That one must have slipped by me.

[martin II]

This is amusing. You think that fgump2 should have to submit his informal experiment for peer review to be valid yet Dr. Michael Baden who you think is the holy grail of forensic science had no special expertise in what he was testifying about.

AUGUST 10
On cross-examination prosecutor Brian Kelberg had Dr. Baden reveal that he has billed the defense around $100,000 for his services and may bill another $65,000 for additional hours spent on the case. The doctor also told the court that he never published any article in the areas that he was testifying about and that his primary area of expertise is death by drug abuse.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/ojsimpson/weekly/29.html

Dr Baden was the medical examiner for NEW YORK CITY and conducted many autopsies. imo

[martin II]

This is amusing. You think that fgump2 should have to submit his informal experiment for peer review to be valid yet Dr. Michael Baden who you think is the holy grail of forensic science had no special expertise in what he was testifying about.

AUGUST 10
On cross-examination prosecutor Brian Kelberg had Dr. Baden reveal that he has billed the defense around $100,000 for his services and may bill another $65,000 for additional hours spent on the case. The doctor also told the court that he never published any article in the areas that he was testifying about and that his primary area of expertise is death by drug abuse.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/ojsimpson/weekly/29.html


DR Baden

During his career, Dr. Baden has been published in numerous national and international medical journals. He also published a factual account of several of his cases in the book Unnatural Death, Confessions of a Medical Examiner and was the subject for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 HBO specials that highlighted several of his interesting cases demonstrating the value of forensic sciences allied with solid police investigative techniques in homicide investigation.

http://www.practicalhomicide.com/bio/bioBADEN.htm

[tv]

Dr Baden was the medical examiner for NEW YORK CITY for years and conducted many autopsies. imoI'm just telling you what Dr. Baden testified to in the trial. Do you think he lied about his experience and credentials?

[martin II]

I'm just telling you what Dr. Baden testified to in the trial. Do you think he lied about his experience and credentials?

I doubt he lied about his experience as the world knows who he is. what specifically was he testifying about. At any rate you have his bio.

[martin II]

I'm just telling you what Dr. Baden testified to in the trial. Do you think he lied about his experience and credentials?

Your link DID NOT show Dr Badens testimony. it is a report by a reporter.

After reading your link i believe it was the court tv reporter that made errors in his reporting.Obviously.

[martin II]

TV
More on Dr Baden.
I doubt he ever made the statement attributed to him by court tv.


VAN SUSTEREN: ... and for the family and the dignity of Kathleen Savio. Now, just as background, how many autopsies have you done?

BADEN: I've done, over the past 45 years, over 20,000 autopsies.

VAN SUSTEREN: And how many post-exhumation? Because that's a little different type of autopsy.

BADEN: Much different. Over 200 exhumation autopsies. And exhumations are always done because some information arises that was not known at the time of the first autopsy, and the exhumations can be a year later, three years later, even 30 years later, when additional information comes up not know initially.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, we're going to get to your conclusion in a second, but I first want to know is, were there any particular challenges presented to you today in doing that autopsy?

BADEN: Well, there's always a challenge in doing an exhumation autopsy because there always is some deterioration of the body. But the advantage is we have more information when we're doing the exhumation than was known at the time of the first autopsy, so it's a more focused autopsy. That is, there was various information that was gathered that led to the exhumation in the first place that wasn't known initially.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312208,00.html

[martin II]

I choose to believe fgump2 when he/she says they conducted the experiment. He's not asking anyone in the scientific or forensic community to believe his experiment so it's not necessary to submit it for peer review. His peers in this case are his fellow posters. Perhaps some of your wild allegations that aren't substantiated by anything except your own fertile imagination should also be scrutinized.

TV
Honestly. whats missing in his experiement is RONS fingernails and OJS arm.
HAHAHA

[martin II]

I still don't see how the witness saying "I can't answer that as yes or no" is a legal conclusion. No one said the question was misstated or was misleading. The witness said an answer of only yes or no without an explanation would be misleading the court.

I thought the witness did an excellent job.

A witness does not have standing to detrermine what is or is not a correct question.That is the judges area of authority.imo

[tv]

Your link DID NOT show Dr Badens testimony. it is a report by a reporter.

After reading your link i believe it was the court tv reporter that made errors in his reporting.Obviously.You're free to believe what you want. :shrug: Maybe the reporter was in on the vast conspiracy to frame OJ Simpson. Who knows?

[William Anthony]

I choose to believe fgump2 when he/she says they conducted the experiment. He's not asking anyone in the scientific or forensic community to believe his experiment so it's not necessary to submit it for peer review. His peers in this case are his fellow posters. Perhaps some of your wild allegations that aren't substantiated by anything except your own fertile imagination should also be scrutinized.

The fertile imaginations are embedded in the brain fibers of those who fictionally fantasize that prosecution presented proof beyond a reasonable doubt, imho, and those who seem to get up set when the prosecution's case is scrutinized. If the poster is not asking anyone to validate his experiment but intends to call an expert a liar, then I stand corrected. I imagine this is the only :) type of proof that some require to validate their opinions. When he/she says "they"? :) I read it as the poster saying he/she acted alone. Are you implying the poster has multiple personalities? :)

[tv]

Oops, double post. :)

[tv]

The fertile imaginations are embedded in the brain fibers of those who fictionally fantasize that prosecution presented proof beyond a reasonable doubt, imho, and those who seem to get up set when the prosecution's case is scrutinized. If the poster is not asking anyone to validate his experiment but intends to call an expert a liar, then I stand corrected. I imagine this is the only :) type of proof that some require to validate their opinions. When he/she says "they"? :) I read it as the poster saying he/she acted alone. Are you implying the poster has multiple personalities? :)William, do you actually expect me to take this last question seriously?

[fgump2]

TV
Honestly. whats missing in his experiement is RONS fingernails and OJS arm.
HAHAHA
Do you think Dr Baden did an experiment with RG's fingernails and OJS's arm? I think that some friend of OJS took a photo of OJS smiling as he was talking to someone after the recital. The defense used this photo to show that OJS wasn't upset at that time.

To bring up another point about the civil trial. I think that OJS's inability to remember in which city he first seriously cut himself has little credibility.
In his original police interview he said he cut himself in the bronco, and bled all over the place.
He then later said he got a small cut on his pinky (left hand I suppose), and then later got the big cut in Chicago.
I find this confusion hard to believe. First of all, OJS had a fairly bad case of arthritis, and I think anyone who took daily medicine for arthritis as he did would remember a deep cut on a joint; they would worry about it.
OJS had more reasons than most people to worry because he made part of his living with his remaining physical skills, such as the exercise video he made before the murders.
He also would have been concerned about the fact that he was supposed to play golf with clients in Chicago on Monday morning. If he seriously cut his finger in LA he would have been wondering if he should just walk around the golf course, and not play any golf. This would have been an important item on his mind as he flew to Chicago.

[William Anthony]

TV
Honestly. whats missing in his experiement is RONS fingernails and OJS arm.
HAHAHA

How thick were the known and unknown nails, how muscular or thick was the skin of the none or unknown scratch victim, how much pressure was used as compared to the known or unknown, what type of lighting was used as compared to the known or the unknown, was the researcher able to see clearly without the use of eyeglasses, did the researcher bruise and heal at the same rates as did Simpson?

[William Anthony]

William, do you actually expect me to take this last question seriously?

Did you see the emoticon?

[William Anthony]

Do you think Dr Baden did an experiment with RG's fingernails and OJS's arm? I think that some friend of OJS took a photo of OJS smiling as he was talking to someone after the recital. The defense used this photo to show that OJS wasn't upset at that time.

To bring up another point about the civil trial. I think that OJS's inability to remember in which city he first seriously cut himself has little credibility.
In his original police interview he said he cut himself in the bronco, and bled all over the place.
He then later said he got a small cut on his pinky (left hand I suppose), and then later got the big cut in Chicago.
I find this confusion hard to believe. First of all, OJS had a fairly bad case of arthritis, and I think anyone who took daily medicine for arthritis as he did would remember a deep cut on a joint; they would worry about it.
OJS had more reasons than most people to worry because he made part of his living with his remaining physical skills, such as the exercise video he made before the murders.
He also would have been concerned about the fact that he was supposed to play golf with clients in Chicago on Monday morning. If he seriously cut his finger in LA he would have been wondering if he should just walk around the golf course, and not play any golf. This would have been an important item on his mind as he flew to Chicago.

No and neither did you. He said he bled, which does not equate to a serious cut, imho. He was not a hemophiliac. Simpson's physical skills, like his acting career, was not waxing, imho. He did not say he nearly cut his finger off and at that point he was more worried about the murder of his former wife and his kids, imho. The witness who sat next to him on the plane ride to Chicago saw no cut or bleeding nor did Kato or Park, which would be consistent with a minor cut, imho.

[tv]

Did you see the emoticon?Yes, that's why I asked you to clarify.

[tv]

TV
Honestly. whats missing in his experiement is RONS fingernails and OJS arm.
HAHAHAYou mean like in the real struggle when OJ Simpson was killing Ron? HAHAHA

[William Anthony]

Yes, that's why I asked you to clarify.

Thinks understood don't have to be explained, :) , like the poor case the prosecution put forth.

[weezer]

this is the 'civil trial' thread. how about the vast LE frame of orenthal move over on the 'criminal trial' thread? thanks

[tv]

Thinks understood don't have to be explained, :) , like the poor case the prosecution put forth.You may not realize this but I'm not a mind reader. You were obviously making an issue of my use of the word "they'. That's fine -- maybe you'd like to explain to me what "thinks understood" means.

[tv]

this is the 'civil trial' thread. how about the vast LE frame of orenthal move over on the 'criminal trial' thread? thanksGreat idea.

[martin II]

You mean like in the real struggle when OJ Simpson was killing Ron? HAHAHA

No. like the experiment you think has value.hahaha

[martin II]

Do you think Dr Baden did an experiment with RG's fingernails and OJS's arm? I think that some friend of OJS took a photo of OJS smiling as he was talking to someone after the recital. The defense used this photo to show that OJS wasn't upset at that time.

