Random Discussions On The Case

[weezer]

****************************
I don't have a link, but my notes say Dec 5, probably 96, for the civil trial. One other thing that bothered me about Arnelle was that some people too her so seriously about the fact that she saw no blood before OJS got home. I think influenced the jury. I would give the cops word a lot more weight than Anrelle's for the followng reasons:
Arnelle had more motives for lying than the cops. She may have loved her fater and valued her relationship with her father. She may not have wanted to alienate other relatives. She may have wanted money from her father. If she gave testimony against her father, she would appear mean spirited to others; not just family members. If her father had been convicted she would be stigmatized as the daughter of a murderer.

There were several cops who said they saw blood at the home before OJS returned, including one black cop (Donald Thompson). Ordinarily we take the word of the majority of witnesses where there is disagreement.

Arnelle would have been sleepy and upset. This may have caused her to be less observant than usual.

The scenario the dream team defense came up with was that the cops planted the blood with newsmen with cameras around were there. This isn't plausible.

Of course OJS had already admitted bleeding at his house the night before in his talk with the police, but that wasn't given to the jury. [/B]

". . .So, do we have an accessory after the fact? I think so. Who routinely cleans up after Simpson? . ."

[martin II]

****************************
I don't have a link, but my notes say Dec 5, probably 96, for the civil trial. One other thing that bothered me about Arnelle was that some people too her so seriously about the fact that she saw no blood before OJS got home. I think influenced the jury. I would give the cops word a lot more weight than Anrelle's for the followng reasons:
Arnelle had more motives for lying than the cops. She may have loved her fater and valued her relationship with her father. She may not have wanted to alienate other relatives. She may have wanted money from her father. If she gave testimony against her father, she would appear mean spirited to others; not just family members. If her father had been convicted she would be stigmatized as the daughter of a murderer.

There were several cops who said they saw blood at the home before OJS returned, including one black cop (Donald Thompson). Ordinarily we take the word of the majority of witnesses where there is disagreement.

Arnelle would have been sleepy and upset. This may have caused her to be less observant than usual.

The scenario the dream team defense came up with was that the cops planted the blood with newsmen with cameras around were there. This isn't plausible.

Of course OJS had already admitted bleeding at his house the night before in his talk with the police, but that wasn't given to the jury. [/B]


Gross speculation or just plain made up.

[martin II]

excellent -- that's what we're all thinking too. like daddy, like daughter.

when i said lady Kenmore it was in referance to the wife nicole.If you don't like lady kenmore you can use Mrs. Hoover.

[weezer]

when i said lady Kenmore it was in referance to the wife nicole.If you don't like lady kenmore you can use Mrs. Hoover.

ex-wife and remember: the fact remains that there is and has never been any evidence that Ron and/or Nicole dealt with drugs or were using drugs. As I said, on the night orenthal james simpson murdered Ron and Nicole, he had drugs in his system. On the night that Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown were murdered by orenthal james simpson, they had NO drugs in their system.

[serpentsfall]

************************************************** *****
I thought I'd take a slam at Arnelle. In her civil disposition (or maybe it was trial testimony) of Jan 14 (96 I think) she said that one of the detectives (Lange or Vannatter) told her on the night of the killing that Nicole had been killed with another person near her (Nicole's home). The detective in question denied it. I believe the denial because most police policy is to not answer questions, especially if the information could get to a suspect. I have asked police near my home and other places 'What happened?'. I have always gotten my questions turned aside. This even where it was a car wreck, which isn't a felony. I think the police would be even more careful about following procedures with a double murder. You can't get more serious than a double murder.
I can think of two additional reasons why the police wouldn't have given Arnelle this information.
First of all most people find it painful to tell others that someone died, especially if the recepient of the information may be close to the deceased.
Secondly if you are going to frame someone, I think it would be an advantage to keep the frameup victem in the dark as long as possible.

I think Arnelle was trying to cover up for OJS knowing something about the murders on the plane back. OJS told a lawyer seat mate (Partridge I think) that he know that Nicole and another man had been killed in a garden. It also seems oddd that in the police interview OJS seems not to have forgotten this information. Thats the way I read the interview.
Maybe we could have a contest to see who can come up with the best and most dirt on Arnelle. Martin could be the judge.

While I am hardly an Arnelle Simpson supporter, I feel compelled to point out that LE supposedly didn't consider Simpson a "suspect" at the time Arnelle was interviewed the night of the murder. They said they went "over the wall" for the purpose of making sure everyone there was OK. Surely LE would have told Arnelle the reason for their concern was that Nicole had just been found murdered.

I firmly believe that bogus claim - that LE didn't suspect OJ when they went over the wall at Rockingham - set off the "questionable smell" detectors for the jury in the criminal murder trial.

[martin II]

****************************
I don't have a link, but my notes say Dec 5, probably 96, for the civil trial. One other thing that bothered me about Arnelle was that some people too her so seriously about the fact that she saw no blood before OJS got home. I think influenced the jury. I would give the cops word a lot more weight than Anrelle's for the followng reasons:
Arnelle had more motives for lying than the cops. She may have loved her fater and valued her relationship with her father. She may not have wanted to alienate other relatives. She may have wanted money from her father. If she gave testimony against her father, she would appear mean spirited to others; not just family members. If her father had been convicted she would be stigmatized as the daughter of a murderer.

There were several cops who said they saw blood at the home before OJS returned, including one black cop (Donald Thompson). Ordinarily we take the word of the majority of witnesses where there is disagreement.

Arnelle would have been sleepy and upset. This may have caused her to be less observant than usual.

The scenario the dream team defense came up with was that the cops planted the blood with newsmen with cameras around were there. This isn't plausible.

Of course OJS had already admitted bleeding at his house the night before in his talk with the police, but that wasn't given to the jury. [/B]

FGump2
I have wanted to explain this to you before.
The best place to do planting of blood evidence is in the lab.Because as Mr Baker said 'We do not know if the semples collected on the ground are the ones that were sent out for testing. Mazzola proved that to be true.

I am not sure whatr you mean that Arnell did not see any blood before le got there. It is my understanding that Arnell arrived home at about 1:00 am on 6/13.Parked her car where Park testified he saw it at 11:00 pm on 6/12.She walked around the house to her quarters and went to sleep.

So would have she seen any blood anywhere?
If that is what you are talking about.

Who terstified on dec 5 th and about what?

[fgump2]

Maybe it would be good for all to remember the rules and moderator's instructions. However, I am interested in a link to where Simpson told anyone that Ms. NBS and another man had been beaten and killed in a garden. Can you provide the link?


It was a lawyer named Partidge, on Dec 5. I thought I would add the additional information that it looked to me like Petrocelli got away with asking a leading question. He used the phrase 'in a garden' before Partidge did.

[martin II]

While I am hardly an Arnelle Simpson supporter, I feel compelled to point out that LE supposedly didn't consider Simpson a "suspect" at the time Arnelle was interviewed the night of the murder. They said they went "over the wall" for the purpose of making sure everyone there was OK. Surely LE would have told Arnelle the reason for their concern was that Nicole had just been found murdered.

I firmly believe that bogus claim - that LE didn't suspect OJ when they went over the wall at Rockingham - set off the "questionable smell" detectors for the jury in the criminal murder trial.

Remember it was either Larry Fialto or Craig The mob guys that testified that in a conversation with Vanhatter Vanhatter told him/them 'SURE OJ WAS A SUSPECT"

I think the dectectives told two or more stories as to why they went to Rockingha. We went to make notificaiton to Mr Simpson. although he was not next of kin and usually as regular procedure on or no more than two Public Relations persons made the Notifications.But in this case Vanhatter and Lang the lead detectives left a active crime scene and took two others to Rockingham.Vanhatter had been a dective for about 30 years in that division and he claimes that he did not know where Rockingham was. 5 minutes away.

When they got to Rockingham and no response came back from their ringing They could have called a judge by phone and got a warrant to enter leagally. But They them made up the story that maby oj is there hurt. Maby the killer came and killed him also. ALthough in their minds oj was a suspect of murder.

I believe they thought this suspect may be home getting rid of evidence or patching himself up.
I think your last line is correct but for most not just the jury.

[William Anthony]

************************************************** *****
I thought I'd take a slam at Arnelle. In her civil disposition (or maybe it was trial testimony) of Jan 14 (96 I think) she said that one of the detectives (Lange or Vannatter) told her on the night of the killing that Nicole had been killed with another person near her (Nicole's home). The detective in question denied it. I believe the denial because most police policy is to not answer questions, especially if the information could get to a suspect. I have asked police near my home and other places 'What happened?'. I have always gotten my questions turned aside. This even where it was a car wreck, which isn't a felony. I think the police would be even more careful about following procedures with a double murder. You can't get more serious than a double murder.
I can think of two additional reasons why the police wouldn't have given Arnelle this information.
First of all most people find it painful to tell others that someone died, especially if the recepient of the information may be close to the deceased.
Secondly if you are going to frame someone, I think it would be an advantage to keep the frameup victem in the dark as long as possible.

I think Arnelle was trying to cover up for OJS knowing something about the murders on the plane back. OJS told a lawyer seat mate (Partridge I think) that he know that Nicole and another man had been killed in a garden. It also seems oddd that in the police interview OJS seems not to have forgotten this information. Thats the way I read the interview.
Maybe we could have a contest to see who can come up with the best and most dirt on Arnelle. Martin could be the judge.

Parts of Mr. Partridge's deposition were read into the trial on December 5th. I thought you said he said Simpson told him that Ms. NBS and another man had been beaten, which you did not say. However, he did not say that Simpson said they were killed in a garden. He said Simpson said they were found in a garden.

[William Anthony]

****************************
I don't have a link, but my notes say Dec 5, probably 96, for the civil trial. One other thing that bothered me about Arnelle was that some people too her so seriously about the fact that she saw no blood before OJS got home. I think influenced the jury. I would give the cops word a lot more weight than Anrelle's for the followng reasons:
Arnelle had more motives for lying than the cops. She may have loved her fater and valued her relationship with her father. She may not have wanted to alienate other relatives. She may have wanted money from her father. If she gave testimony against her father, she would appear mean spirited to others; not just family members. If her father had been convicted she would be stigmatized as the daughter of a murderer.

There were several cops who said they saw blood at the home before OJS returned, including one black cop (Donald Thompson). Ordinarily we take the word of the majority of witnesses where there is disagreement.

Arnelle would have been sleepy and upset. This may have caused her to be less observant than usual.

The scenario the dream team defense came up with was that the cops planted the blood with newsmen with cameras around were there. This isn't plausible.

Of course OJS had already admitted bleeding at his house the night before in his talk with the police, but that wasn't given to the jury. [/B]

So, now we have her being stigmatized as an accessory after the fact. I remind all to remember the rules and the moderator's instructions.

[martin II]

It was a lawyer named Partidge, on Dec 5. I thought I would add the additional information that it looked to me like Petrocelli got away with asking a leading question. He used the phrase 'in a garden' before Partidge did.

Sometime it wouild be helpful if you post the testimony and the link to your claims for all to see.

[weezer]

So, now we have her being stigmatized as an accessory after the fact. I remind all to remember the rules and the moderator's instructions.

william, the majority of people have always believed arnelle was an accessory after the fact.

[weezer]

While I am hardly an Arnelle Simpson supporter, I feel compelled to point out that LE supposedly didn't consider Simpson a "suspect" at the time Arnelle was interviewed the night of the murder. They said they went "over the wall" for the purpose of making sure everyone there was OK. Surely LE would have told Arnelle the reason for their concern was that Nicole had just been found murdered.

I firmly believe that bogus claim - that LE didn't suspect OJ when they went over the wall at Rockingham - set off the "questionable smell" detectors for the jury in the criminal murder trial.

I am more inclined to believe that they went to Rockingham to cater to a celebrity. for me, arnelle's lies pretty much named her as an accessory.

[martin II]

************************************************** *****
I thought I'd take a slam at Arnelle. In her civil disposition (or maybe it was trial testimony) of Jan 14 (96 I think) she said that one of the detectives (Lange or Vannatter) told her on the night of the killing that Nicole had been killed with another person near her (Nicole's home). The detective in question denied it. I believe the denial because most police policy is to not answer questions, especially if the information could get to a suspect. I have asked police near my home and other places 'What happened?'. I have always gotten my questions turned aside. This even where it was a car wreck, which isn't a felony. I think the police would be even more careful about following procedures with a double murder. You can't get more serious than a double murder.
I can think of two additional reasons why the police wouldn't have given Arnelle this information.
First of all most people find it painful to tell others that someone died, especially if the recepient of the information may be close to the deceased.
Secondly if you are going to frame someone, I think it would be an advantage to keep the frameup victem in the dark as long as possible.

I think Arnelle was trying to cover up for OJS knowing something about the murders on the plane back. OJS told a lawyer seat mate (Partridge I think) that he know that Nicole and another man had been killed in a garden. It also seems oddd that in the police interview OJS seems not to have forgotten this information. Thats the way I read the interview.
Maybe we could have a contest to see who can come up with the best and most dirt on Arnelle. Martin could be the judge.

The moderator has stated that bashing ojs family members is off limits just as the goldmans famaly members are. Your post indicated that you either don't know this or are willing to ignore it.

Now as usual your post needs to be corrected.
Det Lang told Arnell that Nicole had been killed when she was standing at the trunk of her car looking for her address book.on 6/13.

[martin II]

william, the majority of people have always believed arnelle was an accessory after the fact.

That means what??

[William Anthony]

william, the majority of people have always believed arnelle was an accessory after the fact.

There may be a lot of us who believe things about some of those involved but that does not allow us to bash them, according to the rules or moderator's instructions, if you will as it pertains to family members according to my understanding. However, if a clarification is needed by virtue of one being a witness bashing is allowed, then I suppose a clarification may be in order.

[William Anthony]

I am more inclined to believe that they went to Rockingham to cater to a celebrity. for me, arnelle's lies pretty much named her as an accessory.

Don't you mean Ms. Arnelle's irrelevant human errors and mistakes?

[weezer]

There may be a lot of us who believe things about some of those involved but that does not allow us to bash them, according to the rules or moderator's instructions, if you will as it pertains to family members according to my understanding. However, if a clarification is needed by virtue of one being a witness bashing is allowed, then I suppose a clarification may be in order.

arnelle simpson was a witness in the trial and because of her proven lies on the stand, many people believe her to be an accessory to the murders.

[weezer]

Don't you mean Ms. Arnelle's irrelevant human errors and mistakes?

nope -- meant lies.

[William Anthony]

arnelle simpson was a witness in the trial and because of her proven lies on the stand, many people believe her to be an accessory to the murders.

I think that we can ask for a clarification, if being a witness or speaking out in a trial allows for bashing of a person and also I reiterate, don't you mean Ms. Arnelle's human errors and mistakes. The only person I know that was proven to be a liar was a detective, a member of LE, MF.

[William Anthony]

nope -- meant lies.

Then I guess it's fair to call Vanatter, MF, DF, Mazzola, Rubin, Martz, Matheson and Kessler liars, to name a few.

[weezer]

Then I guess it's fair to call Vanatter, MF, DF, Mazzola, Rubin, Martz, Matheson and Kessler liars, to name a few.

and you've dissed LE from the beginning --the least of which was calling them liars -- so I'm not sure why you believe a defense witness actions and testimony is off limits. . . .

[martin II]

arnelle simpson was a witness in the trial and because of her proven lies on the stand, many people believe her to be an accessory to the murders.

Arnell simpson is a simpson family member.no bashing or attacking allowed.

[William Anthony]

and you've dissed LE from the beginning --the least of which was calling them liars -- so I'm not sure why you believe a defense witness actions and testimony is off limits. . . .

Not quite true. I have only called one LE member a liar, which is MF. I have noted what was said about Vanatter and I have stated what I found incredible in some of their testimonies and noted a willingness to slant their testimonies. I am not so quick to call people liars as some. I have been critical of LE's and the prosecution's performance.

[martin II]

and you've dissed LE from the beginning --the least of which was calling them liars -- so I'm not sure why you believe a defense witness actions and testimony is off limits. . . .

The moderator has stated that both family members are off limits.That includes simpsons family members.

[weezer]

Arnell simpson is a simpson family member.no bashing or attacking allowed.

arnelle simpson was proven to have lied in her testimony. not bashing -- just fact.

[serpentsfall]

I am more inclined to believe that they went to Rockingham to cater to a celebrity. for me, arnelle's lies pretty much named her as an accessory.

Maybe initially celebrity initially had something to do with it, but "jumping the wall" is not something any celebrity would appreciate. Its clear they didn't go over the wall until after Furhman managed to find that teeny, tiny spec of blood on the door of the Bronco. I wasn't persuaded by LE's pathetic excuse, so I mentally threw out and refuse to consider any and all evidence found at Rockingham as if they never found it. There was enough other evidence to convince me he did it, but I can understand the jury's distrust of what was put before them. I don't think Simpson was innocent; I think it was a perfect storm of a great defense team, a prosecution that had problems and allowed themselves to get sidetracked, and a judge who was too concerned about the TV cameras.

I think Arnelle's main job in life is to clean up OJ's messes whenever and as best she can.

[William Anthony]

arnelle simpson was proven to have lied in her testimony. not bashing -- just fact.

When was she charged with perjury?

[William Anthony]

Maybe initially celebrity initially had something to do with it, but "jumping the wall" is not something any celebrity would appreciate. Its clear they didn't go over the wall until after Furhman managed to find that teeny, tiny spec of blood on the door of the Bronco. I wasn't persuaded by LE's pathetic excuse, so I mentally threw out and refuse to consider any and all evidence found at Rockingham as if they never found it. There was enough other evidence to convince me he did it, but I can understand the jury's distrust of what was put before them. I don't think Simpson was innocent; I think it was a perfect storm of a great defense team, a prosecution that had problems and allowed themselves to get sidetracked, and a judge who was too concerned about the TV cameras.

I think Arnelle's main job in life is to clean up OJ's messes whenever and as best she can.

I think her main job is looking beautiful and making others angry.

[martin II]

************************************************** *****
I thought I'd take a slam at Arnelle. In her civil disposition (or maybe it was trial testimony) of Jan 14 (96 I think) she said that one of the detectives (Lange or Vannatter) told her on the night of the killing that Nicole had been killed with another person near her (Nicole's home). The detective in question denied it.WHAT DETECTIVE DENIED TELLING HER. DO YOU HAVE A LINK TO THIS DECETIVE MAKING THIS STATEMENT?? I believe the denial because most police policy is to not answer questions, especially if the information could get to a suspect. I have asked police near my home and other places 'What happened?'. I have always gotten my questions turned aside. This even where it was a car wreck, which isn't a felony. I think the police would be even more careful about following procedures with a double murder. You can't get more serious than a double murder.
I can think of two additional reasons why the police wouldn't have given Arnelle this information.For your information the dectective that told Arnell about Nicole testified to her reaction when he told her. So something wrong with the information you are posting.
First of all most people find it painful to tell others that someone died, especially if the recepient of the information may be close to the deceased.
Secondly if you are going to frame someone, I think it would be an advantage to keep the frameup victem in the dark as long as possible.

I think Arnelle was trying to cover up for OJS knowing something about the murders on the plane back. OJS told a lawyer seat mate (Partridge I think) that he know that Nicole and another man had been killed in a garden. It also seems oddd that in the police interview OJS seems not to have forgotten this information. Thats the way I read the interview.
Maybe we could have a contest to see who can come up with the best and most dirt on Arnelle. Martin i have asked you not to use my nic in your postcould be the judge.

How about you get some of your post correct before you start slamming.

[martin II]

Maybe initially celebrity initially had something to do with it, but "jumping the wall" is not something any celebrity would appreciate. Its clear they didn't go over the wall until after Furhman managed to find that teeny, tiny spec of blood on the door of the Bronco. I wasn't persuaded by LE's pathetic excuse, so I mentally threw out and refuse to consider any and all evidence found at Rockingham as if they never found it. There was enough other evidence to convince me he did it, but I can understand the jury's distrust of what was put before them. I don't think Simpson was innocent; I think it was a perfect storm of a great defense team, a prosecution that had problems and allowed themselves to get sidetracked, and a judge who was too concerned about the TV cameras.

I think Arnelle's main job in life is to clean up OJ's messes whenever and as best she can.


She does quite well in her job as a fashion consultant to the industry.

[tv]

yep and got all or most of it on tape.You've got the entire nine month trial on tape? Wow. How many tapes is that?

[William Anthony]

You've got the entire nine month trial on tape? Wow. How many tapes is that?

I had a believe I still do and it is about 3 medium to large boxes full and I would estimate close to 500 tapes. Of course, I taped commercials also. I do believe they are currently in my basement. I thought they would one day be worth money. I didn't expect the DVD's. :)

[martin II]

You've got the entire nine month trial on tape? Wow. How many tapes is that?

I have three very wide bookcases about 8 ft tall full. I never counted the tapes. These tapes loose quality with time. I will proberly end up trashing them, but have not done so as yet.
i am not the only person i know that taped the entire trial.

[William Anthony]

I have three very wide bookcases about 8 ft tall full. I never counted the tapes. These tapes loose quality with time. I will proberly end up trashing them, but have not done so as yet.
i am not the only person i know that taped the entire trial.

I see why they confuse us. I also taped the entire trial. :)

[martin II]

I think when furhman saw that very small spot on the bronco it was described as a small brown colored spot. no test at that time to prove it was blood.

[tv]

when i said lady Kenmore it was in referance to the wife nicole.If you don't like lady kenmore you can use Mrs. Hoover.
No, I really like Lady Kenmore for you know who. Thanks for the idea. :)

[martin II]

I see why they confuse us. I also taped the entire trial. :)

You me and many others taped the trial.

[William Anthony]

I have three very wide bookcases about 8 ft tall full. I never counted the tapes. These tapes loose quality with time. I will proberly end up trashing them, but have not done so as yet.
i am not the only person i know that taped the entire trial.

Martin,

I think your may be in better quality than mine, because, after I had placed them in boxes and put them in the attic of the other home in which I lived, I noticed that some of the boxes that contained the individual tapes had stuck to the tapes and I had to take some of them out of the individual boxes. I tried numbering mine and keeping them in order but liked to go back and watch them, so they got mixed up by so doing along with the fact that I had to destroy some of the individual boxes. My book case was full of books, :).

[martin II]

No, I really like Lady Kenmore for you know who. Thanks for the idea. :)

As long as you are happy with it i am ok:beer:

[tv]

I see why they confuse us. I also taped the entire trial. :)

I think I've underestimated your dedication to this case. Have you guys ever thought about having the tapes transferred to CD?

[William Anthony]

I think I've underestimated your dedication to this case. Have you guys ever thought about having the tapes transferred to CD?

To DVDs but I do think that would take more than what they would be worth. I think now that they may be a valuable companion in my old age.:)

[martin II]

Martin,

I think your may be in better quality than mine, because, after I had placed them in boxes and put them in the attic of the other home in which I lived, I noticed that some of the boxes that contained the individual tapes had stuck to the tapes and I had to take some of them out of the individual boxes. I tried numbering mine and keeping them in order but liked to go back and watch them, so they got mixed up by so doing along with the fact that I had to destroy some of the individual boxes. My book case was full of books, :).

I have been saving regular DVDS and have also been collecting the African DVD movies as they are interesting. At some point the oj tapes may have to go. I also printed all of the Clinton impeachment testimony.
At the time of the oj trial many people taped the trial so i had assumed that some here had done the same.

[martin II]

I think I've underestimated your dedication to this case. Have you guys ever thought about having the tapes transferred to CD?

i would consider it but would think the cost would be high.I do burn my Jazz cds to my computer and have thousands of songs loaded.

[William Anthony]

I have been saving regular DVDS and have also been collecting the African DVD movies as they are interesting. At some point the oj tapes may have to go. I also printed all of the Clinton impeachment testimony.
At the time of the oj trial many people taped the trial so i had assumed that some here had done the same.

I thought that some may have taped the trial to but did not think that I would find someone on this board. I have not collected DVDs as I had very little time to watch them. I do have a small CD music collection and really have not had the time to increase it. There is no doubt that this trial generated a vast amount of interest.

[serpentsfall]

To DVDs but I do think that would take more than what they would be worth. I think now that they may be a valuable companion in my old age.:)

You never know...copies may be a hit on ebay! You may have an untapped retirement income.

[serpentsfall]

She does quite well in her job as a fashion consultant to the industry.

Then why was she moonlighting as a wedding planner for Scotto?

[martin II]

Then why was she moonlighting as a wedding planner for Scotto?

You would have to ask her that but i could guess because Scotto was her fathers friend and he asked her to do it. Good taste is easily transferable.

[weezer]

You would have to ask her that but i could guess because Scotto was her fathers friend and he asked her to do it. Good taste is easily transferable.

LOL -- thank you martin -- I needed that giggle.

[GreenIce]

i read it previously buit will do so again.

Previously she seemed to be a pro prosecution witness.

i have purchased gloves at several locations in that store piled up on many tables way back but i cannot visualize this sales receipt she speaks of.

With so many people grabbing gloves i have tried to remember sales people having time to hand write sales receipts.
not sure.

Martin,

Thats just it, according Vermich, the gloves were scanned in and the receipt did not have the size or the color. In VA's and L's book, they say the hand receipt was hand written and Jerry Rubin corrected it. It will be interesting to see exactly what he testimony is on this and if Rubin testifies his correcting that error.

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

Thank you for your kind words of support.

Here is a couple of points or questions you might find interesting.

If Dr. Lee found blood on the A.C. Unit, then doesn't this follow the same pattern of key evidence, to be found days later? If Lee thought to exam the A.C. Unit, then why didn't Dennis Fung?

I remember that Dennis Fung did find a trace of blood on an overhead wiring hanging down. However, the sample was so small that it could not even be determined it if was human blood. So if Fung checked out the wire, then how did he miss the A.C. Unit?

If this is blood on the AC unit and it is Simpson's, then he must have been bleeding when he went over the fence or crashed into the wall, again why aren't there more blood stains.

I understand why they test drains for the presence of blood. However, I am really unsure of what they are looking for or what it proves. Can they tell that a significant amount of blood went through the drains? Can they take samples from the drain to determine who's blood it is?

Now, if this blood was Simpson's how could they connect it to the murders?

I just thought of another point about the clothes in the washing machine, were they dry, damp or wet? It appears to me that the washer was checked early on at Rockingham---if Arnelle tossed the murder clothes into the washer, then shouldn't they still have been pretty wet? Making the sweats to even appear darker---and still a "naked eye" examine passed for the "blood test" on the clothes?

BTW, did Arnelle ever testify if she was responsible for doing her own laundry or OJ's house keeper was? Did either of them said they were washing clothes that day?

[GreenIce]

Yes ... they do ... its just kinda sad that for some people the hobby seems to include posting untruths and pretending like they're real.

But rock on with that hobby ...

Jayme K,

I do not recall posting any untruths and pretending like they are real. Perhaps you can give a couple examples and I will see what I can do to straighten it out.

It would never been my intention to do this. Please, provide examples.

Thanks!

[GreenIce]

From Daniel Petrocelli's book:

"Faye Resnick had said in her book that Simpson had used cocaine in her presence as late as 1993. Many people that knew Simpson called or spoke to me and told me about Simpson's drug use. Several reported he had earned the nickname "Hoover" because he would vaccum up so much cocaine."


TV,

There is a huge difference between Faye's drug addiction and Simpson's use of the drug. Faye went into rehab at least three times by 1995--which means she was not a social user and could not walk away from the drug. Some people can't be "recreational" drug users while others go straight to addiction.

The second point, Simpson could afford his drug habit, Faye could not. Faye needed to be around people who would help her get the drugs and perhaps use with her to deny that she has relapsed back into addiction.

I am very anti-drug but I do have true compassion for anyone caught up in addiction. I have contact with several people who battle drink and drugs everyday. Not one of these people have ever told me that there goal in life was to be become a drunk or a junkie.

[GreenIce]

While I am hardly an Arnelle Simpson supporter, I feel compelled to point out that LE supposedly didn't consider Simpson a "suspect" at the time Arnelle was interviewed the night of the murder. They said they went "over the wall" for the purpose of making sure everyone there was OK. Surely LE would have told Arnelle the reason for their concern was that Nicole had just been found murdered.

I firmly believe that bogus claim - that LE didn't suspect OJ when they went over the wall at Rockingham - set off the "questionable smell" detectors for the jury in the criminal murder trial.

Serpentsfall,

I totally agree with you, the detectives lying about why they went over the wall was the main reason why I believed Simpson would never be convicted and this was when I still believed he was guilty. There was no way the could over this. IMO.

[bobaugust]

Martin II wrote,

“Not only vanhatter but 2 other detectives testified that no one came through the bushes and jumped the fence at Rockingham.”

Answer: Neither Vannatter or any other detective ever said that “no one came through the bushes.” If you disagree then post the testimony where that was said. Be sure and include the date please.

*

Martin II wrote,

“In a experiment after the trial a person was stationed in Katos room with the picture at the same place on the wall.Wagner and another person banged against the wall from outside Katos room with their fist to try to shake the picture. Guess what, picture did not move.”

Answer: Wagner never did any such thing. The reason that no one could make the picture move is that no amount of pounding on the wall could cause the sturdy wall to vibrate enough to move the picture on the other side. The vibration needed to tilt the picture was caused by a 200 lb man, Simpson, jumping from the top of the fence to the narrow south path and slamming into the wall.

Lawrence Schiller, American Tragedy, Page 145

“On Sunday afternoon, June 26, Shapiro, Kardashian, Pavelic, and Drs. Baden and Lee played sleuth during their critical official visit to Rockingham.

Inside Kato's apartment, they banged hard on the wall. The picture didn't move. Kardashian led half the team to the back walkway.He and others rammed into the wall like football players. Again, the picture stayed motionless.”

*

Martin II wrote,

“the evidence is that a glove was found, the evidence also states that there as no proof that oj was where the glove was found.”

Answer: Kaelin heard someone behind his room about five minutes before Simpson was seen for the first time that night by Allan Park when Simpson came from his driveway, entered his house, and lights came on. There is no evidence the person Kaelin heard behind his room was anyone but Simpson. The blood and fiber evidence found on the glove all points to Simpson as the only person who handled that glove.

*

William Anthony wrote,

“IIRC, there was a picture of DF holding the sweat suit outside of the washer.”

Answer: There wasn’t any photo shown of Dennis Fung holding a sweat suit. There was a photo of Fung in Simpson’s bathroom holding what were most likely some black towels that he had taken out of the clothes hamper.

*

William Anthony wrote,

“WTH? Don't you remember Kato beating on the desk trying to imitate the sound of the thumps. I understand that we all forget what the actual testimony was.”

Answer: Triumph of Justice, Daniel Petrocelli

“When we were preparing for his deposition I had said to Kato, "Get up and demonstrate what the noise sounded like." Kato stood, went over to the conference room wall, and crashed against it three times. It sounded, indeed, "as if a body hit the wall."

From what little I had heard during the criminal case that was not my impression of the "thumps." When he had testified, Kato had demonstrated by knocking three times on the witness box. The sound had been thin and hollow, a knuckle against a rail; it sounded nothing at all like a man returning from a killing.

"Why did you knock on the witness stand three times?" I asked incredulously.

"Well," he explained, "they were asking me to demonstrate the rhythm of the sounds. Bah, bum-bum. I just thought they wanted to know, sort of, the pattern, or the rhythm. No one asked me to go and demonstrate how it sounded, or did it sound like someone falling against the wall." And Kato, for his part, had not volunteered.”