To bring up another point about the civil trial. I think that OJS's inability to remember in which city he first seriously cut himself has little credibility.
In his original police interview he said he cut himself in the bronco, and bled all over the place.
He then later said he got a small cut on his pinky (left hand I suppose), and then later got the big cut in Chicago.
I find this confusion hard to believe. First of all, OJS had a fairly bad case of arthritis, and I think anyone who took daily medicine for arthritis as he did would remember a deep cut on a joint; they would worry about it.
OJS had more reasons than most people to worry because he made part of his living with his remaining physical skills, such as the exercise video he made before the murders.
He also would have been concerned about the fact that he was supposed to play golf with clients in Chicago on Monday morning. If he seriously cut his finger in LA he would have been wondering if he should just walk around the golf course, and not play any golf. This would have been an important item on his mind as he flew to Chicago.


Can you give me the link to testimony and a pictured used in either trial showing ojs bare arms after the recital? I am trying to get to the truth of your claim.

[weezer]

take it to the 'criminal trial' thread --

I'm growing weary of every thread being hi-jacked by the OJI's.

[martin II]

Do you think Dr Baden did an experiment with RG's fingernails and OJS's arm? I think that some friend of OJS took a photo of OJS smiling as he was talking to someone after the recital. The defense used this photo to show that OJS wasn't upset at that time.

To bring up another point about the civil trial. I think that OJS's inability to remember in which city he first seriously cut himself has little credibility.
In his original police interview he said he cut himself in the bronco, and bled all over the place.
He then later said he got a small cut on his pinky (left hand I suppose), and then later got the big cut in Chicago.
I find this confusion hard to believe. First of all, OJS had a fairly bad case of arthritis, and I think anyone who took daily medicine for arthritis as he did would remember a deep cut on a joint; they would worry about it.
OJS had more reasons than most people to worry because he made part of his living with his remaining physical skills, such as the exercise video he made before the murders.
He also would have been concerned about the fact that he was supposed to play golf with clients in Chicago on Monday morning. If he seriously cut his finger in LA he would have been wondering if he should just walk around the golf course, and not play any golf. This would have been an important item on his mind as he flew to Chicago.

\
Fgump2
you make a lot of claims in your post.
Is there a link to oj saying he bleed 'ALL OVER THE PLACE.?
I take arthritis medication and i don't worry about a small cut on my finger when i get one.
Is there a link to A picture of oj after the recital showing his bars arms?
You say this photo was used in court, How about a link to that trial testimony.
I think the arthritis oj suffered from was in his knees and ankles not his finger.
At lease that is what was testified to in court.imo

[martin II]

You're free to believe what you want. :shrug: Maybe the reporter was in on the vast conspiracy to frame OJ Simpson. Who knows?

No just biased reporting of a fool. But his report was wrong and you showed me no Baden testimony.

[martin II]

You're free to believe what you want. :shrug: Maybe the reporter was in on the vast conspiracy to frame OJ Simpson. Who knows?

The reporter didn't know Baden had done 20,000 autopsies and maby thought he could get by with that lie.

[weezer]

\
Fgump2
you make a lot of claims in your post.
Is there a link to oj saying he bleed 'ALL OVER THE PLACE.?
I take arthritis medication and i don't worry about a small cut on my finger when i get one.
Is there a link to A picture of oj after the recital showing his bars arms?
You say this photo was used in court, How about a link to that trial testimony.
I think the arthritis oj suffered from was in his knees and ankles not his finger.
At lease that is what was testified to in court.imo

take it to the 'criminal trial' thread. please. thanks

[weezer]

"DR. MICHAEL BADEN, former New York City coroner: Contradicted nearly all of pathologist Spitz's opinions about fingernail wounds, thinks Simpson cut hand on glass shards; believes multiple killers used multiple weapons; killers should have gotten blood on skin and clothes; Goldman could have remained on his feet struggling with his killer for two or three minutes after being stabbed; didn't recall telling national TV audience that Goldman remained standing for 10 minutes; reviewed film clip and said difference between two, three and five minutes was inconsequential because it was still five to 10 minutes from first stab wound to death. Dec. 17, 1996:"

[weezer]

HENRY LEE, director of Connecticut State Forensics Science Laboratory: (VT) Found trail of seven blood drops leading away from killing scene but these drops and blood on Ms. Simpson's back never collected for analysis by police chemists who made "terrible" errors handling evidence; complained about LAPD treatment - given "piece of junk" microscope, then just 20 minutes for examination; never meant to suggest police planted evidence to frame O.J. Simpson.

Jan. 10, Jan. 13, 1997

[tv]

No just biased reporting of a fool. But his report was wrong and you showed me no Baden testimony.Everyone is a fool except OJ Simpson and the defense team according to you. His report was not wrong and this belongs in the criminal thread.

[tv]

The reporter didn't know Baden had done 20,000 autopsies and maby thought he could get by with that lie.You don't know what the reporter knew. This belongs in the criminal thread.

[weezer]

baden civil trial testimony; Dec 16:

". . .
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MEDVENE:

Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Baden?

A. Good afternoon, Mr. Medvene.

Q. Is it fair to say you have the greatest respect for Dr. Spitz as a forensic pathologist and the quality of work that he does?

A. Yeah. I think that's fair, yes.

Q. And his book, the Spitz and Fisher book, "Medical Legal
Investigation of Death," fair to say that's a standard reference work in the field of pathology?

A. I think so, yes.

Q. And on occasion, if there's a need, you yourself use it?

A. I certainly -- I've read it through. I contributed some chapters in the first two editions.

Q. Contributed a chapter on?

A. Drug abuse.

Q. Drug abuse.

Now, fair to say you regard Dr. Spitz as not only an excellent pathologist, but an excellent teacher in the field of pathology?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. And in Dr. Spitz's book, being familiar with it, you're aware that he has a section on fingernails, fingernail marks, and a series of pictures on fingernails; is that correct?

A. I believe there's such a description in the chapter on
strangulation.

Q. Now, is it correct, sir, that you've never published an article in any recognized forensic pathology text on the subject of sharp force injuries, including stab wounds? That's a correct statement, isn't it, sir?

A. I've never written an article specifically about that. I think there's a book that I edited that has a chapter on sharp force injuries, an atlas of legal medicine.

Q. My question, sir, is, is it correct that you never published an article on sharp force injuries including stab wounds in any recognized forensic pathology text book?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: You may answer.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is that a correct statement?

A. I think the text that I referred to is a Japanese text that
published in Japan and the United States, an atlas of legal medicine that contains a chapter on the stab wounds, that was published back in the 1960's.

But I haven't written specific articles about stab wounds.

Q. Is it fair to say you've not published a chapter in any recognized forensic pathology text book on the subject of blunt force trauma; is that correct?

A. The same -- the same caveat that is in this atlas of legal
medicine, there's a chapter on blunt and force trauma, too, but I haven't specifically written articles about it for publication in medical journals.

Q. You've not published or written a chapter in any recognized forensic pathology text on the subject of fingernails and how you identify fingernail markings; isn't that true?

A. That's true.
. . ."

[martin II]

take it to the 'criminal trial' thread --

I'm growing weary of every thread being hi-jacked by the OJI's.

Are suggesting that the murders and police activities are not a part of the civil trial?

[tv]

Thanks weezer. :)

[tv]

Are suggesting that the murders and police activities are not a part of the civil trial?Discussion of criminal trial testimony does not belong in this thread.

[martin II]

baden civil trial testimony; Dec 16:

". . .
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MEDVENE:

Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Baden?

A. Good afternoon, Mr. Medvene.

Q. Is it fair to say you have the greatest respect for Dr. Spitz as a forensic pathologist and the quality of work that he does?

A. Yeah. I think that's fair, yes.

Q. And his book, the Spitz and Fisher book, "Medical Legal
Investigation of Death," fair to say that's a standard reference work in the field of pathology?

A. I think so, yes.

Q. And on occasion, if there's a need, you yourself use it?

A. I certainly -- I've read it through. I contributed some chapters in the first two editions.

Q. Contributed a chapter on?

A. Drug abuse.

Q. Drug abuse.

Now, fair to say you regard Dr. Spitz as not only an excellent pathologist, but an excellent teacher in the field of pathology?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. And in Dr. Spitz's book, being familiar with it, you're aware that he has a section on fingernails, fingernail marks, and a series of pictures on fingernails; is that correct?

A. I believe there's such a description in the chapter on
strangulation.

Q. Now, is it correct, sir, that you've never published an article in any recognized forensic pathology text on the subject of sharp force injuries, including stab wounds? That's a correct statement, isn't it, sir?

A. I've never written an article specifically about that. I think there's a book that I edited that has a chapter on sharp force injuries, an atlas of legal medicine.

Q. My question, sir, is, is it correct that you never published an article on sharp force injuries including stab wounds in any recognized forensic pathology text book?

MR. BLASIER: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: You may answer.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Is that a correct statement?

A. I think the text that I referred to is a Japanese text that
published in Japan and the United States, an atlas of legal medicine that contains a chapter on the stab wounds, that was published back in the 1960's.

But I haven't written specific articles about stab wounds.

Q. Is it fair to say you've not published a chapter in any recognized forensic pathology text book on the subject of blunt force trauma; is that correct?

A. The same -- the same caveat that is in this atlas of legal
medicine, there's a chapter on blunt and force trauma, too, but I haven't specifically written articles about it for publication in medical journals.

Q. You've not published or written a chapter in any recognized forensic pathology text on the subject of fingernails and how you identify fingernail markings; isn't that true?

A. That's true.
. . ."

Not publishing a book about fingernails means what. 20,000 autopies is enough experience for me. No one has published books about every part of the body.But Baden has published enough.

[martin II]

You don't know what the reporter knew. This belongs in the criminal thread.

Spitz and Baden testified in the civil trial right?