*

Martin II wrote,

“look at the picture of ojs house. notice how thick the hedges were on 6/13 that ran from the street. Also look at all the trees and hedges to the left of the door that covered the windows on the first floor.I doubt Park could have seen any inside first floor
lights come on.”

Answer: Park saw the windows illuminate at night when lights were turned on downstairs after Simpson entered his house.

*

Martin II wrote,

“The jury looked at the bushes to the left of the door,they said Park could not see what he said he saw. They did not believe him”

Answer: The jury did not see what Park saw. The jury was there during the day. Park was there at night.

*

Martin II wrote,

“no blood was found in any drain”

Answer: Dennis Fung testified that presumptive tests for blood indicated the presence of blood in Simpson’s shower drain and on the lip of the sink drain in Simpson’s bathroom.

*

Martin II wrote,

“It was not possible for Furhman to see the blood in the bronco door rocker panel with the door closed.”

Answer: March 14. 1995 Mark Fuhrman

Q OKAY. YESTERDAY YOU RELATED SOME BLOOD STAINS THAT YOU SAW AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR OF THE BRONCO. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IT WAS ON THE SILL?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOU CLAIM THAT THESE MARKS, BRUSH MARKS I THINK YOU DESCRIBED THEM AS, WERE VISIBLE WITH THE DOOR CLOSED?
A YES.
Q IT IS YOUR POSITION THAT IN YOUR PRESENCE AT LEAST THE BRONCO WAS NEVER OPENED OR ANY OF ITS DOORS OR WINDOWS WHILE YOU WERE THERE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q OKAY. AND YOU NEVER SAW ANYONE ELSE DO IT?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q DID YOU AT SOME POINT GET TO SHOW CRIMINALIST FUNG THE LOCATION OF THE BRUSH MARKS YOU HAVE DESCRIBED?
A YES, I DID.
Q COULD YOU TELL THE COURT AND JURY WHEN THAT OCCURRED AND WHO WAS PRESENT?
A DENNIS FUNG I BELIEVE ARRIVED AT THE ROCKINGHAM ESTATE 7:30, EIGHT O'CLOCK, SOMEWHERE AROUND THAT AREA. IT WAS THEN THAT I SHOWED HIM THE ITEMS ON THE BRONCO.
Q YOU HAD COME BACK FROM BUNDY?
A YES, SIR.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU TAKE HIM OUT INDIVIDUALLY TO THE BRONCO, POINT THEM OUT?
A YES, I DID.
Q WAS THE DOOR OPENED ON THIS OCCASION BY EITHER OF YOU?
A NO.
Q AND YOU NEVER SAW THAT DOOR OPENED TO THIS DAY, HAVE YOU?
A NO, I DID NOT.

*

William Anthony wrote,

“One thing that has puzzled me about those gloves that were made to be tight fitting, according to the testimony, is that some have said they would have come off easily. This defies what has been my experience about tight fitting clothes. I have found the looser the fit, the easier they are to get on and take off.

Answer: For skin tight thin leather gloves to fit correctly they have to be stretched by pulling them on finger by finger after putting the gloves on. That’s what makes them skin tight. Simpson did not do that so when he took the gloves off he was able to simply snap them off quickly. Let’s not forget that Simpson was also wearing a pair of latex gloves on his hands.

bobaugust

[Parker]

Martin II wrote,

“Not only vanhatter but 2 other detectives testified that no one came through the bushes and jumped the fence at Rockingham.”

Answer: Neither Vannatter or any other detective ever said that “no one came through the bushes.” If you disagree then post the testimony where that was said. Be sure and include the date please.

*

Martin II wrote,

“In a experiment after the trial a person was stationed in Katos room with the picture at the same place on the wall.Wagner and another person banged against the wall from outside Katos room with their fist to try to shake the picture. Guess what, picture did not move.”

Answer: Wagner never did any such thing. The reason that no one could make the picture move is that no amount of pounding on the wall could cause the sturdy wall to vibrate enough to move the picture on the other side. The vibration needed to tilt the picture was caused by a 200 lb man, Simpson, jumping from the top of the fence to the narrow south path and slamming into the wall.

Lawrence Schiller, American Tragedy, Page 145

“On Sunday afternoon, June 26, Shapiro, Kardashian, Pavelic, and Drs. Baden and Lee played sleuth during their critical official visit to Rockingham.

Inside Kato's apartment, they banged hard on the wall. The picture didn't move. Kardashian led half the team to the back walkway.He and others rammed into the wall like football players. Again, the picture stayed motionless.”

*

Martin II wrote,

“the evidence is that a glove was found, the evidence also states that there as no proof that oj was where the glove was found.”

Answer: Kaelin heard someone behind his room about five minutes before Simpson was seen for the first time that night by Allan Park when Simpson came from his driveway, entered his house, and lights came on. There is no evidence the person Kaelin heard behind his room was anyone but Simpson. The blood and fiber evidence found on the glove all points to Simpson as the only person who handled that glove.

*

William Anthony wrote,

“IIRC, there was a picture of DF holding the sweat suit outside of the washer.”

Answer: There wasn’t any photo shown of Dennis Fung holding a sweat suit. There was a photo of Fung in Simpson’s bathroom holding what were most likely some black towels that he had taken out of the clothes hamper.

*

William Anthony wrote,

“WTH? Don't you remember Kato beating on the desk trying to imitate the sound of the thumps. I understand that we all forget what the actual testimony was.”

Answer: Triumph of Justice, Daniel Petrocelli

“When we were preparing for his deposition I had said to Kato, "Get up and demonstrate what the noise sounded like." Kato stood, went over to the conference room wall, and crashed against it three times. It sounded, indeed, "as if a body hit the wall."

From what little I had heard during the criminal case that was not my impression of the "thumps." When he had testified, Kato had demonstrated by knocking three times on the witness box. The sound had been thin and hollow, a knuckle against a rail; it sounded nothing at all like a man returning from a killing.

"Why did you knock on the witness stand three times?" I asked incredulously.

"Well," he explained, "they were asking me to demonstrate the rhythm of the sounds. Bah, bum-bum. I just thought they wanted to know, sort of, the pattern, or the rhythm. No one asked me to go and demonstrate how it sounded, or did it sound like someone falling against the wall." And Kato, for his part, had not volunteered.”

*

Martin II wrote,

“look at the picture of ojs house. notice how thick the hedges were on 6/13 that ran from the street. Also look at all the trees and hedges to the left of the door that covered the windows on the first floor.I doubt Park could have seen any inside first floor
lights come on.”

Answer: Park saw the windows illuminate at night when lights were turned on downstairs after Simpson entered his house.

*

Martin II wrote,

“The jury looked at the bushes to the left of the door,they said Park could not see what he said he saw. They did not believe him”

Answer: The jury did not see what Park saw. The jury was there during the day. Park was there at night.

*

Martin II wrote,

“no blood was found in any drain”

Answer: Dennis Fung testified that presumptive tests for blood indicated the presence of blood in Simpson’s shower drain and on the lip of the sink drain in Simpson’s bathroom.

*

Martin II wrote,

“It was not possible for Furhman to see the blood in the bronco door rocker panel with the door closed.”

Answer: March 14. 1995 Mark Fuhrman

Q OKAY. YESTERDAY YOU RELATED SOME BLOOD STAINS THAT YOU SAW AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR OF THE BRONCO. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IT WAS ON THE SILL?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOU CLAIM THAT THESE MARKS, BRUSH MARKS I THINK YOU DESCRIBED THEM AS, WERE VISIBLE WITH THE DOOR CLOSED?
A YES.
Q IT IS YOUR POSITION THAT IN YOUR PRESENCE AT LEAST THE BRONCO WAS NEVER OPENED OR ANY OF ITS DOORS OR WINDOWS WHILE YOU WERE THERE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q OKAY. AND YOU NEVER SAW ANYONE ELSE DO IT?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q DID YOU AT SOME POINT GET TO SHOW CRIMINALIST FUNG THE LOCATION OF THE BRUSH MARKS YOU HAVE DESCRIBED?
A YES, I DID.
Q COULD YOU TELL THE COURT AND JURY WHEN THAT OCCURRED AND WHO WAS PRESENT?
A DENNIS FUNG I BELIEVE ARRIVED AT THE ROCKINGHAM ESTATE 7:30, EIGHT O'CLOCK, SOMEWHERE AROUND THAT AREA. IT WAS THEN THAT I SHOWED HIM THE ITEMS ON THE BRONCO.
Q YOU HAD COME BACK FROM BUNDY?
A YES, SIR.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU TAKE HIM OUT INDIVIDUALLY TO THE BRONCO, POINT THEM OUT?
A YES, I DID.
Q WAS THE DOOR OPENED ON THIS OCCASION BY EITHER OF YOU?
A NO.
Q AND YOU NEVER SAW THAT DOOR OPENED TO THIS DAY, HAVE YOU?
A NO, I DID NOT.

*

William Anthony wrote,

“One thing that has puzzled me about those gloves that were made to be tight fitting, according to the testimony, is that some have said they would have come off easily. This defies what has been my experience about tight fitting clothes. I have found the looser the fit, the easier they are to get on and take off.

Answer: For skin tight thin leather gloves to fit correctly they have to be stretched by pulling them on finger by finger after putting the gloves on. That’s what makes them skin tight. Simpson did not do that so when he took the gloves off he was able to simply snap them off quickly. Let’s not forget that Simpson was also wearing a pair of latex gloves on his hands.bobaugust

Oh rock on Bob August. I haven't posted here for a while and it's great to come back and read your sensible, logical arguments. The old latex glove trick. The defense just happened to have a pair in the courtroom. As you do. :cool:

[martin II]

Martin II wrote,

“Not only vanhatter but 2 other detectives testified that no one came through the bushes and jumped the fence at Rockingham.”

Answer: Neither Vannatter or any other detective ever said that “no one came through the bushes.” If you disagree then post the testimony where that was said. Be sure and include the date please.

*

Martin II wrote,

“In a experiment after the trial a person was stationed in Katos room with the picture at the same place on the wall.Wagner and another person banged against the wall from outside Katos room with their fist to try to shake the picture. Guess what, picture did not move.”

Answer: Wagner never did any such thing. The reason that no one could make the picture move is that no amount of pounding on the wall could cause the sturdy wall to vibrate enough to move the picture on the other side. The vibration needed to tilt the picture was caused by a 200 lb man, Simpson, jumping from the top of the fence to the narrow south path and slamming into the wall.

Lawrence Schiller, American Tragedy, Page 145

“On Sunday afternoon, June 26, Shapiro, Kardashian, Pavelic, and Drs. Baden and Lee played sleuth during their critical official visit to Rockingham.

Inside Kato's apartment, they banged hard on the wall. The picture didn't move. Kardashian led half the team to the back walkway.He and others rammed into the wall like football players. Again, the picture stayed motionless.”

*

Martin II wrote,

“the evidence is that a glove was found, the evidence also states that there as no proof that oj was where the glove was found.”

Answer: Kaelin heard someone behind his room about five minutes before Simpson was seen for the first time that night by Allan Park when Simpson came from his driveway, entered his house, and lights came on. There is no evidence the person Kaelin heard behind his room was anyone but Simpson. The blood and fiber evidence found on the glove all points to Simpson as the only person who handled that glove.

*

William Anthony wrote,

“IIRC, there was a picture of DF holding the sweat suit outside of the washer.”

Answer: There wasn’t any photo shown of Dennis Fung holding a sweat suit. There was a photo of Fung in Simpson’s bathroom holding what were most likely some black towels that he had taken out of the clothes hamper.

*

William Anthony wrote,

“WTH? Don't you remember Kato beating on the desk trying to imitate the sound of the thumps. I understand that we all forget what the actual testimony was.”

Answer: Triumph of Justice, Daniel Petrocelli

“When we were preparing for his deposition I had said to Kato, "Get up and demonstrate what the noise sounded like." Kato stood, went over to the conference room wall, and crashed against it three times. It sounded, indeed, "as if a body hit the wall."

From what little I had heard during the criminal case that was not my impression of the "thumps." When he had testified, Kato had demonstrated by knocking three times on the witness box. The sound had been thin and hollow, a knuckle against a rail; it sounded nothing at all like a man returning from a killing.

"Why did you knock on the witness stand three times?" I asked incredulously.

"Well," he explained, "they were asking me to demonstrate the rhythm of the sounds. Bah, bum-bum. I just thought they wanted to know, sort of, the pattern, or the rhythm. No one asked me to go and demonstrate how it sounded, or did it sound like someone falling against the wall." And Kato, for his part, had not volunteered.”

*

Martin II wrote,

“look at the picture of ojs house. notice how thick the hedges were on 6/13 that ran from the street. Also look at all the trees and hedges to the left of the door that covered the windows on the first floor.I doubt Park could have seen any inside first floor
lights come on.”

Answer: Park saw the windows illuminate at night when lights were turned on downstairs after Simpson entered his house.

*

Martin II wrote,

“The jury looked at the bushes to the left of the door,they said Park could not see what he said he saw. They did not believe him”

Answer: The jury did not see what Park saw. The jury was there during the day. Park was there at night.

*

Martin II wrote,

“no blood was found in any drain”

Answer: Dennis Fung testified that presumptive tests for blood indicated the presence of blood in Simpson’s shower drain and on the lip of the sink drain in Simpson’s bathroom.

*

Martin II wrote,

“It was not possible for Furhman to see the blood in the bronco door rocker panel with the door closed.”

Answer: March 14. 1995 Mark Fuhrman

Q OKAY. YESTERDAY YOU RELATED SOME BLOOD STAINS THAT YOU SAW AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR OF THE BRONCO. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IT WAS ON THE SILL?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOU CLAIM THAT THESE MARKS, BRUSH MARKS I THINK YOU DESCRIBED THEM AS, WERE VISIBLE WITH THE DOOR CLOSED?
A YES.
Q IT IS YOUR POSITION THAT IN YOUR PRESENCE AT LEAST THE BRONCO WAS NEVER OPENED OR ANY OF ITS DOORS OR WINDOWS WHILE YOU WERE THERE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q OKAY. AND YOU NEVER SAW ANYONE ELSE DO IT?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q DID YOU AT SOME POINT GET TO SHOW CRIMINALIST FUNG THE LOCATION OF THE BRUSH MARKS YOU HAVE DESCRIBED?
A YES, I DID.
Q COULD YOU TELL THE COURT AND JURY WHEN THAT OCCURRED AND WHO WAS PRESENT?
A DENNIS FUNG I BELIEVE ARRIVED AT THE ROCKINGHAM ESTATE 7:30, EIGHT O'CLOCK, SOMEWHERE AROUND THAT AREA. IT WAS THEN THAT I SHOWED HIM THE ITEMS ON THE BRONCO.
Q YOU HAD COME BACK FROM BUNDY?
A YES, SIR.
Q OKAY.
DID YOU TAKE HIM OUT INDIVIDUALLY TO THE BRONCO, POINT THEM OUT?
A YES, I DID.
Q WAS THE DOOR OPENED ON THIS OCCASION BY EITHER OF YOU?
A NO.
Q AND YOU NEVER SAW THAT DOOR OPENED TO THIS DAY, HAVE YOU?
A NO, I DID NOT.

*

William Anthony wrote,

“One thing that has puzzled me about those gloves that were made to be tight fitting, according to the testimony, is that some have said they would have come off easily. This defies what has been my experience about tight fitting clothes. I have found the looser the fit, the easier they are to get on and take off.

Answer: For skin tight thin leather gloves to fit correctly they have to be stretched by pulling them on finger by finger after putting the gloves on. That’s what makes them skin tight. Simpson did not do that so when he took the gloves off he was able to simply snap them off quickly. Let’s not forget that Simpson was also wearing a pair of latex gloves on his hands.

bobaugust

Bob

All of what you have posted here has been posted by others and they have made their opinions known on each point. You are entitled to express yours also.

martin II

[martin II]

Oh rock on Bob August. I haven't posted here for a while and it's great to come back and read your sensible, logical arguments. The old latex glove trick. The defense just happened to have a pair in the courtroom. As you do. :cool:

The use of the latex glove was not a decision of the prosecution or the defense. The judge ordered it as it was regular court procedure.

[martin II]

Martin,

Thats just it, according Vermich, the gloves were scanned in and the receipt did not have the size or the color. In VA's and L's book, they say the hand receipt was hand written and Jerry Rubin corrected it. It will be interesting to see exactly what he testimony is on this and if Rubin testifies his correcting that error.

Some times manufactures attatch/preticket the ID ticket to a item before shipping it to the retailer and the manufactures id number is used through the sale.If i remember correctly. The id number on the sales receipt was never found to be the ID number identifying that Aris item by the manufacture.This leads me to wonder if the gloves described on the sales slip was in fact the one the manyfacture called their Aris glove.Vermich said she asked the manufacture to identify the mumber she used but they never responded to her request.

Aris was not the only glove company in the world that used that special stitch on gloves as Singer sewing machine company had made and sold that whip stitch machine to other smaller glove companies for years. Rubin tried to say their china contractor was the only company that had those machines but that was not true. One thing that is true about China is if one contractor is making a item many others are making copies.imo

[martin II]

Martin,

Thats just it, according Vermich, the gloves were scanned in and the receipt did not have the size or the color. In VA's and L's book, they say the hand receipt was hand written and Jerry Rubin corrected it. It will be interesting to see exactly what he testimony is on this and if Rubin testifies his correcting that error.

That is the problem imo
If the glove was scanned in, the register would print a small white receipt with some ID,Price date etc.If this is true why was another receipt, hand written, done by the sales person.

[GreenIce]

Oh rock on Bob August. I haven't posted here for a while and it's great to come back and read your sensible, logical arguments. The old latex glove trick. The defense just happened to have a pair in the courtroom. As you do. :cool:

Parker,

Mr. August's does make logical posts, however his logic is being applied to scenarios that just doesn't make sense. His logic is based on his own standards of job performance and truth seeking.

For example:

Kato and the thumps, do you honestly believe that no one in the DA's office ever thought to ask Kato to do a demonstration, in the grand jury, the prelim hearing and then the actual trial itself?

Have you ever noticed that the DA only concentrated on how loud it was and what time Kato heard them? It appears to me that the defense were concentrated on the movement of the picture. IMO, both sides are lacking on this subject, the focus should have been on what Kato heard after the thumps or what he could have heard. Could he have heard footsteps? Could he have heard the human pin-ball as he bounced from the wall into the fence, at least once? Would have heard Simpson going through the gates that led out of the alley?

If the thumps that Kato heard had anything to do with the murders, then Kato was meant to hear them. IMO.

The glove experiment

The DA's claimed Simpson wore those gloves to murder Ron and Nicole. It should have always been in their game plan to have him try the gloves on. They should have been prepared for this demonstration, by tellling the jury before hand that Simpson has to wear latex gloves and that the gloves did in fact shrink. According them, they already knew the gloves shrank so why tell the jury before Simpson tried them on. The DA's insisted on the latex gloves and I am pretty sure they would have gotten permission or a waiver for Simpson to try on the gloves again with out the latex.

One more thing about the thumps--neither the DA's or Petrocelli gave a clear theory on how the glove got back there.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony wrote,

“IIRC, there was a picture of DF holding the sweat suit outside of the washer.”

Answer: There wasn’t any photo shown of Dennis Fung holding a sweat suit. There was a photo of Fung in Simpson’s bathroom holding what were most likely some black towels that he had taken out of the clothes hamper.


You do understand that IIRC stands for if I recall correctly. However, I will go by memory and not yours but thanks for trying to correct posts. I would bow to you had I not been able to prove you wrong about so many of your past posts but do not let that stop you from rocking or posting. :)

[William Anthony]

Martin II wrote,

“no blood was found in any drain”

Answer: Dennis Fung testified that presumptive tests for blood indicated the presence of blood in Simpson’s shower drain and on the lip of the sink drain in Simpson’s bathroom.


We all know that a presumptive test yields false positives an by your post it was only an indication of blood. Please provide the testimony where DF said he found blood in any of Simpson's drains and provide the date of the testimony.

[GreenIce]

Some times manufactures attatch/preticket the ID ticket to a item before shipping it to the retailer and the manufactures id number is used through the sale.If i remember correctly. The id number on the sales receipt was never found to be the ID number identifying that Aris item by the manufacture.This leads me to wonder if the gloves described on the sales slip was in fact the one the manyfacture called their Aris glove.Vermich said she asked the manufacture to identify the mumber she used but they never responded to her request.

Aris was not the only glove company in the world that used that special stitch on gloves as Singer sewing machine company had made and sold that whip stitch machine to other smaller glove companies for years. Rubin tried to say their china contractor was the only company that had those machines but that was not true. One thing that is true about China is if one contractor is making a item many others are making copies.imo

Martin,

I think how she came to her conclusion was by the price of the gloves. They were the only pair at $55.00. I have often wonder if the gloves Tom McCallum gave to the DA's and the defense--what was the item number on them.

Also, it surprises me that the defense did not ask Darden for the exact explaination of extra large or have Rubin compare the two. There were three types of extra large.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony wrote,

“One thing that has puzzled me about those gloves that were made to be tight fitting, according to the testimony, is that some have said they would have come off easily. This defies what has been my experience about tight fitting clothes. I have found the looser the fit, the easier they are to get on and take off.

Answer: For skin tight thin leather gloves to fit correctly they have to be stretched by pulling them on finger by finger after putting the gloves on. That’s what makes them skin tight. Simpson did not do that so when he took the gloves off he was able to simply snap them off quickly. Let’s not forget that Simpson was also wearing a pair of latex gloves on his hands.

bobaugust

The prosecution's theory was that the glove came off easily during the struggle or that Mr. RG. pulled them off. Because of the alleged tight fit of the gloves, according to the prosecution, it would have been difficult for those gloves to come off, according to my experience with tight fitting items of clothing. Are you suggesting the Simpson wore latex on the night of the murders? If so, please provide a link to support your suggestion?

[GreenIce]

That is the problem imo
If the glove was scanned in, the register would print a small white receipt with some ID,Price date etc.If this is true why was another receipt, hand written, done by the sales person.

Martin,

Could be why the DA's never called the actual sales person to testify about the gloves. Lets see, they had the former exec testify, why--the current one wouldn't? They had the buyer testify--not only did she testify but she also was doing the DA's work--asking the mfg about the model number. Wait, just maybe--could it be, the mfg may just gone right to the DA's on this issue or someone else on the state's side???? It makes no sense the DA's would not have followed this up. IMO.

I tell you what, it appears to me that even the state's witnesses were smarter then the DA's--they asked questions and did the demonstrations that the DA's never thought of--IMO.

[GreenIce]

The prosecution's theory was that the glove came off easily during the struggle or that Mr. RG. pulled them off. Because of the alleged tight fit of the gloves, according to the prosecution, it would have been difficult for those gloves to come off, according to my experience with tight fitting items of clothing. Are you suggesting the Simpson wore latex on the night of the murders? If so, please provide a link to support your suggestion?

William,

I don't know the answer to this question, which is why I am asking you or Martin if he reads this.

I would assume that Simpson wearing tight winter gloves in the month of June, consumed with rage and viciously stabbing two victims, his hands would sweat. Wouldn't the sweat make it even harder for the gloves to have come off?

Can't you get DNA from sweat?

[GreenIce]

We all know that a presumptive test yields false positives an by your post it was only an indication of blood. Please provide the testimony where DF said he found blood in any of Simpson's drains and provide the date of the testimony.

William,

I'm not exactly sure what the big deal is about finding blood in the sink or shower drains. I mean people do bleed in their homes. Finding blood, Simpson's blood in the sink or shower, doesn't appear to be a big deal. IMO.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony wrote,

“WTH? Don't you remember Kato beating on the desk trying to imitate the sound of the thumps. I understand that we all forget what the actual testimony was.”

Answer: Triumph of Justice, Daniel Petrocelli

“When we were preparing for his deposition I had said to Kato, "Get up and demonstrate what the noise sounded like." Kato stood, went over to the conference room wall, and crashed against it three times. It sounded, indeed, "as if a body hit the wall."

From what little I had heard during the criminal case that was not my impression of the "thumps." When he had testified, Kato had demonstrated by knocking three times on the witness box. The sound had been thin and hollow, a knuckle against a rail; it sounded nothing at all like a man returning from a killing.

"Why did you knock on the witness stand three times?" I asked incredulously.

"Well," he explained, "they were asking me to demonstrate the rhythm of the sounds. Bah, bum-bum. I just thought they wanted to know, sort of, the pattern, or the rhythm. No one asked me to go and demonstrate how it sounded, or did it sound like someone falling against the wall." And Kato, for his part, had not volunteered.”

you should know that my post was in response to another claiming that Kato never said he heard the thumps. Aside from the fact that Martin and I have provided the testimony that he heard the noise/thumps, your post indicates he did when you say "they were asking me to demonstrate the rhythm of the sounds. Bah, bum-bum. " For those of us that are dancers, we understand that you must be able to hear the rhythm of the sounds in order to stay on beat. I am not a great dancer but I never pass up the chance to slow dance with a female. :) Your posts seem to be off rhythm or slightly misleading if you will and perhaps you should have considered the rhythm of the prior posts and responses before you decided to rock on. :)

[William Anthony]

William,

I'm not exactly sure what the big deal is about finding blood in the sink or shower drains. I mean people do bleed in their homes. Finding blood, Simpson's blood in the sink or shower, doesn't appear to be a big deal. IMO.

It is not the idea that finding blood in the drain is a big deal. It is the correctness of the posts saying DF found blood, when he only did a presumptive test, which yields false positives. The G's in their rush to find Simpson guilty often misstate the evidence, imho. That is the big deal to me.

[William Anthony]

William,

I don't know the answer to this question, which is why I am asking you or Martin if he reads this.

I would assume that Simpson wearing tight winter gloves in the month of June, consumed with rage and viciously stabbing two victims, his hands would sweat. Wouldn't the sweat make it even harder for the gloves to have come off?

Can't you get DNA from sweat?

I am not sure but it would seem that sweat is a body fluid that could possibly be tested. When I played basketball, my sweat turned to a salt like substance, which I do not know whether that could be tested or not.

[Parker]

You do understand that IIRC stands for if I recall correctly. However, I will go by memory and not yours but thanks for trying to correct posts. I would bow to you had I not been able to prove you wrong about so many of your past posts but do not let that stop you from rocking or posting. :)

You're replying to yourself William Anthony. Did you mean to do that?

[William Anthony]

You're replying to yourself William Anthony. Did you mean to do that?

It is understandable that it would seem so to you.

[martin II]

William,

I don't know the answer to this question, which is why I am asking you or Martin if he reads this.

I would assume that Simpson wearing tight winter gloves in the month of June, consumed with rage and viciously stabbing two victims, his hands would sweat. Wouldn't the sweat make it even harder for the gloves to have come off?

Can't you get DNA from sweat?

Yes hand sweat would make the gloves more difficult to come off and DNA can be gotten from sweat.
But the reason why the gloves would not easily come off is that they were skin tight very snug fit gloves.Like second skin.They were not made of elastic
imo

[martin II]

William,

I'm not exactly sure what the big deal is about finding blood in the sink or shower drains. I mean people do bleed in their homes. Finding blood, Simpson's blood in the sink or shower, doesn't appear to be a big deal. IMO.

Gillette razors will do it for men at the bathroom sink.

[Parker]

It is understandable that it would seem so to you.

No. You replied to your own post. :cool:

[weezer]

Martin and William,

Thank you for your kind words of support.

Here is a couple of points or questions you might find interesting.

If Dr. Lee found blood on the A.C. Unit, then doesn't this follow the same pattern of key evidence, to be found days later? If Lee thought to exam the A.C. Unit, then why didn't Dennis Fung? who knows? if Fung found the blood on the wire, why didn't lee?

I remember that Dennis Fung did find a trace of blood on an overhead wiring hanging down. However, the sample was so small that it could not even be determined it if was human blood. So if Fung checked out the wire, then how did he miss the A.C. Unit? don't you wonder how lee missed the blood on the wire?

If this is blood on the AC unit and it is Simpson's, then he must have been bleeding when he went over the fence or crashed into the wall, again why aren't there more blood stains. I think the blood is right where it should be -- on the wire and the air conditioner.

I understand why they test drains for the presence of blood. However, I am really unsure of what they are looking for or what it proves. Can they tell that a significant amount of blood went through the drains? Can they take samples from the drain to determine who's blood it is? it proved that someone bled in the bathroom drain. Fung testified that there was not enough to type.

Now, if this blood was Simpson's how could they connect it to the murders? hmmm, that maybe orenthal was already bleeding when he got in the shower instead of afterwards like he said?

I just thought of another point about the clothes in the washing machine, were they dry, damp or wet? It appears to me that the washer was checked early on at Rockingham---if Arnelle tossed the murder clothes into the washer, then shouldn't they still have been pretty wet? Making the sweats to even appear darker---and still a "naked eye" examine passed for the "blood test" on the clothes? the clothes were described as 'freshly' laundered so we can assume they were not dry. why would you think that 'freshly' washed clothes would show blood? girl, you need a new washer. :tongue:

BTW, did Arnelle ever testify if she was responsible for doing her own laundry or OJ's house keeper was? Did either of them said they were washing clothes that day?

arnelle testified that she didn't put the clothes in the washer. the maid testified that there were no clothes in the washer and arnelle's laundry basket was not in the laundry room when she left on Friday afternoon. the maid also testified that she did not do arnelle's laundry.

[Parker]

OK FBGweezer. You know and I know who's sweats were in the washer.

[weezer]

OK FBGweezer. You know and I know who's sweats were in the washer.

yep -- my only question is who wore arnelle's lingerie. . .:eek:

[William Anthony]

No. You replied to your own post. :cool:

So, say you.

[William Anthony]

OK FBGweezer. You know and I know who's sweats were in the washer.

That resolves the issue for the two of you. :)

[William Anthony]

yep -- my only question is who wore arnelle's lingerie. . .:eek:

Well I'll be...that is your only question.

[Parker]

:)you should know that my post was in response to another claiming that Kato never said he heard the thumps. Aside from the fact that Martin and I have provided the testimony that he heard the noise/thumps, your post indicates he did when you say "they were asking me to demonstrate the rhythm of the sounds. Bah, bum-bum. " For those of us that are dancers, we understand that you must be able to hear the rhythm of the sounds in order to stay on beat. I am not a great dancer but I never pass up the chance to slow dance with a female. :) Your posts seem to be off rhythm or slightly misleading if you will and perhaps you should have considered the rhythm of the prior posts and responses before you decided to rock on. :)

You replied to yourself.

Build a bridge and get over it. :)

[William Anthony]

:)

You replied to yourself.

Build a bridge and get over it. :)

Unlike some, I do not build bridges to nowhere. :)

[serpentsfall]

William,

I don't know the answer to this question, which is why I am asking you or Martin if he reads this.

I would assume that Simpson wearing tight winter gloves in the month of June, consumed with rage and viciously stabbing two victims, his hands would sweat. Wouldn't the sweat make it even harder for the gloves to have come off?

Can't you get DNA from sweat?

I always assumed Simpson wore the hat, gloves and dark clothing to Nicole's that night in an effort to scare and/or intimidate Nicole. Goldman unexpectedly showing up and witnessing him dressed in his "attire" would have been enough to create an unwelcome media scandal for Simpson. I don't think the glove(s) came off during the struggle; I think Simpson probably removed them after realization of what had transpired hit him and to check on his cut finger. They would be slippery from blood and he probably dropped them after attempting to wrap the gloves, hat and knife in his sweatshirt. Just a guess, of course.