[tv]

Spitz and Baden testified in the civil trial right?I was talking about Dr. Baden's testimony in the criminal trial which was the wrong thread. I've moved it to the criminal trial thread. I'm sure if our unofficial thread monitor was here he would agree.

[martin II]

You don't know what the reporter knew. This belongs in the criminal thread.

I have not seen any trestimony of Dr. Baden when he said what your reporter said below. "Primary expertise is death by drug abuse" 20,000 autopsies.
Show it to me and maby i will agree.

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

[tv]

I have not seen any trestimony of Dr. Baden when he said what your reporter said below. "Primary expertise is death by drug abuse" 20,000 autopsies.
Show it to me and maby i will agree.

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

Why don't you understand this is the wrong thread?

[martin II]

Why don't you understand this is the wrong thread?

ok
martin II

[William Anthony]

I was talking about Dr. Baden's testimony in the criminal trial which was the wrong thread. I've moved it to the criminal trial thread. I'm sure if our unofficial thread monitor was here he would agree.

I thought the unofficial thread monitoring committee was composed of posters with female nics.:)

[tv]

I thought the unofficial thread monitoring committee was composed of posters with female nics.:)Now you know differently. :)

[William Anthony]

Now you know differently. :)

Can Joe be a girl's name or can Joesph be short for Josephine? Is this ringing a bell? This post is meant as a joke.;)

[martin II]

I was talking about Dr. Baden's testimony in the criminal trial which was the wrong thread. I've moved it to the criminal trial thread. I'm sure if our unofficial thread monitor was here he would agree.

who is that?:)

[William Anthony]

who is that?:)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fbgweezer View Post
william, I understand your interest in all things law but honestly this is the way wrong thread. except for one or two posters, I don't believe anyone posting on this thread beleive for one moment that orenthal's cases can be used as a platform for this discussion. except for the one or two posters, I don't believe anyone posting on this thread believe orenthal was in any shape or form not treated right by LE.
Hint.

Old 05-23-2008, 01:08 AM
fbgweezer's Avatar
fbgweezer fbgweezer is offline
Criime Library Supreme Member

Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,764


#555 Add to Joseph Bell's Reputation Report Post
Old 05-23-2008, 07:28 AM
Joseph Bell Joseph Bell is offline
Member

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 77
Joseph Bell
Hi. That is a really honest and thoughtful post and I agree with you 100%. Perhaps a new thread could be started so people who believe OJ to be innocent can post there.
Reply With Quote

Hint. :)

[tv]

Quote:
Originally Posted by fbgweezer View Post
william, I understand your interest in all things law but honestly this is the way wrong thread. except for one or two posters, I don't believe anyone posting on this thread beleive for one moment that orenthal's cases can be used as a platform for this discussion. except for the one or two posters, I don't believe anyone posting on this thread believe orenthal was in any shape or form not treated right by LE.
Hint.

Old 05-23-2008, 01:08 AM
fbgweezer's Avatar
fbgweezer fbgweezer is offline
Criime Library Supreme Member

Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,764


#555 Add to Joseph Bell's Reputation Report Post
Old 05-23-2008, 07:28 AM
Joseph Bell Joseph Bell is offline
Member

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 77
Joseph Bell
Hi. That is a really honest and thoughtful post and I agree with you 100%. Perhaps a new thread could be started so people who believe OJ to be innocent can post there.
Reply With Quote

Hint. :)

I would post all the reprimands by the unofficial thread monitor but it would take up too many pages in the thread. Also, it's not nice to name names. Besides, this is off-topic.

[weezer]

I would post all the reprimands by the unofficial thread monitor but it would take up too many pages in the thread. Also, it's not nice to name names. Besides, this is off-topic.

I don't understand what william's post was even about.

[William Anthony]

I would post all the reprimands by the unofficial thread monitor but it would take up too many pages in the thread. Also, it's not nice to name names. Besides, this is off-topic.

We could post all the off-topic, thread derailment, and high-jacking accusations if you would like and, if you will pardon my impertinence, it was you that first mentioned the off-topic thread monitor and now you say it is off topic. Glad to see the committee is still functioning as usual. :)

[William Anthony]

I don't understand what william's post was even about.

It was in response to someone I believe is a committee member.:)

[tv]

We could post all the off-topic, thread derailment, and high-jacking accusations if you would like and, if you will pardon my impertinence, it was you that first mentioned the off-topic thread monitor and now you say it is off topic. Glad to see the committee is still functioning as usual. :)I mentioned it in the context of asking another poster to post criminal trial testimony in the criminal trial thread instead of the civil trial thread. I see the thread monitor is hard at work as usual. Can we please get back on-topic?

[William Anthony]

I mentioned it in the context of asking another poster to post criminal trial testimony in the criminal trial thread instead of the civil trial thread. I see the thread monitor is hard at work as usual. Can we please get back on-topic?

As usual when support is offered the committee springs into action with a request to get back on topic, I am not the monitor but I know who is; sounds like the prosecution hollering irrelevant, imho. Is that back on topic?:)

[tv]

As usual when support is offered the committee springs into action with a request to get back on topic, I am not the monitor but I know who is; sounds like the prosecution hollering irrelevant, imho. Is that back on topic?:)

My remark seems to have hit a nerve -- you've gone on for several posts talking about it. No one else seems to have paid any attention to it. This is my last comment on this unimportant subject because it's OFF-TOPIC.

[William Anthony]

My remark seems to have hit a nerve -- you've gone on for several posts talking about it. No one else seems to have paid any attention to it. This is my last comment on this unimportant subject because it's OFF-TOPIC.

This is also mine and the pot should not call the kettle black. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

[William Anthony]

What is the relevance to the poster's experiment to the Key testimony in the civil trial?

[tv]

What is the relevance to the poster's experiment to the Key testimony in the civil trial?That discussion has been moved to the criminal trial thread.

[William Anthony]

That discussion has been moved to the criminal trial thread.

Did you move the experiment?

[tv]

Did you move the experiment?No, I didn't have anything else to add. If you wish to continue to discuss it then feel free to move it. Now we have two threads discussing the wrong thread issue from last night. :mad:

[William Anthony]

No, I didn't have anything else to add. If you wish to continue to discuss it then feel free to move it. Now we have two threads discussing the wrong thread issue from last night. :mad:

No, I think it's better left where it is.

[tv]

Dr. Baden's amazing leap in time from the criminal to the civil trial: :)


Q. Is it your contention, sir, that Mr. Goldman was standing five,
ten, fifteen, twenty minutes, while this assailant was attacking him
with a knife, and the blood was dripping down from the left jugular
vein, somehow didn't stain very much, or soak into his shirt on the
right, skipped over his abdomen, skipped over the first portion of his
jeans?

THE COURT: Which side are you interposing the wound to, Mr. Medvene?

MR. MEDVENE: The left side.

A. No, I'm not saying that at all. I didn't say he stood up at any
point for two, three, five, ten, fifteen minutes.

Q. Stood up?

A. I said he stayed up for two or three minutes, yes, while the blood
came down and stained some areas and didn't stain other areas, yes

Q. I understand.

So he's up now two or three minutes and he collapses from loss of
blood and--

A. He collapses from loss of blood and whatever else goes on when the
jugular vein is cut. There are other things that happen.

Q. I understand.

We'll talk about the two or three minutes we now have him on the
ground in a few minutes.

But, what I want to ask is, your explanation is this blood somehow by
gravity kind of jumped over these areas that you talked about, jumped
over -- kind of jumped over the shirt sort of, jumped over the
abdomen, jumped over this first part, and kind of landed here, this
slow oozing blood from the vein that's oozing out, is that it, sir?

[William Anthony]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. Okay.

[tv]

Your point?

[William Anthony]

My point is context. Let's put the testimony in context.

Q. Dr. Baden, the Geraldo show, the purpose of that was to promote the HBO special?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you got on there, you found that Chris Darden was also on the show?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope.

THE COURT: I don't have any inclination to allow any examination about anybody else on the show, Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: I think I'm entitled to let him explain.

THE COURT: I'm not going to let you. You can ask about what he said; that's it.

MR. BLASIER: All right.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Baden, had you reviewed all your materials before you appeared on Geraldo?

A. No, I hadn't.

Q. And were you -- was it your understanding that you were even going to be asked about the Simpson case?

A. I was hoping I wouldn't be asked about it. I was just going to talk about the -- I was hoping only to talk about the HBO program, which was kind of a foolish thought in my mind.

Q. And the ten-minute period that you referred to on Geraldo, did you intend that to mean that's how long Mr. Goldman was standing up, or the period -- time period be a neck -- wound in the aorta?

A. That's what I said, but I didn't intend it that way. And I don't agree with that.

That -- that's the time period, the five- to ten-minute is the time period between the cut wound to the neck and the stab wound to the belly. How -- and I misspoke. Because how long he was standing, I can't quite tell. I think it was a few minutes. It had to be enough time for the blood to go down to the shoe and during that time -- for some time, he was standing. And I can't be more specific than that.

Q. Would you agree that no medical examiner could be so precise to say all this happened, for example, in a minute and 15 seconds precisely?

MR. MEDVENE: Outside the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: No further questions.

A. I would agree with that.

MR. BLASIER: No further questions.

[tv]

My point is context. Let's put the testimony in context.

Q. Dr. Baden, the Geraldo show, the purpose of that was to promote the HBO special?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you got on there, you found that Chris Darden was also on the show?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope.

THE COURT: I don't have any inclination to allow any examination about anybody else on the show, Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: I think I'm entitled to let him explain.

THE COURT: I'm not going to let you. You can ask about what he said; that's it.

MR. BLASIER: All right.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Baden, had you reviewed all your materials before you appeared on Geraldo?

A. No, I hadn't.

Q. And were you -- was it your understanding that you were even going to be asked about the Simpson case?

A. I was hoping I wouldn't be asked about it. I was just going to talk about the -- I was hoping only to talk about the HBO program, which was kind of a foolish thought in my mind.

Q. And the ten-minute period that you referred to on Geraldo, did you intend that to mean that's how long Mr. Goldman was standing up, or the period -- time period be a neck -- wound in the aorta?

A. That's what I said, but I didn't intend it that way. And I don't agree with that.

That -- that's the time period, the five- to ten-minute is the time period between the cut wound to the neck and the stab wound to the belly. How -- and I misspoke. Because how long he was standing, I can't quite tell. I think it was a few minutes. It had to be enough time for the blood to go down to the shoe and during that time -- for some time, he was standing. And I can't be more specific than that.
Q. Would you agree that no medical examiner could be so precise to say all this happened, for example, in a minute and 15 seconds precisely?

MR. MEDVENE: Outside the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: No further questions.

A. I would agree with that.

MR. BLASIER: No further questions.

Poor Dr. Baden, he just can't make up his mind.

[William Anthony]

Poor Dr. Baden, he just can't make up his mind.

I think he was clear as to what he testified to as a reasonable degree of medical certainty as opposed to possibilities.

[tv]

I think he was clear as to what he testified to as a reasonable degree of medical certainty as opposed to possibilities.He said 'five to ten minutes' and 'a few minutes' and 'How long he was standing, I can't quite tell.' Oh yeah, that's real clear.

[weezer]

I think he was clear as to what he testified to as a reasonable degree of medical certainty as opposed to possibilities.

he chose not to testify 'to as a reasonable degree of medical certainty' -- you are wrong. In fact, if you keep reading, you'll see where he is questioned about the basis for his answer.

[William Anthony]

He said 'five to ten minutes' and 'a few minutes' and 'How long he was standing, I can't quite tell.' Oh yeah, that's real clear.

That includes possibilities.

[William Anthony]

he chose not to testify 'to as a reasonable degree of medical certainty' -- you are wrong. In fact, if you keep reading, you'll see where he is questioned about the basis for his answer.

He was required to answer the question as asked. The only opinions of his that have paramount weight are those that he said to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. I think this is the respective standard that should be applied to all types of experts as it pertains to the opinions and testimony they should be permitted to utter.

[weezer]

He was required to answer the question as asked. The only opinions of his that have paramount weight are those that he said to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. I think this is the respective standard that should be applied to all types of experts as it pertains to the opinions and testimony they should be permitted to utter.

then we can throw out his testimony since he did NOT testify to a 'medical certainty'

[William Anthony]

then we can throw out his testimony since he did NOT testify to a 'medical certainty'

Along with Spitz and all the other experts.

[martin II]

My point is context. Let's put the testimony in context.

Q. Dr. Baden, the Geraldo show, the purpose of that was to promote the HBO special?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you got on there, you found that Chris Darden was also on the show?

MR. MEDVENE: Objection. Outside the scope.

THE COURT: I don't have any inclination to allow any examination about anybody else on the show, Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: I think I'm entitled to let him explain.

THE COURT: I'm not going to let you. You can ask about what he said; that's it.

MR. BLASIER: All right.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Baden, had you reviewed all your materials before you appeared on Geraldo?

A. No, I hadn't.

Q. And were you -- was it your understanding that you were even going to be asked about the Simpson case?

A. I was hoping I wouldn't be asked about it. I was just going to talk about the -- I was hoping only to talk about the HBO program, which was kind of a foolish thought in my mind.

Q. And the ten-minute period that you referred to on Geraldo, did you intend that to mean that's how long Mr. Goldman was standing up, or the period -- time period be a neck -- wound in the aorta?

A. That's what I said, but I didn't intend it that way. And I don't agree with that.

That -- that's the time period, the five- to ten-minute is the time period between the cut wound to the neck and the stab wound to the belly. How -- and I misspoke. Because how long he was standing, I can't quite tell. I think it was a few minutes. It had to be enough time for the blood to go down to the shoe and during that time -- for some time, he was standing. And I can't be more specific than that.

Q. Would you agree that no medical examiner could be so precise to say all this happened, for example, in a minute and 15 seconds precisely?

MR. MEDVENE: Outside the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: No further questions.

A. I would agree with that.

MR. BLASIER: No further questions.


tv
just trying to keep everything honest.


A. That's what I said, but I didn't intend it that way. And I don't agree with that.

That -- that's the time period, the five- to ten-minute is the time period between the cut wound to the neck and the stab wound to the belly. How -- and I misspoke. Because how long he was standing, I can't quite tell. I think it was a few minutes. It had to be enough time for the blood to go down to the shoe and during that time -- for some time, he was standing. And I can't be more specific than that.

[tv]

tv
just trying to keep everything honest.


A. That's what I said, but I didn't intend it that way. And I don't agree with that.

That -- that's the time period, the five- to ten-minute is the time period between the cut wound to the neck and the stab wound to the belly. How -- and I misspoke. Because how long he was standing, I can't quite tell. I think it was a few minutes. It had to be enough time for the blood to go down to the shoe and during that time -- for some time, he was standing. And I can't be more specific than that.

If you want to keep it honest then you need to admit that you accept someone mistating or mispeaking as long as they think Simpson is not guilty. If they're on the other side you don't give them any slack.

[William Anthony]

If you want to keep it honest then you need to admit that you accept someone mistating or mispeaking as long as they think Simpson is not guilty. If they're on the other side you don't give them any slack.

I am not on either side except that of the juries. Recently, there has been only one poster other than Martin that might think Simpson is innocent. I have supported what I said with testimony and how it can be interpreted. The other poster has focused on the phone records and seems to have a lot of information on that subject. I don't understand that of which you speak.

[tv]

I am not on either side except that of the juries. Recently, there has been only one poster other than Martin that might think Simpson is innocent. I have supported what I said with testimony and how it can be interpreted. The other poster has focused on the phone records and seems to have a lot of information on that subject. I don't understand that of which you speak.Never mind. I don't intend to open a can of worms.

[William Anthony]

Never mind. I don't intend to open a can of worms.

Ok and I don't feel like going on a fishing expedition for the answer. :)

[tv]

Ok and I don't feel like going on a fishing expedition for the answer. :)

Good.

[William Anthony]

tv
just trying to keep everything honest.


A. That's what I said, but I didn't intend it that way. And I don't agree with that.

That -- that's the time period, the five- to ten-minute is the time period between the cut wound to the neck and the stab wound to the belly. How -- and I misspoke. Because how long he was standing, I can't quite tell. I think it was a few minutes. It had to be enough time for the blood to go down to the shoe and during that time -- for some time, he was standing. And I can't be more specific than that.

That is how I understood his testimony.

[martin II]

If you want to keep it honest then you need to admit that you accept someone mistating or mispeaking as long as they think Simpson is not guilty. If they're on the other side you don't give them any slack.

I posted the above from you post as i got the impression that you may have been attempting to present Baden testifying to somethiong that he clearly said was not what he intended to convey. Was i correct??

[tv]

I posted the above from you post as i got the impression that you may have been attempting to present Baden testifying to somethiong that he clearly said was not what he intended to convey. Was i correct??Incorrect.

[William Anthony]

Here is Baden's testimony on to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

December 17th

Q. Dr. Baden, you recall yesterday when at the beginning of the cross-examination, Mr. Medvene asked you questions about whether you were trying to mislead the jury about your opinion with respect to one or more perpetrators?

A. I think so, yes.

Q. And he was suggesting that you had testified to the jury that you thought, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there was more than one perpetrator?

A. Yes, I remember.

Q. Reading from page 145 of yesterday's transcript, do you recall this question and giving the following answer with respect to that opinion.

(Reading:)
Q. What is your opinion?

A. My opinion is that it's -- based on all the evidence and all the circumstances that it's more likely that there were more than one perpetrator.

A. Yes, that was -- I recall, and that is my opinion. More likely being -- more likely than not.

Q. Now, Mr. Medvene asked you a bunch of questions about whether certain things were possible.

How do you interpret that term, possible, in terms of whether it's something likely or not?

A. Possible means any circumstance which something could happen. It could be less than one-hundredth of one percent. Is it possible there's a dog out the door there. It's possible, I don't think so, but it's within the realm of possibility.

Q. In terms of an expert testifying to various opinions, does that standard really have much meaning at all?

A. I think it doesn't have any meaning as far as giving opinion to agree with the possibility except that the jury or the judge understands that that kind of an opinion has a lot less weight in my -- in my -- in my opinion, has much less weight, in my opinion, than opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, 95 percent, or more likely than not being 51 percent.

Q. And how about when you're asked the question whether something is consistent with something else, what does that mean?

A. It depends on the circumstances. But consistent with something, consistent with could be consistent one percent or could be consistent 50 or 60 percent.

Q. So would you agree that we're asked questions about whether something is possible or whether something is consistent with something else that you're not being asked any kind of question about your quantitative assessment of whether that happened or not?

A. That's correct. It's not an opinion of whether it happened that way, but whether there's any chance that it might have happened that way.

[tv]

Dr. Baden testified he couldn't say to a degree of reasonable medical certainty that there were two assailants.

[weezer]

Dr. Baden testified he couldn't say to a degree of reasonable medical certainty that there were two assailants.

or the length of time. yep, poor ole dr baden -- couldn't quite get it together. . . .

[tv]

or the length of time. yep, poor ole dr baden -- couldn't quite get it together. . . .Yep, Daniel Petrocelli said he kept smacking himself in the head with the palm of his hand every time he screwed up...

[William Anthony]

Let me answer the last three posts in one response. Baden was responsive, non evasive, not trying to do the judge's job and being honest, imho.

[tv]

Let me answer the last three posts in one response. Baden was responsive, non evasive, not trying to do the judge's job and being honest, imho.Sure, William. ;) Even Dr. Spitz said Dr. Baden was just trying to make the evidence fit the defense theory.

[martin II]

Dr. Baden testified he couldn't say to a degree of reasonable medical certainty that there were two assailants.

Here is his testimony.

A. My opinion is that it's -- based on all the evidence and all the circumstances that it's more likely that there were more than one perpetrator.