[William Anthony]

I always assumed Simpson wore the hat, gloves and dark clothing to Nicole's that night in an effort to scare and/or intimidate Nicole. Goldman unexpectedly showing up and witnessing him dressed in his "attire" would have been enough to create an unwelcome media scandal for Simpson. I don't think the glove(s) came off during the struggle; I think Simpson probably removed them after realization of what had transpired hit him and to check on his cut finger. They would be slippery from blood and he probably dropped them after attempting to wrap the gloves, hat and knife in his sweatshirt. Just a guess, of course.

I know that this wasn't addressed to me but your posts seems to express a disagreement with the prosecution's theory and my concurs with my feelings on the ease with which tight fitting items of clothing will become dislodged, which suggests to me reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

Ms. Clark's closing argument-September 28th

"Now, let's talk about the attack of Ron. Ron was attacked with the Defendant behind him, that much is clear. The wound inflicted to the neck, those control wounds--and I will talk a little bit more about that and some of the other stab wounds--and Ron struggles. Unlike Nicole, he is not so easily put down. He struggles and he grabs the Defendant who is holding him from around the neck with his left hand and holding the knife in his right. Ron is struggling and he is grabbing at anything he can and he is grabbing at the hand that is holding him and that is how the glove comes off. And by the way, that is why the right glove doesn't come off, because the right glove, the right hand is holding the knife, holding the glove in place. But from the point forward--from that point forward after the Defendant first attacked him, Ron's death was not a matter of if, it was just a matter of when, and Ron was totally on the defensive from the start trying to ward off the knife and to back away and in the process hitting the fence, the trees and everything around him in a desperate effort to survive. And all of this had to have happened very quickly, and I say this as a matter of common sense."

If I attacked someone from behind grabbing them by the neck, I would let the bend in my arm hold the neck and my fist would be closed as I tightened the grip. If it does not fit...

[William Anthony]

I know that this wasn't addressed to me but your posts seems to express a disagreement with the prosecution's theory and my concurs with my feelings on the ease with which tight fitting items of clothing will become dislodged, which suggests to me reasonable doubt.

Correction...and concurs with my feelings on the ease with which tight fitting items of clothing will become dislodged, which suggests to me reasonable doubt.

[tv]

Jayme K,

I do not recall posting any untruths and pretending like they are real. Perhaps you can give a couple examples and I will see what I can do to straighten it out.

It would never been my intention to do this. Please, provide examples.

Thanks!

Here's an example -- posting that the sweats were collected and tested. Never happened.

[martin II]

I always assumed Simpson wore the hat, gloves and dark clothing to Nicole's that night in an effort to scare and/or intimidate Nicole. Goldman unexpectedly showing up and witnessing him dressed in his "attire" would have been enough to create an unwelcome media scandal for Simpson. I don't think the glove(s) came off during the struggle; I think Simpson probably removed them after realization of what had transpired hit him and to check on his cut finger. They would be slippery from blood and he probably dropped them after attempting to wrap the gloves, hat and knife in his sweatshirt. Just a guess, of course.

Try this. If his fingers were slippery from the blood and that made the glove come off, the glove would have had a cut on it and it didn't.

The prosecution said the shoes,knife were in that bag by the bronco.
The hat was at bundy. The sweats were in the washing machine.
So when and where did he try to wrap all of these items in the sweats?

[tv]

Martin and William,

Thank you for your kind words of support.

Here is a couple of points or questions you might find interesting.

If Dr. Lee found blood on the A.C. Unit, then doesn't this follow the same pattern of key evidence, to be found days later? If Lee thought to exam the A.C. Unit, then why didn't Dennis Fung?

I remember that Dennis Fung did find a trace of blood on an overhead wiring hanging down. However, the sample was so small that it could not even be determined it if was human blood. So if Fung checked out the wire, then how did he miss the A.C. Unit?

If this is blood on the AC unit and it is Simpson's, then he must have been bleeding when he went over the fence or crashed into the wall, again why aren't there more blood stains.

I understand why they test drains for the presence of blood. However, I am really unsure of what they are looking for or what it proves. Can they tell that a significant amount of blood went through the drains? Can they take samples from the drain to determine who's blood it is?

Now, if this blood was Simpson's how could they connect it to the murders?

I just thought of another point about the clothes in the washing machine, were they dry, damp or wet? It appears to me that the washer was checked early on at Rockingham---if Arnelle tossed the murder clothes into the washer, then shouldn't they still have been pretty wet? Making the sweats to even appear darker---and still a "naked eye" examine passed for the "blood test" on the clothes?

BTW, did Arnelle ever testify if she was responsible for doing her own laundry or OJ's house keeper was? Did either of them said they were washing clothes that day?

Poor Dennis Fung can't win. Is it possible that he missed the blood on the AC unit because he's *gasp* human? :eek:

[martin II]

Here's an example -- posting that the sweats were collected and tested. Never happened.

tv

Fung saw the sweats in the washer.Held them up and saw no blood. Put them back in the washer. Did a presumptive test on the washer or examined the washer. why do a presumptive test on the washer or examine it and not do a test on the clothes in the washer?

[tv]

tv

Fung saw the sweats in the washer.Held them up and saw no blood. Put them back in the washer. Did a presumptive test on the washer or examined the washer. why do a presumptive test on the washer or examine it and not do a test on the clothes in the washer?martin, I agree with you. The sweats should have been collected and tested. GreenIce has posted more than once that they were collected and tested. She says she doesn't post untruths and I was using this as an example of her doing that. In my previous post I was talking about him missing the blood on the AC unit.

[martin II]

Ms. Clark's closing argument-September 28th

"Now, let's talk about the attack of Ron. Ron was attacked with the Defendant behind him, that much is clear. The wound inflicted to the neck, those control wounds--and I will talk a little bit more about that and some of the other stab wounds--and Ron struggles. Unlike Nicole, he is not so easily put down. He struggles and he grabs the Defendant who is holding him from around the neck with his left hand and holding the knife in his right. Ron is struggling and he is grabbing at anything he can and he is grabbing at the hand that is holding him and that is how the glove comes off. And by the way, that is why the right glove doesn't come off, because the right glove, the right hand is holding the knife, holding the glove in place. But from the point forward--from that point forward after the Defendant first attacked him, Ron's death was not a matter of if, it was just a matter of when, and Ron was totally on the defensive from the start trying to ward off the knife and to back away and in the process hitting the fence, the trees and everything around him in a desperate effort to survive. And all of this had to have happened very quickly, and I say this as a matter of common sense."

If I attacked someone from behind grabbing them by the neck, I would let the bend in my arm hold the neck and my fist would be closed as I tightened the grip. If it does not fit...


As i had previously posted the killer held ron in a head lock from behind with his left arm around rons neck. This puts the killers closed left fist at rons right ear.Out of reach of rons hands to pull a glove off. imo

[martin II]

martin, I agree with you. The sweats should have been collected and tested. GreenIce has posted more than once that they were collected and tested. She says she doesn't post untruths and I was using this as an example of her doing that. In my previous post I was talking about him missing the blood on the AC unit.

tv
You may be nit picking and you usually don't do that.

Actually i believe le collected the sweat in a effort to match the fibers.Could not make a match and put the sweats away.

[martin II]

Poor Dennis Fung can't win. Is it possible that he missed the blood on the AC unit because he's *gasp* human? :eek:

tv

Clarke said oj bounced against the air conditioner. This should have told fung to check the airconditioner. He was the most senior person in the department.

[martin II]

OK FBGweezer. You know and I know who's sweats were in the washer.

Parker

Last week you asked where WILLIAM was as he seemed to be AWOL. Do you know what happened to JB as he seems to be AWOL also.

[tv]

tv
You may nit picking and you usually don't do that.

Actually i believe le collected the sweat in a effort to match the fibers.Could not make a match and put the sweats away.

If you want to post that you believe the sweats were collected even though there's no evidence to back it up that's okay with me because you're stating it as your belief not as fact. GI posted it as fact. I think that can be very misleading to people that aren't familiar with the facts of the case and doesn't add anything to the discussion. My intention isn't to nitpick but GI was asking for proof of her posting an untruth. To be fair she didn't direct her post at me.

[tv]

tv

Clarke said oj bounced against the air conditioner. This should have told fung to check the airconditioner. He was the most senior person in the department.

I agree the air conditioner should have been checked by Fung if it wasn't. :shrug:

[martin II]

I agree the air conditioner should have been checked by Fung if it wasn't. :shrug:

Fung should have used some kind of grid system to collect the evidence.
The detectives told him what to collect and that did not seem to work too well.

[bobaugust]

Bob

All of what you have posted here has been posted by others and they have made their opinions known on each point. You are entitled to express yours also.

martin II

martin II, I agree, other posters have also corrected your incorrect comments.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You do understand that IIRC stands for if I recall correctly. However, I will go by memory and not yours but thanks for trying to correct posts. I would bow to you had I not been able to prove you wrong about so many of your past posts but do not let that stop you from rocking or posting. :)

William Anthony, yes I understand what IIRC means. My comment was simply to politely point out that your recollection was not correct.

[bobaugust]

We all know that a presumptive test yields false positives an by your post it was only an indication of blood. Please provide the testimony where DF said he found blood in any of Simpson's drains and provide the date of the testimony.

Perhaps you did not read my post correctly. Martin posted that no blood was found in the drains and I responded that Dennis Fung testified that presumptive tests INDICATED the presence of blood in Simpson’s shower drain and on the lip of the sink drain in Simpson’s bathroom.

[bobaugust]

The prosecution's theory was that the glove came off easily during the struggle or that Mr. RG. pulled them off. Because of the alleged tight fit of the gloves, according to the prosecution, it would have been difficult for those gloves to come off, according to my experience with tight fitting items of clothing. Are you suggesting the Simpson wore latex on the night of the murders? If so, please provide a link to support your suggestion?


Clark suggested that Ron may have been able to pull Simpson’s left hand glove off sometime during the struggle for his life and not the right hand glove since Simpson was holding the knife in his right hand. I do not recall the prosecution ever suggesting or insinuating that the glove “came of easily during the struggle.” If that is what you are suggesting then please provide a link to support your suggestion.

[weezer]

tv

Fung saw the sweats in the washer.Held them up and saw no blood. Put them back in the washer. Did a presumptive test on the washer or examined the washer. why do a presumptive test on the washer or examine it and not do a test on the clothes in the washer?

why is this so hard for you? there was no reason to test 'freshly' washed clothes.

[weezer]

tv
You may be nit picking and you usually don't do that.

Actually i believe le collected the sweat in a effort to match the fibers.Could not make a match and put the sweats away.

here's a very good example of lies being posted as truths. this never happened and you know it martin.

[weezer]

tv

Clarke said oj bounced against the air conditioner. This should have told fung to check the airconditioner. He was the most senior person in the department.

now you think Fung was psychic and able to see into the future in order to know what Clark was going to argue at trial? LOL

[weezer]

Parker

Last week you asked where WILLIAM was as he seemed to be AWOL. Do you know what happened to JB as he seems to be AWOL also.

why don't you start the crap back up again rayray -- uh I mean martin, and maybe the moderator can save us all a lot of heartburn and just shut this thing down now. :punch:

[serpentsfall]

Fung should have used some kind of grid system to collect the evidence.
The detectives told him what to collect and that did not seem to work too well.

LE is certainly under no obligation to collect each and every speck of blood at a crime scene. And what a prosecutor says in opening and closing arguments is not evidence.

[serpentsfall]

I know that this wasn't addressed to me but your posts seems to express a disagreement with the prosecution's theory and my concurs with my feelings on the ease with which tight fitting items of clothing will become dislodged, which suggests to me reasonable doubt.

The prosecution's theory is only that - a theory. Its worth about as much as mine. It's not evidence and its common for reasonable people to give different weight and come to different conclusions regarding items and circumstances that ARE evidence.

[martin II]

Lee knew to check the air conditioner. Fung should have also. When blood is seen it should be collected because it could belong to someone not in the current picture. suspects imo

[serpentsfall]

Try this. If his fingers were slippery from the blood and that made the glove come off, the glove would have had a cut on it and it didn't.

The prosecution said the shoes,knife were in that bag by the bronco.
The hat was at bundy. The sweats were in the washing machine.
So when and where did he try to wrap all of these items in the sweats?

I thought one of the gloves DID have a cut on it. Could be wrong - its been a long time ago. Who says he had the top to his sweats on while driving home? He could easily have removed his bloody shoes and sweatshirt at the scene, which might explain the minimal amount of blood in his Bronco. He'd have been in a rush; the dark hat and one glove could easily have fallen out of the bundle at the scene. There was blood on the light switch in the bathroom...he could have switched the shoes and knife, which couldn't be washed, into a black bag for later disposal.

[martin II]

I thought one of the gloves DID have a cut on it. Could be wrong - its been a long time ago. Who says he had the top to his sweats on while driving home? He could easily have removed his bloody shoes and sweatshirt at the scene, which might explain the minimal amount of blood in his Bronco. He'd have been in a rush; the dark hat and one glove could easily have fallen out of the bundle at the scene. There was blood on the light switch in the bathroom...he could have switched the shoes and knife, which couldn't be washed, into a black bag for later disposal.

If so then Park did not see him walkk into the door with dark clothing on.

If he switched the shoes and knife into another bag for later disposal,why not put the sweats in the same bag for disoposal and take everything away

[weezer]

If so then Park did not see him walkk into the door with dark clothing on.

If he switched the shoes and knife into another bag for later disposal,why not put the sweats in the same bag for disoposal and take everything away

orenthal could have had on just bottoms -- remember jill shively said his arms were bare. . . .

[serpentsfall]

If so then Park did not see him walkk into the door with dark clothing on.

If he switched the shoes and knife into another bag for later disposal,why not put the sweats in the same bag for disoposal and take everything away

He could have put his shirt back on after he got out of the Bronco. It was supposedly a small bag; adding a sweat shirt and pants would have made it pretty bulky. Its hard to know how anyone who just murdered two people would act, especially if they were in a hurry.

[GreenIce]

I always assumed Simpson wore the hat, gloves and dark clothing to Nicole's that night in an effort to scare and/or intimidate Nicole. Goldman unexpectedly showing up and witnessing him dressed in his "attire" would have been enough to create an unwelcome media scandal for Simpson. I don't think the glove(s) came off during the struggle; I think Simpson probably removed them after realization of what had transpired hit him and to check on his cut finger. They would be slippery from blood and he probably dropped them after attempting to wrap the gloves, hat and knife in his sweatshirt. Just a guess, of course.

Serpentsfall,

Simpson would not have had to wear anything to intimidate Nicole. Remember her description of how his eyes get when he gets really, really mad? It was in the testimony of the police officer who tape his conversation with Nicole after the 1993 incident.

It makes no sense that Simpson would even think that a dark hat, dark clothes, dress shoes and socks would disguise or conceal his identity from anybody, let alone his children. IMO.

There is much debate on how the gloves come have come off and landed so neatly under a plant. IMO, I believe the gloves were taken off and were dropped where they would be found.

I do believe that it is very possible that Fuhrman planted the glove at Rockingham, however, I am positive it was planted but I just can't say I am positive that Fuhrman did it.

[fgump2]

How about you get some of your post correct before you start slamming.

I apologize for my rudeness, and for not researching it better. Do you know what day and what detective testified that he told Arnelle about Nicole and another person being killed?

[GreenIce]

martin, I agree with you. The sweats should have been collected and tested. GreenIce has posted more than once that they were collected and tested. She says she doesn't post untruths and I was using this as an example of her doing that. In my previous post I was talking about him missing the blood on the AC unit.

TV Dinner,

Please correct your error. I have always gave the source about the sweats being taken and tested. I have posted my opinons on why this may be true, however, never did I post that this was true--only what was written in a book---a news agency reported that the sweats were found in the washer and they were tested and there was no blood.

Please, correct your post, thanks!

[GreenIce]

LE is certainly under no obligation to collect each and every speck of blood at a crime scene. And what a prosecutor says in opening and closing arguments is not evidence.

Serpentsfall,

The problem with your statement is that all blood looks red, how can the person collecting tell who's blood it is? The only way to know who's blood it is, is to collect all of it. Look what the DA's said happened to Fung in the Bronco?

Look what Lange and Vanatter wrote in the their book about Fung and the back gate blood drops.

IMO, saying that they do not have to collect each and every speck of blood at a crime scene is like giving the excuse that there are "careless" mistakes in all investigations. IMO, careless means you know who to do your job, you were trained on how to do it, and for some reason you don't feel like you have to do it they way were trained--it is okay to take short cuts, it is okay to collect certain blood drops but not number them or inventory them.

It is a crime scene and yes, they do need to collect every blood stain. Don't forget, 5 drops of blood were found at Bundy, wasn't Nicole's, Ron's or OJ's. Lange said only that they were not able to identify the person nor could he prove or anybody prove how long those drops were there.

However, I would love to have known those blood drops DNA count!

[martin II]

He could have put his shirt back on after he got out of the Bronco. It was supposedly a small bag; adding a sweat shirt and pants would have made it pretty bulky. Its hard to know how anyone who just murdered two people would act, especially if they were in a hurry.

I Thoguht you said he bundeled all the items in the sweat suit. If true he could not put the shirt back on.

[martin II]

I apologize for my rudeness, and for not researching it better. Do you know what day and what detective testified that he told Arnelle about Nicole and another person being killed?

I alrerady posted this info.
On 6/13 early. Detective lang asked Arnell if she had CR phone number. Arnell responded yes in my address book in my trunk.Arnell walked to her car and Lang followed her.As she was getting her address book out Detective Lang told her Nicole had been killed. Lang testified about her reaction to this info so he could not have denied telling her as you said. I don't know where you got the 'AND ANOTHER PERSON" from.imo

[martin II]

Serpentsfall,

Simpson would not have had to wear anything to intimidate Nicole. Remember her description of how his eyes get when he gets really, really mad? It was in the testimony of the police officer who tape his conversation with Nicole after the 1993 incident.

It makes no sense that Simpson would even think that a dark hat, dark clothes, dress shoes and socks would disguise or conceal his identity from anybody, let alone his children. IMO.

There is much debate on how the gloves come have come off and landed so neatly under a plant. IMO, I believe the gloves were taken off and were dropped where they would be found.

I do believe that it is very possible that Fuhrman planted the glove at Rockingham, however, I am positive it was planted but I just can't say I am positive that Fuhrman did it.


Phillips was at Rockingham but there is not much testimony about what he was doing.Since the detectives did not make notes of their activity at Rockingham there is no way to tract what they did.

[bobaugust]

I think it is reasonable to believe that Simpson was wearing his sweat suit when he drove home from Bundy. After scaling his fence to enter his property Simpson made his way around the back of his house, up the driveway, entered his front door, and turned some downstairs lights on. Simpson could then have very well gone directly to his laundry room, removed his shoes and sweat suit, put the sweat suit in his washing machine, and carried his shoes up to his bedroom. After a quick shower and change of clothing he could have put the murder shoes in his garment bag that he carried back downstairs and set on the ground near his other two bags. Allan Park testified he then put the garment bag in the trunk of the limo.

We believe Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole from behind them and what ever blood splattered onto his clothing would have been on the front of his clothing and on his sleeves. None of that blood would have transferred to his Bronco seat when he drove back home. Jill Shively testified she saw Simpson’s left arm was bare. I believe it is reasonable to believe that Simpson probably rolled his sleeves up so as not to transfer blood from his sleeves to his car. When he left his Bronco and made his way to his fence behind Kaelin's room he could very well have rolled his sleeves back down.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Serpentsfall,

The problem with your statement is that all blood looks red, how can the person collecting tell who's blood it is? The only way to know who's blood it is, is to collect all of it. Look what the DA's said happened to Fung in the Bronco?

Look what Lange and Vanatter wrote in the their book about Fung and the back gate blood drops.

IMO, saying that they do not have to collect each and every speck of blood at a crime scene is like giving the excuse that there are "careless" mistakes in all investigations. IMO, careless means you know who to do your job, you were trained on how to do it, and for some reason you don't feel like you have to do it they way were trained--it is okay to take short cuts, it is okay to collect certain blood drops but not number them or inventory them.

It is a crime scene and yes, they do need to collect every blood stain. Don't forget, 5 drops of blood were found at Bundy, wasn't Nicole's, Ron's or OJ's. Lange said only that they were not able to identify the person nor could he prove or anybody prove how long those drops were there.

However, I would love to have known those blood drops DNA count!

GreenIce, only fresh blood appears red. Older blood turns brown. We know Simpson’s blood found at Bundy was not old based on the appearance of the blood drops. Simpson testified the last time he was at Bundy was about a week earlier and did not recall bleeding there then or on prior visits.

Michael Terrazas October 28, 1996

Q. Can you put on the board exhibit 76, please? (Steve complies.) We have exhibit 76.
And was the 117 marker there when you saw this area in the morning hours of June 13?
A. No, the marker was not there.
Q. And what is the object next to it?
A. It appears to be of blood.
Q. And could you describe whether or not that was a drop of blood that you saw in the early morning hours of June 13?
A. It appears to be the same drop of blood I observed on that night.
Q. Now, the drop of blood, as you observed it that night, can you describe it?
A. Bright red in color, looked moist.


Dennis Fung November 4, 1996

Q. Did Detective Lange point out to you any particular items of evidence that he wanted collected?
A. Yes, he did. He showed me keys, a pager, glove, and a cap in the caged area, and then there was a series of blood drops along the north side of the Bundy house. Q. And these blood drops that you described, what condition did they appear to you to be in?
A. They --
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: The blood drops appeared to be fairly fresh, meaning that they were red and had a slight tacky appearance to them.

bobaugust

[serpentsfall]

I Thoguht you said he bundeled all the items in the sweat suit. If true he could not put the shirt back on.

Why not? He'd have bundled them so as not to get blood all over the Bronco. Once he's home and out of the Bronco, he can slip the sweatshirt back on and carry the knife, glove and shoes to wherever.

[martin II]

He could have put his shirt back on after he got out of the Bronco. It was supposedly a small bag; adding a sweat shirt and pants would have made it pretty bulky. Its hard to know how anyone who just murdered two people would act, especially if they were in a hurry.

You may be having the same problem the prosecution had in the trial.Proving what oj Must have done with all those items.
It makes no sense that he would have a sweat on when he went into the house and not put it in one of the bags and just take that bag to Chicago.
It makes no sense that he would leave the sweats behind in a washing machine.

[martin II]

Why not? He'd have bundled them so as not to get blood all over the Bronco. Once he's home and out of the Bronco, he can slip the sweatshirt back on and carry the knife, glove and shoes to wherever.

The glove was found in the walkway so he did not carry that any place.

Le searched his property completely so there was no stash. The highway,airport trash cans as well as the Chicago hotel trash cans and the dumpster in the neighborhood were searched . Nothing.

What would the reason be for putting the sweat top back on when he gets out of the bronco??

[martin II]

GreenIce, only fresh blood appears red. Older blood turns brown. We know Simpson’s blood found at Bundy was not old based on the appearance of the blood drops. Simpson testified the last time he was at Bundy was about a week earlier and did not recall bleeding there then or on prior visits.

Michael Terrazas October 28, 1996

Q. Can you put on the board exhibit 76, please? (Steve complies.) We have exhibit 76.
And was the 117 marker there when you saw this area in the morning hours of June 13?
A. No, the marker was not there.
Q. And what is the object next to it?
A. It appears to be of blood.
Q. And could you describe whether or not that was a drop of blood that you saw in the early morning hours of June 13?
A. It appears to be the same drop of blood I observed on that night.
Q. Now, the drop of blood, as you observed it that night, can you describe it?
A. Bright red in color, looked moist.


Dennis Fung November 4, 1996

Q. Did Detective Lange point out to you any particular items of evidence that he wanted collected?
A. Yes, he did. He showed me keys, a pager, glove, and a cap in the caged area, and then there was a series of blood drops along the north side of the Bundy house. Q. And these blood drops that you described, what condition did they appear to you to be in?
A. They --
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: The blood drops appeared to be fairly fresh, meaning that they were red and had a slight tacky appearance to them.

bobaugust

Green ice

I absolutely agree that all evidence should be collected at a crime scene.

In this case there was just too much that was not collected.

[serpentsfall]

Serpentsfall,

Simpson would not have had to wear anything to intimidate Nicole. Remember her description of how his eyes get when he gets really, really mad? It was in the testimony of the police officer who tape his conversation with Nicole after the 1993 incident.

It makes no sense that Simpson would even think that a dark hat, dark clothes, dress shoes and socks would disguise or conceal his identity from anybody, let alone his children. IMO.

There is much debate on how the gloves come have come off and landed so neatly under a plant. IMO, I believe the gloves were taken off and were dropped where they would be found.

I do believe that it is very possible that Fuhrman planted the glove at Rockingham, however, I am positive it was planted but I just can't say I am positive that Fuhrman did it.

She wasn't acting particularly intimidated earlier that evening when she intentionally didn't invite him to dine with them at Messaluna. He wasn't trying to hide his identity; I propose he was "acting" - messing with her head. Even if Fuhrman DID plant the glove at Rockingham, where was Simpson's Bronco that night? Park said it wasn't there when he drove up. Such a vehicle was seen speeding away from the Bundy area that night. How did Goldman's blood get in the Bronco?

[martin II]

GreenIce, only fresh blood appears red. Older blood turns brown. We know Simpson’s blood found at Bundy was not old based on the appearance of the blood drops. Simpson testified the last time he was at Bundy was about a week earlier and did not recall bleeding there then or on prior visits.

Michael Terrazas October 28, 1996

Q. Can you put on the board exhibit 76, please? (Steve complies.) We have exhibit 76.
And was the 117 marker there when you saw this area in the morning hours of June 13?
A. No, the marker was not there.
Q. And what is the object next to it?
A. It appears to be of blood.
Q. And could you describe whether or not that was a drop of blood that you saw in the early morning hours of June 13?
A. It appears to be the same drop of blood I observed on that night.
Q. Now, the drop of blood, as you observed it that night, can you describe it?
A. Bright red in color, looked moist.


Dennis Fung November 4, 1996

Q. Did Detective Lange point out to you any particular items of evidence that he wanted collected?
A. Yes, he did. He showed me keys, a pager, glove, and a cap in the caged area, and then there was a series of blood drops along the north side of the Bundy house. Q. And these blood drops that you described, what condition did they appear to you to be in?
A. They --
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: The blood drops appeared to be fairly fresh, meaning that they were red and had a slight tacky appearance to them.

bobaugust


That is a cops opinion only.:cool:

[martin II]

She wasn't acting particularly intimidated earlier that evening when she intentionally didn't invite him to dine with them at Messaluna. He wasn't trying to hide his identity; I propose he was "acting" - messing with her head. Even if Fuhrman DID plant the glove at Rockingham, where was Simpson's Bronco that night? Park said it wasn't there when he drove up. Such a vehicle was seen speeding away from the Bundy area that night. How did Goldman's blood get in the Bronco?

Was he at BUNDY in the white car at 10:45 or banging on katos wall at 10:45

[bobaugust]

That is a cops opinion only.:cool:

A person who happened to be the first patrol officer to see the blood drops at Bundy testified as to what he saw. Dennis Fung was not a cop. Photographs taken of the blood drops show them to be bright red. Simpson’s defense never disputed that fact.

bobaugust

[martin II]

She wasn't acting particularly intimidated earlier that evening when she intentionally didn't invite him to dine with them at Messaluna. He wasn't trying to hide his identity; I propose he was "acting" - messing with her head. Even if Fuhrman DID plant the glove at Rockingham, where was Simpson's Bronco that night? Park said it wasn't there when he drove up. Such a vehicle was seen speeding away from the Bundy area that night. How did Goldman's blood get in the Bronco?

Park said 'I DID NOT SEE IT' 'I WAS LOOKING FOR THE ADDRESS ON THE CURB" Also when Park left for the airport and he was about 3-4 feet from the bronco he said he did not see it.

[bobaugust]

Was he at BUNDY in the white car at 10:45 or banging on katos wall at 10:45

Martin II, based on Kaelin’s testimony as to what he heard and felt and what he then did, along with Allan Park’s testimony and telephone records as to when he saw both Kaelin and Simpson we know that Kaelin heard someone behind his room at about 10:52.

bobaugust

[serpentsfall]

The glove was found in the walkway so he did not carry that any place.

Le searched his property completely so there was no stash. The highway,airport trash cans as well as the Chicago hotel trash cans and the dumpster in the neighborhood were searched . Nothing.

What would the reason be for putting the sweat top back on when he gets out of the bronco??

You think the glove transported itself to that walkway? Somebody carried it there (unless you think OJ hit the air conditioner hard enough to knock the glove off his hand). Why couldn't it have been Simpson who carried it there? If he was "hiding" the glove there, why didn't he hide the knife & shoes there, too? Obviously either Fuhrman planted it or Simpson dropped it in his rush.

Why put the sweatshirt back on? So he didn't have to carry it while he was dealing with the items that couldn't be laundered.

[bobaugust]

Park said 'I DID NOT SEE IT' 'I WAS LOOKING FOR THE ADDRESS ON THE CURB" Also when Park left for the airport and he was about 3-4 feet from the bronco he said he did not see it.

Apples and oranges! You are speaking about two completely different incidents that have two different logical explanations and have nothing to do with each other.

[serpentsfall]

Park said 'I DID NOT SEE IT' 'I WAS LOOKING FOR THE ADDRESS ON THE CURB" Also when Park left for the airport and he was about 3-4 feet from the bronco he said he did not see it.

C'mon, use common sense. You'd notice the Bronco if it was parked along the curb you were looking at and possibly blocking the house numbers you were looking for. You wouldn't necessarily notice it not being there. Once he's leaving for the airport he's in a hurry because they are running late and he's no longer focused on looking at the curb.

[serpentsfall]

You may be having the same problem the prosecution had in the trial.Proving what oj Must have done with all those items.
It makes no sense that he would have a sweat on when he went into the house and not put it in one of the bags and just take that bag to Chicago.
It makes no sense that he would leave the sweats behind in a washing machine.

It also makes no sense that Nicole's door was left wide open. As it turns out, it was perfectly safe to leave the sweats behind in the washing machine. There wasn't a lot of time that night. Nobody had to prove what OJ did with all those items. I found it interesting that there were no dark sweats in Simpson's hamper that night. I think the prosecution stumbled in not letting the jury know dark sweats were found in Simpson's washer that nobody would admit having put there.

[serpentsfall]

I think it is reasonable to believe that Simpson was wearing his sweat suit when he drove home from Bundy. After scaling his fence to enter his property Simpson made his way around the back of his house, up the driveway, entered his front door, and turned some downstairs lights on. Simpson could then have very well gone directly to his laundry room, removed his shoes and sweat suit, put the sweat suit in his washing machine, and carried his shoes up to his bedroom. After a quick shower and change of clothing he could have put the murder shoes in his garment bag that he carried back downstairs and set on the ground near his other two bags. Allan Park testified he then put the garment bag in the trunk of the limo.

We believe Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole from behind them and what ever blood splattered onto his clothing would have been on the front of his clothing and on his sleeves. None of that blood would have transferred to his Bronco seat when he drove back home. Jill Shively testified she saw Simpson’s left arm was bare. I believe it is reasonable to believe that Simpson probably rolled his sleeves up so as not to transfer blood from his sleeves to his car. When he left his Bronco and made his way to his fence behind Kaelin's room he could very well have rolled his sleeves back down.

bobaugust

Even if only the sleeves of his sweatshirt were bloody, the knife and shoes would have been bloody. There wasn't enough blood in the Bronco to indicate the bloody knife was laid anywhere, was there? That's why I think he likely wrapped it in his sweatshirt for the ride home. He was probably also using his sweatshirt to stem the bloodflow from his cut finger while in the Bronco. He'd put his shirt back on to keep from getting scratched going over the back fence.