A. Yes, that was -- I recall, and that is my opinion. More likely being -- more likely than not.

Didn't Spitz use those same type words in his testimony and some took it as fact. Did Spitz testify to a mediacl certaintly that there was only one killer??

[martin II]

Sure, William. ;) Even Dr. Spitz said Dr. Baden was just trying to make the evidence fit the defense theory.

And spitz is who you believe.

[tv]

Here is his testimony.

A. My opinion is that it's -- based on all the evidence and all the circumstances that it's more likely that there were more than one perpetrator.

A. Yes, that was -- I recall, and that is my opinion. More likely being -- more likely than not.

Didn't Spitz use those same type words in his testimony and some took it as fact. Did Spitz testify to a mediacl certaintly that there was only one killer??I'm sure you can find the answer to that in the transcripts.

[William Anthony]

Sure, William. ;) Even Dr. Spitz said Dr. Baden was just trying to make the evidence fit the defense theory.

This from a witness that tried not to answer the question and gave legal conclusions, imho.

[William Anthony]

I'm sure you can find the answer to that in the transcripts.

Is that your way of saying you are not sure?

[tv]

And spitz is who you believe.I don't understand your question.

[martin II]

I'm sure you can find the answer to that in the transcripts.

i would give up a pepsi if he did.

[martin II]

I don't understand your question.

you talk about what you say Spitz said about Baden as if that is fact.

[tv]

Is that your way of saying you are not sure?It's my way of saying that martin can do his own research.

[martin II]

It's my way of saying that martin can do his own research.

I get the feelling you may not know. But it is my opinion that he did not. so i will give two pepsis and a cookie as a result of your response.

[William Anthony]

It's my way of saying that martin can do his own research.

According to my understanding of the rules, when you post something as a fact, you must support it.

[martin II]

Originally Posted by tvdinner
Sure, William. Even Dr. Spitz said Dr. Baden was just trying to make the evidence fit the defense theory.

[weezer]

According to my understanding of the rules, when you post something as a fact, you must support it.

dude, you don't even want to go there!

[tv]

According to my understanding of the rules, when you post something as a fact, you must support it.martin, asked me if Dr. Spitz testified there was only one killer. I didn't make that claim. If he wants to know he can look it up.

[William Anthony]

dude, you don't even want to go there!

I went there, madam and I'm your huckleberry. Before you misconstrue this, it is a line from Tombstone that Doc Holiday used when someone wanted to start a fight.

[martin II]

dude, you don't even want to go there!

Who is dude. what does that mean when you address someone as dude?

[William Anthony]

martin, asked me if Dr. Spitz testified there was only one killer. I didn't make that claim. If he wants to know he can look it up.

I thought that this was the post that Martin was talking about. If I am wrong, then I stand corrected.

"Sure, William. Even Dr. Spitz said Dr. Baden was just trying to make the evidence fit the defense theory."

[tv]

Medvene questioning Dr. Spitz:


(BY MR. MEDVENE) If I might move to another area.

Do you have an opinion as to whether all of the injuries inflicted on
Ms. Brown and Mr. Goldman could have been inflicted by one individual?

A. Yes. I'm of the opinion that all of the injuries of both victims
could have been inflicted by one individual, by a single individual.

Q. And what do you base that on?

A. First of all, I base that on the fact that the injuries on Nicole
took 15 seconds or less. And when I say 15 seconds, I'm being very
generous with time. I think probably less.

Once she was cut in the throat, they -- she was inactive. She was
collapsed. Instantaneously, immediately. The nature and the locations
of the wounds is, for practical purposes, the same or very similar in
both people.

Having said that my opinion is that one assailant caused these two --
The injuries in both people.

Q. Is there any evidence, in your judgment, that more than one knife
was used?

A. No. The injuries are totally compatible with a single knife.

Q. Could all of the injuries be caused by a single edged knife?

A. Yes.

[tv]

I went there, madam and I'm your huckleberry. Before you misconstrue this, it is a line from Tombstone that Doc Holiday used when someone wanted to start a fight.I am your huckleberry means I am your champion. You may want to rethink your usage of it.

[William Anthony]

Who is dude. what does that mean when you address someone as dude?

she just had the movie characters mixed up. The dude was the sheriff, who ran from a fight but Doc did not.

[William Anthony]

I am your huckleberry means I am your champion. You may want to rethink your usage of it.

I don't know what you think it means but I know what it meant when Doc used it and he could have been saying he was going to win, which I will not dispute. I distinctly remember him saying it to someone that challenged him and the response was he was only funnin. To which Doc replied he was not. I think that was Doc's way of saying you started it, so let's have at it.

[weezer]

Q. Now, as you mentioned yesterday, Dr. Cotton, in addition to the
various items that you've testified to on this results board, there
were other items that you tested at Bundy, including the blood under
Nicole's fingernails and other item as well; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, for all of the tests that you performed on all of the evidence
at the Bundy crime scene, did you ever obtain results showing the
presence of any alleles that could not have come from one of Mr.
Simpson, Nicole Brown or Ron Goldman?

A. There were no genetic markers, alleles present that were not
consistent with one of those three people.

Dr. Cotton Nov 14

[martin II]

Medvene questioning Dr. Spitz:


(BY MR. MEDVENE) If I might move to another area.

Do you have an opinion as to whether all of the injuries inflicted on
Ms. Brown and Mr. Goldman could have been inflicted by one individual?

A. Yes. I'm of the opinion that all of the injuries of both victims
could have been inflicted by one individual, by a single individual.

Q. And what do you base that on?

A. First of all, I base that on the fact that the injuries on Nicole
took 15 seconds or less. And when I say 15 seconds, I'm being very
generous with time. I think probably less.

Once she was cut in the throat, they -- she was inactive. She was
collapsed. Instantaneously, immediately. The nature and the locations
of the wounds is, for practical purposes, the same or very similar in
both people.

Having said that my opinion is that one assailant caused these two --
The injuries in both people.

Q. Is there any evidence, in your judgment, that more than one knife
was used?

A. No. The injuries are totally compatible with a single knife.

Q. Could all of the injuries be caused by a single edged knife?

A. Yes.

COULD is always included in question and answer. so you can take your pick.

Furhman, based on what he did at rockingham on 6/13 COULD have planted that glove.

[William Anthony]

Medvene questioning Dr. Spitz:


(BY MR. MEDVENE) If I might move to another area.

Do you have an opinion as to whether all of the injuries inflicted on
Ms. Brown and Mr. Goldman could have been inflicted by one individual?

A. Yes. I'm of the opinion that all of the injuries of both victims
could have been inflicted by one individual, by a single individual.

Q. And what do you base that on?

A. First of all, I base that on the fact that the injuries on Nicole
took 15 seconds or less. And when I say 15 seconds, I'm being very
generous with time. I think probably less.

Once she was cut in the throat, they -- she was inactive. She was
collapsed. Instantaneously, immediately. The nature and the locations
of the wounds is, for practical purposes, the same or very similar in
both people.

Having said that my opinion is that one assailant caused these two --
The injuries in both people.

Q. Is there any evidence, in your judgment, that more than one knife
was used?

A. No. The injuries are totally compatible with a single knife.

Q. Could all of the injuries be caused by a single edged knife?

A. Yes.

If this is the what Martin was talking about, then I stand corrected. However, from this Spitz did not testify to a medical certainty, which was Martin's question.

[tv]

COULD is always included in question and answer. so you can take your pick.

Furhman, based on what he did at rockingham on 6/13 COULD have planted that glove.I'm getting tired of being harrassed into posting testimony that you could look up for yourself and then when it's on the screen in black and white you don't believe it. It was okay for Dr. Baden to change his testimony, say he misspoke or didn't intend to say what he did but when someone gives a firm answer you pick it apart. From now on, if you have a question, feel free to research it yourself.

[martin II]

If this is the what Martin was talking about, then I stand corrected. However, from this Spitz did not testify to a medical certainty, which was Martin's question.

SEE
Could, as in could have,was used in question and answer as Baden used them.
SPITZ DID NOT TESTIFY TO MEDICAL CERTAINTY just as you say Baden didn't.So he did not know either.

I am going to now drink my pepsi and eat my cookie. Sorry tv.

[weezer]

Q. Now I want to ask you about fingernail scrapings.

You did some DNA tests on Nicole Brown Simpson fingernail scrapings,
correct?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. Now, fingernail scrapings, when you scrape something from under a
person's fingernails you're going to get more than just blood if
there's blood there. You're going to get skin tissue. You can get dead
cells. You can get all sorts of things, sort of biological material,
correct?

A. Sure.

Q. And that constellation of biological material all has DNA in it;
isn't -- doesn't it?

A. It's biological material, it will, yes.

Q. And your RFLP test or whatever test you run on an DNA test, doesn't
distinguish whether it's blood that you're looking at or tissue, does
it?

A. That's correct.

Q. So isn't it true, that you would always expect, when you take
scrapings under a finger -- person's fingernails and did a DNA test on
it, you would expect to see their, find their DNA under there?

A. Sure.

Q. That's not unusual at all; is it?

A. No, it's not.

Q. Now, if you found evidence of blood that -- let me rephrase that.

Red blood cells are tested for a genetic marker known as EAP, correct.

A. Yes.

Q. That's different from what you're looking at with your DNA test?

A. Correct.

Q. And if you had evidence of blood under those fingernails with an
EAP type, different from Nicole Brown Simpson, that would indicate
blood under there from a different person?

[martin II]

I'm getting tired of being harrassed into posting testimony that you could look up for yourself and then when it's on the screen in black and white you don't believe it. It was okay for Dr. Baden to change his testimony, say he misspoke or didn't intend to say what he did but when someone gives a firm answer you pick it apart. From now on, if you have a question, feel free to research it yourself.

tv
it is in black and white. SPITZ did not testifu to a medical certainty in your post.
I am interersted in your claim of what you say SPITZ said about Dr Baden tailoring his testimony. That is a serious charge if true and i an not sure he would make such a statement.