[martin II]

Even if only the sleeves of his sweatshirt were bloody, the knife and shoes would have been bloody. There wasn't enough blood in the Bronco to indicate the bloody knife was laid anywhere, was there? That's why I think he likely wrapped it in his sweatshirt for the ride home. He was probably also using his sweatshirt to stem the bloodflow from his cut finger while in the Bronco. He'd put his shirt back on to keep from getting scratched going over the back fence.

But there was no proof that any one came through the bushes and trees and jumped that fence.According to three detectives and fung did not see any blood on the sweats.imo

[William Anthony]

Poor Dennis Fung can't win. Is it possible that he missed the blood on the AC unit because he's *gasp* human? :eek:

Does this mean you think Ms. Arnelle is not human, or the defense witnesses? :)

[William Anthony]

As i had previously posted the killer held ron in a head lock from behind with his left arm around rons neck. This puts the killers closed left fist at rons right ear.Out of reach of rons hands to pull a glove off. imo

Exactly and ITA.

[martin II]

It also makes no sense that Nicole's door was left wide open. As it turns out, it was perfectly safe to leave the sweats behind in the washing machine. There wasn't a lot of time that night. Nobody had to prove what OJ did with all those items. I found it interesting that there were no dark sweats in Simpson's hamper that night. I think the prosecution stumbled in not letting the jury know dark sweats were found in Simpson's washer that nobody would admit having put there.

Why leave the sweats from the murder scene in a washer. He would know le would be there first and soon.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, yes I understand what IIRC means. My comment was simply to politely point out that your recollection was not correct.

I understood and I politely told you that I would rely on my recollection as opposed to yours due to the frequency that I have had to correct you in the past about posts that were inaccurate. Politeness is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder but let's not sweat (pun intended) the small stuff. :)

[William Anthony]

Perhaps you did not read my post correctly. Martin posted that no blood was found in the drains and I responded that Dennis Fung testified that presumptive tests INDICATED the presence of blood in Simpson’s shower drain and on the lip of the sink drain in Simpson’s bathroom.

Then Martin is correct as presumptive tests yield false positives for blood and a presumptive test is only an indication that it may be blood, vegetables or bleach, as I believe you well know.:)

[martin II]

C'mon, use common sense. You'd notice the Bronco if it was parked along the curb you were looking at and possibly blocking the house numbers you were looking for. You wouldn't necessarily notice it not being there. Once he's leaving for the airport he's in a hurry because they are running late and he's no longer focused on looking at the curb.

Park noticed the car comming down the street when he stopped at the gate, and he waited until that car passed. he looked both ways and said something was in his view.the something was the bronco.imo

[William Anthony]

Clark suggested that Ron may have been able to pull Simpson’s left hand glove off sometime during the struggle for his life and not the right hand glove since Simpson was holding the knife in his right hand. I do not recall the prosecution ever suggesting or insinuating that the glove “came of easily during the struggle.” If that is what you are suggesting then please provide a link to support your suggestion.

I don't have the time to so do right now but we all know that was said. I know that if I had the strength to pull a glove off I would have had the strength to pull back a finger, which is what I would do in order to inflict pain and stop someone from stabbing me.

[weezer]

Then Martin is correct as presumptive tests yield false positives for blood and a presumptive test is only an indication that it may be blood, vegetables or bleach, as I believe you well know.:)

why do you do this? Fung testified that the presumptive tests were positive for blood.

you and martin can start down that road again with your hateful responses to other posters if you want to but you're not going to like the results. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

why don't you start the crap back up again rayray -- uh I mean martin, and maybe the moderator can save us all a lot of heartburn and just shut this thing down now. :punch:

We are not interested in getting this forum shut down. Did Martin somehow strike a nerve and, if so, how?

[weezer]

We are not interested in getting this forum shut down. Did Martin somehow strike a nerve and, if so, how?

I believe you and martin both know what you are doing with your hateful, disrespectful posts. you've managed to run off everyone with your not so pointed jabs -- but like you say, rock on. we'll see where and when this ends.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution's theory is only that - a theory. Its worth about as much as mine. It's not evidence and its common for reasonable people to give different weight and come to different conclusions regarding items and circumstances that ARE evidence.

You begin some of your post with your assumptions. The value of an opening statement is to tell the jury what the evidence will be. The value of a closing argument is to persuade the jury that the evidence agrees with your theory of what happened. You are right that the jury and you can reject the prosecution's theory or if it does not fit... What that jury was not allowed to do is to speculate but they can draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and, if their common sense tells them it is unreasonable or, if you will, it does not fit... However, you are able to speculate to make the evidence fit your assumptions, because you were not part of that jury. What I am saying is that the jury was not able to redefine reasonable doubt based on speculation. The burden of proof is twofold-the burden of production and the burden of persuasion, which, imho, the prosecution failed miserably in both prongs.

[William Anthony]

I believe you and martin both know what you are doing with your hateful, disrespectful posts. you've managed to run off everyone with your not so pointed jabs -- but like you say, rock on. we'll see where and when this ends.

I have disrespected no one and have made no jabs. I have enjoyed the lighthearted banter, lighthearted banter, remember.

[weezer]

You begin some of your post with your assumptions. The value of an opening statement is to tell the jury what the evidence will be. The value of a closing argument is to persuade the jury that the evidence agrees with your theory of what happened. You are right that the jury and you can reject the prosecution's theory or if it does not fit... What that jury was not allowed to do is to speculate but they can draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and, if their common sense tells them it is unreasonable or, if you will, it does not fit... However, you are able to speculate to make the evidence fit your assumptions, because you were not part of that jury. What I am saying is that the jury was not able to redefine reasonable doubt based on speculation. The burden of proof is twofold-the burden of production and the burden of persuasion, which, imho, the prosecution failed miserably in both prongs.

william, are all juries instructed not to make up their minds and not to decide the case until they've heard all of the evidence? do you know whether or not the criminal jury was given those instructions throughout the trial?

[William Anthony]

why do you do this? Fung testified that the presumptive tests were positive for blood.

you and martin can start down that road again with your hateful responses to other posters if you want to but you're not going to like the results. :shrug:

Yes false positives and I choose not to respond to the rest of your post and will ignore any similar ones in the future.

[William Anthony]

william, are all juries instructed not to make up their minds and not to decide the case until they've heard all of the evidence? do you know whether or not the criminal jury was given those instructions throughout the trial?

I do believe that is standard. Did the criminal jury deliberate before being instructed to so do, to your knowledge?

[Parker]

I believe you and martin both know what you are doing with your hateful, disrespectful posts. you've managed to run off everyone with your not so pointed jabs -- but like you say, rock on. we'll see where and when this ends.

I think I'm getting the picture now why so many OJ threads have been locked down. Bob August makes a good point about the attacks on Ron and Nicole coming from behind.

[weezer]

I do believe that is standard. Did the criminal jury deliberate before being instructed to so do, to your knowledge?

at least one of them said they did --

[William Anthony]

at least one of them said they did --

Link, please?

[William Anthony]

Martin makes an excellent point about a closed fist in a glove when someone attacks the neck of another from behind.

[weezer]

Martin makes an excellent point about a closed fist in a glove when someone attacks the neck of another from behind.

in your scenario you said you would go for a finger -- what makes you think that during the struggle Ron didn't do exactly that? if someone had their arm around my neck, I would be grabbing and pulling at the hand to get the arm off.

[weezer]

Link, please?

MORAN: Well, sir, I'll tell you why. We've been sitting on this case for nine months. We've taken this case serious for nine months; we didn't take it serious for four hours, we've taken it serious for nine months. So, we had nine months to weigh the evidence. So we knew when we looked at the evidence in the jury room in deliberations ... we went over it again ... it didn't take us nine for months to figure it out. We're not that ignorant.

[serpentsfall]

You begin some of your post with your assumptions. The value of an opening statement is to tell the jury what the evidence will be. The value of a closing argument is to persuade the jury that the evidence agrees with your theory of what happened. You are right that the jury and you can reject the prosecution's theory or if it does not fit... What that jury was not allowed to do is to speculate but they can draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and, if their common sense tells them it is unreasonable or, if you will, it does not fit... However, you are able to speculate to make the evidence fit your assumptions, because you were not part of that jury. What I am saying is that the jury was not able to redefine reasonable doubt based on speculation. The burden of proof is twofold-the burden of production and the burden of persuasion, which, imho, the prosecution failed miserably in both prongs.

The prosecution doesn't always correctly interpret the evidence they put on. If pieces of a jigsaw puzzle are missing, and you don't have the box with the picture of what the final picture should look like, you can still often figure out what the puzzle is if you have enough pieces. I recall the trial of Mark Jensen last year where the jury was able to make sense of his deceased wife's dying declaration letter after they laid it next to a "to-do" list Jensen had made. What once seemed like a rambling, incoherent letter suddenly made perfect sense thanks to the jury's effort to piece the evidence together.

[serpentsfall]

But there was no proof that any one came through the bushes and trees and jumped that fence.According to three detectives and fung did not see any blood on the sweats.imo

That's why the sweats were washed right away - so nobody would easily see the blood. Who knew LE would get into the Rockingham house and grounds before OJ returned? OJ was an ex-husband; the only reason the cops should have come to his door because of the death of his ex-wife would be to bring his kids over. And I agree with the hypothesis that Arnelle was asked to bring over some items that were obviously her own and run them through another cycle with the sweats before LE got there.

[GreenIce]

She wasn't acting particularly intimidated earlier that evening when she intentionally didn't invite him to dine with them at Messaluna. He wasn't trying to hide his identity; I propose he was "acting" - messing with her head. Even if Fuhrman DID plant the glove at Rockingham, where was Simpson's Bronco that night? Park said it wasn't there when he drove up. Such a vehicle was seen speeding away from the Bundy area that night. How did Goldman's blood get in the Bronco?

Serpentsfall,

My point is that Simpson did not need to dress the part to intimidate Nicole. I do not believe Park was lying and testified to what he thought he saw or didn't see. However, there is the question if Park, while outside smoking, would have heard the Bronco drive up. Would he have seen the gate being opened?

I am pretty sure that in Simpson's circle there were at least white Broncos, Paula's, A.C.'s and Simpson's. I am sure that these three people are not the only people that drive a white Bronco.

The problem I have with the Jill Schively story is that she claims Simpson was so angry and in such a hurry, he stuck his head out of the window to scream at the other driver. Well if was trying to hide his identity, then why stick his head out of the window? Why draw attention to himself? Why not just let the other car drive away? Also, where is the other driver? What would that driver's testimony be? Would it be the same as JS'? If this driver did come forward his/her's story may have a lot different on several key points.

While it is common belief the "true" reason Clark didn't use JS was because of the timeline. However, I believe there is a lot more to it.

You ask a very good question, how did Goldman's blood get into the Bronco. However, I have another couple questions---when did his blood get into the Bronco and who's blood was the unidentified blood in the Bronco--some one of hispanic decent, I think that was the testimony.

One more thing, Paula's Bronco was stolen and used to stalk Nicole--so if someone would steal Paula's white bronco to stalk her, is it that hard to believe that someone would still Simpson's bronco and kill her? The case has more questions then answers, IMO.

[GreenIce]

That's why the sweats were washed right away - so nobody would easily see the blood. Who knew LE would get into the Rockingham house and grounds before OJ returned? OJ was an ex-husband; the only reason the cops should have come to his door because of the death of his ex-wife would be to bring his kids over. And I agree with the hypothesis that Arnelle was asked to bring over some items that were obviously her own and run them through another cycle with the sweats before LE got there.

Serpentsfall,

If you can, put yourself in the mode to murder your ex--with a knife. By the time you finished the deed, you knew you had to get rid of the clothes, shoes, weapon, etc., because of the blood on them. Would you honestly think that throwing the bloody clothes in the washing machine would do the trick? Have we all forgotten just how hard it is to get blood out of clothes, doesn't matter, light or dark, blood is very hard to get out clothes.

Who would have contacted Arnelle to do a load of wash? Simpson's where abouts were well documented, if it was him who called her, then there would have been records of it.

It makes no sense that Simpson would have done just an awesome of job getting rid of the shoes and the knife, that he would risk tossing the bloody clothes into the washing machine.

BTW, was Kato ever asked if heard a washing machine while he was in that area with Simpson?

There is no evidence that the clothes in the washing machine contained a sweat suit and that sweat suit could only have been OJ's Simpson's. We know at least one person handled it and I don't think he ever testifed about these clothes. We have only heard sound bytes about his alleged reasoning.

Petrocelli floated the theory that Arnelle was his accomplice, well if he firmly believed that, then why weren't charges filed against her? She would be just as guilty as her father and at least one Simpson would have ended up behind bars.

[William Anthony]

MORAN: Well, sir, I'll tell you why. We've been sitting on this case for nine months. We've taken this case serious for nine months; we didn't take it serious for four hours, we've taken it serious for nine months. So, we had nine months to weigh the evidence. So we knew when we looked at the evidence in the jury room in deliberations ... we went over it again ... it didn't take us nine for months to figure it out. We're not that ignorant.

So, they listened to all the evidence and weighed the evidence they heard and came to a final decision during deliberations. They followed the instructions. Thanks.

[serpentsfall]

Serpentsfall,

My point is that Simpson did not need to dress the part to intimidate Nicole. I do not believe Park was lying and testified to what he thought he saw or didn't see. However, there is the question if Park, while outside smoking, would have heard the Bronco drive up. Would he have seen the gate being opened?

I am pretty sure that in Simpson's circle there were at least white Broncos, Paula's, A.C.'s and Simpson's. I am sure that these three people are not the only people that drive a white Bronco.

The problem I have with the Jill Schively story is that she claims Simpson was so angry and in such a hurry, he stuck his head out of the window to scream at the other driver. Well if was trying to hide his identity, then why stick his head out of the window? Why draw attention to himself? Why not just let the other car drive away? Also, where is the other driver? What would that driver's testimony be? Would it be the same as JS'? If this driver did come forward his/her's story may have a lot different on several key points.

While it is common belief the "true" reason Clark didn't use JS was because of the timeline. However, I believe there is a lot more to it.

You ask a very good question, how did Goldman's blood get into the Bronco. However, I have another couple questions---when did his blood get into the Bronco and who's blood was the unidentified blood in the Bronco--some one of hispanic decent, I think that was the testimony.

One more thing, Paula's Bronco was stolen and used to stalk Nicole--so if someone would steal Paula's white bronco to stalk her, is it that hard to believe that someone would still Simpson's bronco and kill her? The case has more questions then answers, IMO.

Recall that Simpson was sweating profusely...he probably had the window down to get some quick air. Who knows; maybe he felt sick. He was going to be out of town; he had no reason to think he was going to be an immediate suspect. I doubt he was thinking at the point Shively saw him - he was more likely simply reacting.

Wasn't OJ's housekeeper, who also used the Bronco, hispanic?

OJ didn't report his Bronco stolen - but then he's not too into making theft reports. And whose idea was it to stalk Nicole with Paula's stolen Bronco?

[GreenIce]

Here's an example -- posting that the sweats were collected and tested. Never happened.

TV,

Never did I post that.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution doesn't always correctly interpret the evidence they put on. If pieces of a jigsaw puzzle are missing, and you don't have the box with the picture of what the final picture should look like, you can still often figure out what the puzzle is if you have enough pieces. I recall the trial of Mark Jensen last year where the jury was able to make sense of his deceased wife's dying declaration letter after they laid it next to a "to-do" list Jensen had made. What once seemed like a rambling, incoherent letter suddenly made perfect sense thanks to the jury's effort to piece the evidence together.