[tv]

tv
it is in black and white. SPITZ did not testifu to a medical certainty in your post.
I am interersted in your claim of what you say SPITZ said about Dr Baden tailoring his testimony. That is a serious charge if true and i an not sure he would make such a statement.I didn't see any testimony where he was asked if it was a medical certainty. Witnesses aren't supposed to offer commentary on things they aren't asked about. Enjoy your pepsi and cookie.

[martin II]

Q. Now I want to ask you about fingernail scrapings.

You did some DNA tests on Nicole Brown Simpson fingernail scrapings,
correct?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. Now, fingernail scrapings, when you scrape something from under a
person's fingernails you're going to get more than just blood if
there's blood there. You're going to get skin tissue. You can get dead
cells. You can get all sorts of things, sort of biological material,
correct?

A. Sure.

Q. And that constellation of biological material all has DNA in it;
isn't -- doesn't it?

A. It's biological material, it will, yes.

Q. And your RFLP test or whatever test you run on an DNA test, doesn't
distinguish whether it's blood that you're looking at or tissue, does
it?

A. That's correct.

Q. So isn't it true, that you would always expect, when you take
scrapings under a finger -- person's fingernails and did a DNA test on
it, you would expect to see their, find their DNA under there?

A. Sure.

Q. That's not unusual at all; is it?

A. No, it's not.

Q. Now, if you found evidence of blood that -- let me rephrase that.

Red blood cells are tested for a genetic marker known as EAP, correct.

A. Yes.

Q. That's different from what you're looking at with your DNA test?

A. Correct.

Q. And if you had evidence of blood under those fingernails with an
EAP type, different from Nicole Brown Simpson, that would indicate
blood under there from a different person?

and
martinii

[martin II]

I didn't see any testimony where he was asked if it was a medical certainty. Witnesses aren't supposed to offer commentary on things they aren't asked about. Enjoy your pepsi and cookie.

Dr Baden was not asked that either.

[tv]

tv
it is in black and white. SPITZ did not testifu to a medical certainty in your post.
I am interersted in your claim of what you say SPITZ said about Dr Baden tailoring his testimony. That is a serious charge if true and i an not sure he would make such a statement.

This was a personal conversation between Petrocelli and Spitz which Petrocelli quoted in his book. I didn't think you would be interested since it wasn't sworn testimony.

[weezer]

A. Yes. Number 84, referring to my report, was the fingernail
scrapings.

Q. Fingernail scrapings from whom?

A. From Nicole Brown.

Q. Did the Department of Justice actually receive the so-called
fingernail kit to do its tests with?

A. Gary Sims received those, yes.

Q. And he then obtained the evidence sample for you to do your test
on?

A. Correct. He extracted the DNA.

Q. And what were your test results on item number 84?

A. On 84, multiple samples were run.

And I'll refer to my notes on this.

The right-hand scrapings were analyzed; the left-hand scrapings were
analyzed. And the right-hand clippings were analyzed.

And all of the results by D1S80 were an 18 homozygote, indicating that
Nicole Brown could not be excluded as being the source of that sample.

Q. And in all of those tests that you ran on the fingernail scrapings,
right hand, left hand, and so on, did you find any alleles other than
18 in any of those?

A. No.

[martin II]

I didn't see any testimony where he was asked if it was a medical certainty. Witnesses aren't supposed to offer commentary on things they aren't asked about. Enjoy your pepsi and cookie.

Spitz did when he refused to answer that question. yes or no and tried to make a speech advising the court what was a proper question.Giving legal advice. He had the big head.

[weezer]

Dr Baden was not asked that either.

actually, baden was specifically asked the question regarding his standards; i.e., medical certainty.

[martin II]

This was a personal conversation between Petrocelli and Spitz which Petrocelli quoted in his book. I didn't think you would be interested since it wasn't sworn testimony.

Not intersted in what Petrocelli claimed in his comic book.

[weezer]

Spitz did when he refused to answer that question. yes or no and tried to make a speech advising the court what was a proper question.Giving legal advice. He had the big head.

he didn't say anything about the question. he said that without an explanation, his answer would be misleading so there was not a yes or no answer.

[martin II]

actually, baden was specifically asked the question regarding his standards; i.e., medical certainty.

prove it

[weezer]

Not intersted in what Petrocelli claimed in his comic book.

too bad -- it might help clear some of this up for you.

[martin II]

he didn't say anything about the question. he said that without an explanation, his answer would be misleading so there was not a yes or no answer.

I will inform you again. A witness does not have standing on the stand to give legal advice to the jury and judge about a question. A witnmess is to answer questions that are asked of him.fini.

[martin II]

too bad -- it might help clear some of this up for you.

i would rather deal in truth not his stories.

[tv]

prove it


Q. Dr. Baden, you recall yesterday when at the beginning of the
cross-examination, Mr. Medvene asked you questions about whether you
were trying to mislead the jury about your opinion with respect to one
or more perpetrators?

A. I think so, yes.

Q. And he was suggesting that you had testified to the jury that you
thought, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there was more
than one perpetrator?
A. Yes, I remember.

Q. Reading from page 145 of yesterday's transcript, do you recall this
question and giving the following answer with respect to that opinion.

(Reading:) Q. What is your opinion?

A. My opinion is that it's -- based on all the evidence and all the
circumstances that it's more likely that there were more than one
perpetrator.
A. Yes, that was -- I recall, and that is my opinion. More likely
being -- more likely than not.

Q. Now, Mr. Medvene asked you a bunch of questions about whether
certain things were possible.

How do you interpret that term, possible, in terms of whether it's
something likely or not?

A. Possible means any circumstance which something could happen. It
could be less than one-hundredth of one percent. Is it possible
there's a dog out the door there. It's possible, I don't think so, but
it's within the realm of possibility.

Q. In terms of an expert testifying to various opinions, does that
standard really have much meaning at all?

A. I think it doesn't have any meaning as far as giving opinion to
agree with the possibility except that the jury or the judge
understands that that kind of an opinion has a lot less weight in my
-- in my -- in my opinion, has much less weight, in my opinion, than
opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, 95 percent, or
more likely than not being 51 percent.

Q. And how about when you're asked the question whether something is
consistent with something else, what does that mean?

A. It depends on the circumstances. But consistent with something,
consistent with could be consistent one percent or could be consistent
50 or 60 percent.

Q. So would you agree that we're asked questions about whether
something is possible or whether something is consistent with
something else that you're not being asked any kind of question about
your quantitative assessment of whether that happened or not?

A. That's correct. It's not an opinion of whether it happened that
way, but whether there's any chance that it might have happened that
way.

[martin II]

Q. Dr. Baden, you recall yesterday when at the beginning of the
cross-examination, Mr. Medvene asked you questions about whether you
were trying to mislead the jury about your opinion with respect to one
or more perpetrators?

A. I think so, yes.

Q. And he was suggesting that you had testified to the jury that you
thought, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there was more
than one perpetrator?
A. Yes, I remember.

Q. Reading from page 145 of yesterday's transcript, do you recall this
question and giving the following answer with respect to that opinion.

(Reading:) Q. What is your opinion?

A. My opinion is that it's -- based on all the evidence and all the
circumstances that it's more likely that there were more than one
perpetrator.
A. Yes, that was -- I recall, and that is my opinion. More likely
being -- more likely than not.

Q. Now, Mr. Medvene asked you a bunch of questions about whether
certain things were possible.

How do you interpret that term, possible, in terms of whether it's
something likely or not?

A. Possible means any circumstance which something could happen. It
could be less than one-hundredth of one percent. Is it possible
there's a dog out the door there. It's possible, I don't think so, but
it's within the realm of possibility.

Q. In terms of an expert testifying to various opinions, does that
standard really have much meaning at all?

A. I think it doesn't have any meaning as far as giving opinion to
agree with the possibility except that the jury or the judge
understands that that kind of an opinion has a lot less weight in my
-- in my -- in my opinion, has much less weight, in my opinion, than
opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, 95 percent, or
more likely than not being 51 percent.

Q. And how about when you're asked the question whether something is
consistent with something else, what does that mean?

A. It depends on the circumstances. But consistent with something,
consistent with could be consistent one percent or could be consistent
50 or 60 percent.

Q. So would you agree that we're asked questions about whether
something is possible or whether something is consistent with
something else that you're not being asked any kind of question about
your quantitative assessment of whether that happened or not?

A. That's correct. It's not an opinion of whether it happened that
way, but whether there's any chance that it might have happened that
way.

This does not statre that he was asked that quesiton. only that the lawyer tried to say he had answered that way.I have not seen any quesiton where Baden was asked to give a Medical certainty answer.

[weezer]

prove it

Q. Now, you gave a bunch of opinions today, Dr. Baden, and you've been doing this long enough to know that there are opinions that are -- that have a certain percentage of probabilities and there are opinions that are only possibilities; isn't that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it true there's certain magic words that people that testify a lot use, and one of them is "consistent with," is that true?

MR. BLASIER: I'll object to the characterization of the magic word.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) One of the words you used was "consistent with"?

A. I don't think I used the word consistent with in my testimony.

That's one form of opinion that can be held, consistent with.

I try in my -- all my testimony to be beyond a reasonable medical certainty.

Q. You're telling us -- are you telling this jury -- well, let me withdraw that.

What percentage is -- what word did you use, beyond a reasonable degree of medical certainty, or with reasonable medical certainty, or would you use them interchangeably?

A. I would use them interchangeably.

Q. You said, in the past, that's up in the 95 percent category, didn't you?

A. Or more.

Q. Or more than 95 percent?

A. Yes.

Q. Right?

A. Yes, Mr. Medvene.

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

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

Q. Do you remember telling this jury that, unlike other opinions, when you threw out this two assailants, that it was more likely than not, and not beyond a reasonable degree of medical certainty?

Did you tell that to this jury, sir, yes or no, sir?

[tv]

This does not statre that he was asked that quesiton. only that the lawyer tried to say he had answered that way.I have not seen any quesiton where Baden was asked to give a Medical certainty answer.

Once again, you're denying what is front of you in black and white. I knew that's exactly what you would do. However, you are WRONG. Dr. Baden said he couldn't say it was with medical certainty. I'm going to go enjoy my iced tea and a yummy bowl of chocolate ice cream. Night, martin. :seeya: :)

[weezer]

I will inform you again. A witness does not have standing on the stand to give legal advice to the jury and judge about a question. A witnmess is to answer questions that are asked of him.fini.

obviously baden or the defense didn't know that:

THE COURT: You may answer that yes or no.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you answer it yes or no.

A. No. No, as you asked the question that's not true.

[William Anthony]

I didn't see any testimony where he was asked if it was a medical certainty. Witnesses aren't supposed to offer commentary on things they aren't asked about. Enjoy your pepsi and cookie.

Thank you and that is what Spitz did and the judge understood and told him to answer the question that's asked.

[William Anthony]

obviously baden or the defense didn't know that:

THE COURT: You may answer that yes or no.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you answer it yes or no.

A. No. No, as you asked the question that's not true.

Baden did answer the question that was asked. The question was "Can you answer it yes or no." He did not say the question was misleading or that it would lead to a misleading response. He said no, he could not answer a question that was untrue as asked.

[martin II]

Once again, you're denying what is front of you in black and white. I knew that's exactly what you would do. However, you are WRONG. Dr. Baden said he couldn't say it was with medical certainty. I'm going to go enjoy my iced tea and a yummy bowl of chocolate ice cream. Night, martin. :seeya: :)

OK he was asked if he testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainly to the question of two assailants and he stated that his opinion on that issue WAS NOT TO A REASONABLE MWEDICAL CERTTAINTY.
So i don;'t see him being asked a question and he testified yes i believe to a reasonable medical certainty that there were two assailants that murdered the victims.
Do you see that direct type question and that direct answer by Baden??

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

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

[martin II]

Once again, you're denying what is front of you in black and white. I knew that's exactly what you would do. However, you are WRONG. Dr. Baden said he couldn't say it was with medical certainty. I'm going to go enjoy my iced tea and a yummy bowl of chocolate ice cream. Night, martin. :seeya: :)

tv

you get no pepsi and cookies from me for what the LAWYER suggested what he had said.

Just post a direct question from the lawyer to Baden asking if he can testify to a medical certaintry there were two killers and Baden responding 'I testify to a medical certainty that there were two killers."

Thats all that is required.

[martin II]

obviously baden or the defense didn't know that:

THE COURT: You may answer that yes or no.

Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Can you answer it yes or no.

A. No. No, as you asked the question that's not true.

Is this a coninuation of your post of #206 or from another question? You did not post them as one.

[tv]

tv

you get no pepsi and cookies from me for what the LAWYER suggested what he had said.

Just post a direct question from the lawyer to Baden asking if he can testify to a medical certaintry there were two killers and Baden responding 'I testify to a medical certainty that there were two killers."

Thats all that is required.

I guess I will have to be content with my tea and ice cream. martin, you know it doesn't matter how the information came out. The fact is that Dr. Baden said he couldn't say with any degree of medical certainty that there were two killers. As you're fond of saying -- END OF STORY.

Hasn't this been fun? :)

[weezer]

tv

you get no pepsi and cookies from me for what the LAWYER suggested what he had said.

Just post a direct question from the lawyer to Baden asking if he can testify to a medical certaintry there were two killers and Baden responding 'I testify to a medical certainty that there were two killers."

Thats all that is required.

"I try in my -- all my testimony to be beyond a reasonable medical certainty."

[tv]

"I try in my -- all my testimony to be beyond a reasonable medical certainty."

Thanks weezer! :)

[martin II]

"I try in my -- all my testimony to be beyond a reasonable medical certainty."

nope
it does not work that way.

[martin II]

I guess I will have to be content with my tea and ice cream. martin, you know it doesn't matter how the information came out. The fact is that Dr. Baden said he couldn't say with any degree of medical certainty that there were two killers. As you're fond of saying -- END OF STORY.

Hasn't this been fun? :)

seems like you have given up since you have not found that direct quesiton and his direct answer.ok

[weezer]

seems like you have given up since you have not found that direct quesiton and his direct answer.ok

oh please -- the answer is posted. you can take it or leave it. baden said his standard was 'medical certainty' UNTIL he was caught trying to help the defense mislead the court -- then is was 'likely' and/or 'probably' -- LOL

[tv]

seems like you have given up since you have not found that direct quesiton and his direct answer.okGive it up martin. You're wrong -- he made the statement and all your twisting and turning won't change it.

[Kate Sachel]

Give it up martin. You're wrong -- he made the statement and all your twisting and turning won't change it.

Agreed, and very nice work in getting to that point.

Kate

[tv]

Agreed, and very nice work in getting to that point.

KateThanks, Kate. :)

[William Anthony]

Q. And he was suggesting that you had testified to the jury that you thought, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there was more than one perpetrator?

A. Yes, I remember.

Q. Reading from page 145 of yesterday's transcript, do you recall this question and giving the following answer with respect to that opinion.

(Reading:)
Q. What is your opinion?

A. My opinion is that it's -- based on all the evidence and all the circumstances that it's more likely that there were more than one perpetrator.

A. Yes, that was -- I recall, and that is my opinion. More likely being -- more likely than not.

The question was not asked what is your opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. The question was, "What is your opinion?" His answer was that it was more likely there was more than one perpetrator. His answer was not to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. He answered the question that was asked of him, as a good witness should.

[William Anthony]

Were the plaintiffs trying to mislead the jury with this question.

Do you have an opinion as to whether all of the injuries inflicted on Ms. Brown
and Mr. Goldman could have been inflicted by one individual?

A. Yes. I'm of the opinion that all of the injuries of both victims could have
been inflicted by one individual, by a single individual.

Q. And what do you base that on?

A. First of all, I base that on the fact that the injuries on Nicole took 15
seconds or less. And when I say 15 seconds, I'm being very generous with time.
I think probably less.

Once she was cut in the throat, they -- she was inactive. She was collapsed.
Instantaneously, immediately. The nature and the locations of the wounds is,
for practical purposes, the same or very similar in both people.

Having said that my opinion is that one assailant caused these two -- The
injuries in both people.

[tv]

Q. And he was suggesting that you had testified to the jury that you thought, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there was more than one perpetrator?

A. Yes, I remember.

Q. Reading from page 145 of yesterday's transcript, do you recall this question and giving the following answer with respect to that opinion.

(Reading:)
Q. What is your opinion?

A. My opinion is that it's -- based on all the evidence and all the circumstances that it's more likely that there were more than one perpetrator.

A. Yes, that was -- I recall, and that is my opinion. More likely being -- more likely than not.

The question was not asked what is your opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. The question was, "What is your opinion?" His answer was that it was more likely there was more than one perpetrator. His answer was not to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. He answered the question that was asked of him, as a good witness should.

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

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

[martin II]

Give it up martin. You're wrong -- he made the statement and all your twisting and turning won't change it.

tv

I have not seen any posted direct question where Baden was asked if can state to a medical certainty that there were two assaliants.I have not seen any testimony where Baden testified that he believes to a medical certainty that there were two assaliants.

So unitl you post a question and testimony to the above. I stick by my opinion.Period.

[William Anthony]

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

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

Q. Reading from page 145 of yesterday's transcript, do you recall this question and giving the following answer with respect to that opinion.

(Reading
Q. What is your opinion?

A. My opinion is that it's -- based on all the evidence and all the circumstances that it's more likely that there were more than one perpetrator.

A. Yes, that was -- I recall, and that is my opinion. More likely being -- more likely than not.

[Kate Sachel]

Q. And he was suggesting that you had testified to the jury that you thought, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there was more than one perpetrator?

A. Yes, I remember.

Q. Reading from page 145 of yesterday's transcript, do you recall this question and giving the following answer with respect to that opinion.

(Reading:)
Q. What is your opinion?

A. My opinion is that it's -- based on all the evidence and all the circumstances that it's more likely that there were more than one perpetrator.

A. Yes, that was -- I recall, and that is my opinion. More likely being -- more likely than not.

The question was not asked what is your opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. The question was, "What is your opinion?" His answer was that it was more likely there was more than one perpetrator. His answer was not to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. He answered the question that was asked of him, as a good witness should.

That is my point, that he cannot say with a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Kate

[William Anthony]

In my post #224, the plaintiffs asked Spitz the same question, what is your opinion. Was he testifying to a reasonable degree of medical certainty?

[tv]

In my post #224, the plaintiffs asked Spitz the same question, what is your opinion. Was he testifying to a reasonable degree of medical certainty?I don't see that they asked him that question and I can't read his mind so I don't know, do you?

[martin II]

Q. Reading from page 145 of yesterday's transcript, do you recall this question and giving the following answer with respect to that opinion.

(Reading
Q. What is your opinion?

A. My opinion is that it's -- based on all the evidence and all the circumstances that it's more likely that there were more than one perpetrator.

A. Yes, that was -- I recall, and that is my opinion. More likely being -- more likely than not.

tv

The testimony is above. Now the trick is for you to try to change the above words into what you think they mean.Don't you think?
Otherwise i stand by my opinion.

[William Anthony]

That is my point, that he cannot say with a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

Kate

This is really getting confusing. I think that is the point. Maybe, I should ask you to explain what you think the discussion concerns. At this point, I think there may be a couple of issues being discussed but I am not sure.

[William Anthony]

I don't see that they asked him that question and I can't read his mind so I don't know, do you?

Was not the subject the claim that Baden tried to mislead the jury and, if that is the allegation, didn't the plaintiffs ask Spitz the same question and could it not be said that Spitz was trying to mislead the jury?

[tv]

tv

The testimony is above. Now the trick is for you to try to change the above words into what you think they mean.Don't you think?
Otherwise i stand by my opinion.martin, this has been resolved. If you can't admit that Dr. Baden said 'more than likely' as opposed to 'medical certainty' I don't know how else to explain it. His testimony is public record and cannot be changed no matter how much you wish it.

[tv]

Was not the subject the claim that Baden tried to mislead the jury and, if that is the allegation, didn't the plaintiffs ask Spitz the same question and could it not be said that Spitz was trying to mislead the jury?No, the subject was how certain Dr. Baden was that there were two killers.

[William Anthony]

No, the subject was how certain Dr. Baden was that there were two killers.

Isn't this the post that started this?

Here is his testimony.

A. My opinion is that it's -- based on all the evidence and all the circumstances that it's more likely that there were more than one perpetrator.

A. Yes, that was -- I recall, and that is my opinion. More likely being -- more likely than not.

Didn't Spitz use those same type words in his testimony and some took it as fact. Did Spitz testify to a mediacl certaintly that there was only one killer??

[tv]

martin said the question about medical certainty was not put to Dr. Baden directly in the form of a question. He demanded proof several times. Weezer finally found the exact testimony I was unable to find--

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

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

There is no doubt that he is saying, after a direct question, that he could not say that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

[tv]

Isn't this the post that started this?

Here is his testimony.

A. My opinion is that it's -- based on all the evidence and all the circumstances that it's more likely that there were more than one perpetrator.

A. Yes, that was -- I recall, and that is my opinion. More likely being -- more likely than not.

Didn't Spitz use those same type words in his testimony and some took it as fact. Did Spitz testify to a mediacl certaintly that there was only one killer??

William, Dr. Spitz was not asked that question. It will have to remain one of those things that we will never have the answer to. You and martin have been proven wrong and are making a much bigger issue of this than is necessary.

[William Anthony]

I don't see that they asked him that question and I can't read his mind so I don't know, do you?

I can read his answer which included the caveat could have been inflicted by one individual. That does not sound like to a reasonable degree of medical certainty to me. Does it to you, and, if it was not to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, were the plaintiffs trying to mislead the jury?

[William Anthony]

William, Dr. Spitz was not asked that question. It will have to remain one of those things that we will never have the answer to. You and martin have been proven wrong and are making a much bigger issue of this than is necessary.

I don't understand how you say Martin and I. Martin asked the original question. I posted information from the testimony.

[tv]

I can read his answer which included the caveat could have been inflicted by one individual. That does not sound like to a reasonable degree of medical certainty to me. Does it to you, and, if it was not to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, were the plaintiffs trying to mislead the jury?

Perhaps the defense team that the magnificent Johnnie Cochran put into place for the civil trial should have asked Dr. Spitz if he was testifying to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. They dropped the ball on that so we can't second guess Dr. Spitz now.

[tv]

I don't understand how you say Martin and I. Martin asked the original question. I posted information from the testimony.I don't want to get into an argument with you so I'll change it to just martin. Better now? :)

[William Anthony]

Perhaps the defense team that the magnificent Johnnie Cochran put into place for the civil trial should have asked Dr. Spitz if he was testifying to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. They dropped the ball on that so we can't second guess Dr. Spitz now.

Let's be mature and honest. Could have been is not the same as saying to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and, in the last answer of his testimony that I posted he said it was his opinion and not his opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Let's not forget he was an experienced witness, and more likely than not (pun intended) rehearsed by the plaintiffs.

[William Anthony]

I don't want to get into an argument with you so I'll change it to just martin. Better now? :)

Not an argument. Simply a discussion. My point and I stated it in one of the posts that all experts should be required to state an opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty based on their area of expertise. To just say they have an opinion carries slightly more weight than that of a layman, imho.

[tv]

Let's be mature and honest. Could have been is not the same as saying to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and, in the last answer of his testimony that I posted he said it was his opinion and not his opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Let's not forget he was an experienced witness, and more likely than not (pun intended) rehearsed by the plaintiffs.The original subject had nothing to do with Dr. Spitz. It had to do with Dr. Baden testifying to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and then evolved into whether or not he was asked the question directly. Both of those issues have been resolved. We cannot know the answer to something that wasn't asked of Dr. Spitz which was a side issue to the original discussion. BTW, I thank your for elevating the level of posting in this community by implying I'm not mature or honest because I don't agree with you.

[weezer]

Let's be mature and honest. Could have been is not the same as saying to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and, in the last answer of his testimony that I posted he said it was his opinion and not his opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Let's not forget he was an experienced witness, and more likely than not (pun intended) rehearsed by the plaintiffs.

are you talking about baden?

[William Anthony]

are you talking about baden?

No, I doubt that the plaintiffs would rehearse Baden. :)

[William Anthony]

The original subject had nothing to do with Dr. Spitz. It had to do with Dr. Baden testifying to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and then evolved into whether or not he was asked the question directly. Both of those issues have been resolved. We cannot know the answer to something that wasn't asked of Dr. Spitz which was a side issue to the original discussion. BTW, I thank your for elevating the level of posting in this community by implying I'm not mature or honest because I don't agree with you.

Please do not act like some others on this board. I said let's meaning let us. I was trying to see if we could reach an agreement. The post that started the discussion had to do with Baden and Spitz and the similarity of the words they used in their testimonies. It may have evolved into whether or not Baden was asked a specific question. I think the words could have been allows us to honestly say that he was not testifying to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

[tv]

Please do not act like some others on this board. I said let's meaning let us. I was trying to see if we could reach an agreement. The post that started the discussion had to do with Baden and Spitz and the similarity of the words they used in their testimonies. It may have evolved into whether or not Baden was asked a specific question. I think the words could have been allows us to honestly say that he was not testifying to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

William, this discussion started around #136 with discussion on how long Ron was standing and then evolved into how many killers there were. Dr. Spitz came along much later in the discussion. I refuse to read into or second guess Dr. Spitz's testimony.

[weezer]

No, I doubt that the plaintiffs would rehearse Baden. :)

that's what I thought --

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

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

[tv]

that's what I thought --

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

so, are we all in agreement that both experts gave opinions?William's current argument is that Dr. Spitz didn't mean to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. My argument is that because he wasn't asked that question we don't know whether he meant a reasonable degree of medical certainty or not. I am in agreement that both gave their opinions.

[martin II]

martin, this has been resolved. If you can't admit that Dr. Baden said 'more than likely' as opposed to 'medical certainty' I don't know how else to explain it. His testimony is public record and cannot be changed no matter how much you wish it.

If i am correct, you stated that BADEN was asked by the lawyer if he was terstifying to a medical cerainty that there were two assiliants.
You further stated that Baden testified that he was testifiny that to a medical cerainaty there were two assilants.

Both of your claims were absolutely not true and when asked to give the link to this testimony, you seemd to gave switched to something else and then clained that you were right.

Nice try but no cigar, pepsi or cookies for you for that misdireciton.give me the posts described in the first para here and i will agree. if not then we know who was wrong.Maby you had your eyes on that ice cream anyway.hahaha
Do you like chocolate or only vanilla?

[martin II]

I don't want to get into an argument with you so I'll change it to just martin. Better now? :)


i am waiting on you to post the direct question to Baden and Badens direct answer in testimony to medical certainty that there were two assliants.
Please dont tell me again you have resolved it . hahaha

[tv]

If i am correct, you stated that BADEN was asked by the lawyer if he was terstifying to a medical cerainty that there were two assiliants.
You further stated that Baden testified that he was testifiny that to a medical cerainaty there were two assilants.

Both of your claims were absolutely not true and when asked to give the link to this testimony, you seemd to gave switched to something else and then clained that you were right.

Nice try but no cigar, pepsi or cookies for you for that misdireciton.give me the posts described in the first para here and i will agree. if not then we know who was wrong.Maby you had your eyes on that ice cream anyway.hahaha
Do you like chocolate or only vanilla?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I never said what you are claiming.

[tv]

i am waiting on you to post the direct question to Baden and Badens direct answer in testimony to medical certainty that there were two assliants.
Please dont tell me again you have resolved it . hahahamartin, it won't be possible to post Dr. Baden saying there were two killers to a reasonable medical certainty. I think you should try to keep up with the discussion a little closer. A little chocoloate ice cream might help with your concentration. Here is the testimony which has been posted several times. Please don't ask me to post it again because it isn't going to change.

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

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

[William Anthony]

William, this discussion started around #136 with discussion on how long Ron was standing and then evolved into how many killers there were. Dr. Spitz came along much later in the discussion. I refuse to read into or second guess Dr. Spitz's testimony.

Okay madam, I am your huckleberry.:) So, if we say that Baden said more likely than not but he did not believe he was testifying to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, we must likewise think that when Spitz testified could have been one individual that inflicted the wounds, he believed he was not testifying to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that there wasn't more than one individual that inflicted the wounds, unless we allow for that remote possibility from the twilight zone that could have been meant 95% certain to him, or his reasonable degree of medical certainty was about 25% certain :) For instance, if asked to give your opinion of what day you went to the store last month in the third week and you answered could have been Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday, using what you are asking me to believe, you are reasonably sure it was either Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday or Saturday and unreasonably sure it was Sunday. So, Spitz was reasonably sure there was more than one but unreasonably sure there was only one. I think the opposite is true. You would be answering that you were reasonably sure it was not Sunday and not positive about any other day since it could have been one of the remaining six days. I think that if we use the later and reasonable interpretation, Spitz was saying that he believed it could have been one attacker but he could not reasonably say there wasn't more than one. He did not say to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that it was his opinion that there was only one attacker. The very fact that he said there could have been one individual implies that there could have been more than one.

[William Anthony]

that's what I thought --

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

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

With all due respect, the plaintiffs read his previous days testimony and he made it quite clear that he was saying more than likely there were two assailants. The words more than likely were in the read back. The plaintiffs tried to make Baden appear untrustworthy but the defense lawyer read the testimony back. More likely is by a preponderance, and not to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. I think for the plaintiffs to stoop to such tactics showed how much Baden's testimony damaged their case.