The prosecution presented the note and I am not familiar with the prosecution in that case but in the Simpson case not only did they present evidence but they told a story of how the murders were committed. The jury in that case had two pieces of evidence from which they made sense. In the Simpson case the evidence was presented and the prosecution's persuasive evidence made no sense, imho. Therefore, the jury had reasonable doubt. They could not put the pieces of the puzzle together in the Simpson murder trial because the pieces did not fit and they had to acquit, imho.

[serpentsfall]

Serpentsfall,

If you can, put yourself in the mode to murder your ex--with a knife. By the time you finished the deed, you knew you had to get rid of the clothes, shoes, weapon, etc., because of the blood on them. Would you honestly think that throwing the bloody clothes in the washing machine would do the trick? Have we all forgotten just how hard it is to get blood out of clothes, doesn't matter, light or dark, blood is very hard to get out clothes.

Who would have contacted Arnelle to do a load of wash? Simpson's where abouts were well documented, if it was him who called her, then there would have been records of it.

It makes no sense that Simpson would have done just an awesome of job getting rid of the shoes and the knife, that he would risk tossing the bloody clothes into the washing machine.

BTW, was Kato ever asked if heard a washing machine while he was in that area with Simpson?

There is no evidence that the clothes in the washing machine contained a sweat suit and that sweat suit could only have been OJ's Simpson's. We know at least one person handled it and I don't think he ever testifed about these clothes. We have only heard sound bytes about his alleged reasoning.

Petrocelli floated the theory that Arnelle was his accomplice, well if he firmly believed that, then why weren't charges filed against her? She would be just as guilty as her father and at least one Simpson would have ended up behind bars.

You're assuming this was a well thought-out event instead of a series of reactions. Nobody but the person who was operating the washer was in the Rockingham house. They didn't run the dryer, which usually vents outside, so its not likely it would be heard outside. I wish the contents of that washer had been entered as evidence, but in the final analysis, it matters no more or less than any of our posts and opinions. Its water under the bridge at this point. I would be interested to know if there is evidence of any phone calls being made to Arnelle that night.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, only fresh blood appears red. Older blood turns brown. We know Simpson’s blood found at Bundy was not old based on the appearance of the blood drops. Simpson testified the last time he was at Bundy was about a week earlier and did not recall bleeding there then or on prior visits.

Michael Terrazas October 28, 1996

Q. Can you put on the board exhibit 76, please? (Steve complies.) We have exhibit 76.
And was the 117 marker there when you saw this area in the morning hours of June 13?
A. No, the marker was not there.
Q. And what is the object next to it?
A. It appears to be of blood.
Q. And could you describe whether or not that was a drop of blood that you saw in the early morning hours of June 13?
A. It appears to be the same drop of blood I observed on that night.
Q. Now, the drop of blood, as you observed it that night, can you describe it?
A. Bright red in color, looked moist.


Dennis Fung November 4, 1996

Q. Did Detective Lange point out to you any particular items of evidence that he wanted collected?
A. Yes, he did. He showed me keys, a pager, glove, and a cap in the caged area, and then there was a series of blood drops along the north side of the Bundy house. Q. And these blood drops that you described, what condition did they appear to you to be in?
A. They --
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: The blood drops appeared to be fairly fresh, meaning that they were red and had a slight tacky appearance to them.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

I was not responding to the age of the blood. A post was made about LE not obligated to collect every single speck of blood at a crime scene and I posted why I disagreed with the statement.

As you have posted testimony about how the blood appeared--however, there is no way for anyone to look at the drops and determine who's blood it is, if it is standing alone or is a mixture of other's blood.

I'm not even going there about the age of the blood. I know you and I feel differently about this so I am just leaving it alone. However, I do find it intersting that both Lange and Clark made the same basic statement, you can't determine the "age" of blood.

[serpentsfall]

The prosecution presented the note and I am not familiar with the prosecution in that case but in the Simpson case not only did they present evidence but they told a story of how the murders were committed. The jury in that case had two pieces of evidence from which they made sense. In the Simpson case the evidence was presented and the prosecution's persuasive evidence made no sense, imho. Therefore, the jury had reasonable doubt. They could not put the pieces of the puzzle together in the Simpson murder trial because the pieces did not fit and they had to acquit, imho.

I agree. For all the books they later wrote, the prosecution was terrible at laying out a plausible story the jury could believe.

[GreenIce]

Lee knew to check the air conditioner. Fung should have also. When blood is seen it should be collected because it could belong to someone not in the current picture. suspects imo

Martin,

If Fung was able to find a tiny speck of blood on the wire, then I am pretty sure he would have looked at the AC unit. However, isn't he only suppose to collect evidence that the detectives point out to him?

[GreenIce]

You're assuming this was a well thought-out event instead of a series of reactions. Nobody but the person who was operating the washer was in the Rockingham house. They didn't run the dryer, which usually vents outside, so its not likely it would be heard outside. I wish the contents of that washer had been entered as evidence, but in the final analysis, it matters no more or less than any of our posts and opinions. Its water under the bridge at this point. I would be interested to know if there is evidence of any phone calls being made to Arnelle that night.

Serpentsfall,

I don't think it takes a really smart person to know how hard it is to rid of blood, really on any surface, let alone clothes. I don't know if this has ever happend to you but I remember one time when I was little, I was wearing my brand new school uniform. Well I was playing ball in my uniform and somehow I got cut. I will never forget my mother's first reaction, "You're getting blood on your uniform!". Now, I am a mother and my son plays hockey. This year, he got cut again, I had to walk all the way over to the bench and the first thing I said to him was, "you got blood on your uniform, it will never come out!". The fact that I had to take him to hospital to get stitches still did not change the fact that I was never going to get the blood of his uniform.

In regards to our speculation about the contents in the washer is basically correct--if we treat this as just the only opportunity missed in regards to the evidence in this case. However, there is way too many pieces of evidence that was some how missed, contaminated/destroyed, tossed out, etc., to ignore. IMO. Fung's alleged reasoning on why he did not collect the clothes doesn't add up with his testimony on why he collected the socks.

[GreenIce]

Recall that Simpson was sweating profusely...he probably had the window down to get some quick air. Who knows; maybe he felt sick. He was going to be out of town; he had no reason to think he was going to be an immediate suspect. I doubt he was thinking at the point Shively saw him - he was more likely simply reacting.

Wasn't OJ's housekeeper, who also used the Bronco, hispanic?

OJ didn't report his Bronco stolen - but then he's not too into making theft reports. And whose idea was it to stalk Nicole with Paula's stolen Bronco?

Serpentsfall,

First off, Simpson did know he was the prime suspect. Apparently the only 4 people in the world who did not know that the ex or spouse is the prime suspect was Lange, Vanatter, Fuhrman and Philips!

You may be correct why, if it was Simpson, he did those things. However, the real issue is that there was another witness who could have confirmed JS's story.

For some reason, I thought the housekeep was Asian but she may be hispanic. Perhaps the DA's should have asked her for a sample of DNA so they would know if it was her's? I also do know recall when the this person's DNA's was found--was it before or after Goldman's blood was found?

Did that DNA match the five blood drops left at Bundy? Lange said there was no way to tell when it was left there--what if the DNA in those drops match the DNA in the Bronco?

Who ever stole Paula's Bronco to stalk Nicole either was a truly stupid man or he was very clever. Still haven't figured that one out yet!

[bobaugust]

Even if only the sleeves of his sweatshirt were bloody, the knife and shoes would have been bloody. There wasn't enough blood in the Bronco to indicate the bloody knife was laid anywhere, was there? That's why I think he likely wrapped it in his sweatshirt for the ride home. He was probably also using his sweatshirt to stem the bloodflow from his cut finger while in the Bronco. He'd put his shirt back on to keep from getting scratched going over the back fence.

Serpentsfall, Simpson left most of the blood he stepped through, on the long walkway to the rear gate at Bundy. His bloody shoe prints disappeared about half way to the gate. When Simpson got into his Bronco, the remainder of blood up in the grooves of the Silga sole on his left shoe was transferred to the Bronco carpet just to the left of the break pedal. Although Bodziak, the shoe expert, could not definitively say that the partial print came from the Silga sole because it was a reverse shoe print, he pointed out some parallel lines and squiggles that were consistent with the design elements and border of Silga soles. That imprint was made with Nicole’s blood. The remainder of blood up in the grooves of Simpson’s shoe soles was transferred to the grass and dirt he walked across to get to his fence behind Kaelin’s room.

Yes there was blood on the knife and on Simpson right hand glove. Based on the different mixtures of blood from the victims and Simpson that were found on the Bronco center console it is not unreasonable to believe Simpson put the knife and glove on the center console. The reason that there was so little blood found, only stains, is that Simpson attempted to wipe up any blood he saw leaving only light stains, before he left his Bronco. But it was dark in the Bronco and Simpson missed seeing his own small blood drops that had splattered all over the interior of the car, on the driver’s door, the instrument panel, and the steering wheel. He also never saw any of the blood that dripped down the center console which was found by SID crime lab technicians’ weeks later when the passenger seat was removed and the substance Luminol, a sophisticated but toxic spray on chemical that makes blood glow in the dark, was used.

We believe that Simpson put the towel he used to wipe up the blood he did see on the center console into the small dark colored knapsack along with the knife and his right hand glove. After scaling his fence to get onto his property, slamming into the wall and unknowingly dropping his glove, he made his way around to the front of his house and left the knapsack on his driveway in the dark shadows of his Bentley on the way to his front entrance where he was seen by Allan Park.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I understood and I politely told you that I would rely on my recollection as opposed to yours due to the frequency that I have had to correct you in the past about posts that were inaccurate. Politeness is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder but let's not sweat (pun intended) the small stuff. :)

William Anthony, I'm not going to get into a spitting contest with you as to who proved who wrong more but the fact is that there was never a photograph taken of Dennis Fung holding a sweat suit. There was a photograph described in Marcia Clark's book of Dennis Fung in Simpson's bathroom holding some black material that he had taken out of Simpson's laundry hamper. Mark Fuhrman wrote on further inspection the dark objects Fung was holding were flat and rectangular, definitely not clothing, but more likely the same kind of black towels that were shown hanging on the edge of the hamper and on the towel rack.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Then Martin is correct as presumptive tests yield false positives for blood and a presumptive test is only an indication that it may be blood, vegetables or bleach, as I believe you well know.:)

The truth of the matter is that since the presumptive tests indicated the presence of blood in the drains, then there very well could have been blood in the drains.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I don't have the time to so do right now but we all know that was said. I know that if I had the strength to pull a glove off I would have had the strength to pull back a finger, which is what I would do in order to inflict pain and stop someone from stabbing me.

I’m sorry to say that what you think you might do or what I think I might do if attacked in a small enclosed area and overwhelmed by someone bigger and stronger who was armed with a deadly weapon, is completely meaningless to the facts in this case.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

I was not responding to the age of the blood. A post was made about LE not obligated to collect every single speck of blood at a crime scene and I posted why I disagreed with the statement.

As you have posted testimony about how the blood appeared--however, there is no way for anyone to look at the drops and determine who's blood it is, if it is standing alone or is a mixture of other's blood.

I'm not even going there about the age of the blood. I know you and I feel differently about this so I am just leaving it alone. However, I do find it intersting that both Lange and Clark made the same basic statement, you can't determine the "age" of blood.

GreenIce, the fact is that when blood dries and ages it changes appearance. Only fresh blood will appear to be bright red and moist, not older dried blood. The fact is that Simpson’s fresh blood was found at Bundy and based on the fact that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson sock had little or no degradation means it was fresh blood when it splattered or splashed onto his sock.

bobaugust

[Parker]

Recall that Simpson was sweating profusely...he probably had the window down to get some quick air. Who knows; maybe he felt sick. He was going to be out of town; he had no reason to think he was going to be an immediate suspect. I doubt he was thinking at the point Shively saw him - he was more likely simply reacting.

Wasn't OJ's housekeeper, who also used the Bronco, hispanic?

OJ didn't report his Bronco stolen - but then he's not too into making theft reports. And whose idea was it to stalk Nicole with Paula's stolen Bronco?


That's really clever. ;) He does have his own way of solving 'theft' issues, doesn't he?

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, I'm not going to get into a spitting contest with you as to who proved who wrong more but the fact is that there was never a photograph taken of Dennis Fung holding a sweat suit. There was a photograph described in Marcia Clark's book of Dennis Fung in Simpson's bathroom holding some black material that he had taken out of Simpson's laundry hamper. Mark Fuhrman wrote on further inspection the dark objects Fung was holding were flat and rectangular, definitely not clothing, but more likely the same kind of black towels that were shown hanging on the edge of the hamper and on the towel rack.

bobaugust

MF wrote. End of discussion for me.:) You drew first blood, remember, in your post claiming I made incorrect posts.

[William Anthony]

The truth of the matter is that since the presumptive tests indicated the presence of blood in the drains, then there very well could have been blood in the drains.

bobaugust

I have never said that it could not have been blood in the drains, just as I have said it may not have been since presumptive tests yield false positives. I have said that DF never testified he found blood in the drains as was claimed by another poster and no matter how one tries to spin the testimony the fact remains he never testified to finding blood in the drains.

[William Anthony]

I’m sorry to say that what you think you might do or what I think I might do if attacked in a small enclosed area and overwhelmed by someone bigger and stronger who was armed with a deadly weapon, is completely meaningless to the facts in this case.

I am really sharing too much information with you but I have been stabbed in my youth, four times in my youth by three different people. If you have ever been stabbed, you would know that a knife doesn't hurt when it goes in but the pain is excruciating when it comes out. The first time two people grabbed me and they and I fell to the ground as they were holding me. The other person stabbed me in the back of my leg as I believe they were aiming for my stomach but I through my leg up. The person withdrew the knife and started for me again, I through up my other leg. The people, who were holding me, were my friends and had grabbed me to stop the fight. When they heard my screams they let go of me and grabbed the other person taking the knife from him but he fled. I was taken to the hospital. When I saw the person that stabbed me, I politely returned the favor by stabbing him twice. As I have said that was in my youth in a town where, if you let one person get away with harming you, others were sure to try.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by serpentsfall View Post
Recall that Simpson was sweating profusely...he probably had the window down to get some quick air. Who knows; maybe he felt sick. He was going to be out of town; he had no reason to think he was going to be an immediate suspect. I doubt he was thinking at the point Shively saw him - he was more likely simply reacting.

Of course, he wasn't thinking that JS saw him. Neither The prosecution nor the plaintiffs put her on the stand to testify she did. Even when he was at his fastest, he was not able to be near Bundy and at Rockingham at the same time.:)

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, the fact is that when blood dries and ages it changes appearance. Only fresh blood will appear to be bright red and moist, not older dried blood. The fact is that Simpson’s fresh blood was found at Bundy and based on the fact that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson sock had little or no degradation means it was fresh blood when it splattered or splashed onto his sock.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Again, that wasn't my point. However, if you insist......

Clark did not use Simpson's statement even though he said he had not been to Nicole's about 10 days prior to the murders--because she said that Cochran was going to make the case of it being old blood.

There were 5 unidentified blood drops found at the scene, yet Lange gave the impression that this was not followed up on because there was no way to determine when it was left there.

As to what the arriving officers saw---I still can't figure out how they saw the "fresh blood drops", the hat and glove but missed a bloody finger print on the gate. They knew the killer exited through that gate.

[GreenIce]

Of course, he wasn't thinking that JS saw him. Neither The prosecution nor the plaintiffs put her on the stand to testify she did. Even when he was at his fastest, he was not able to be near Bundy and at Rockingham at the same time.:)

William,

After JS' story hit the media, I remember she was credited with having to have said that when she first looked at the driver of the Bronco, she thought it was Marcus Allen. I am not saying that she said this or how this came about but I do have to wonder if perhaps Clark was told that JS had made that comment. JS not only destroyed Clark's timeline but if she made that comment, then she destroys Clark's prime suspect, IMO.

Have you ever heard that the other driver was found? I also to wonder if other cars saw this.

[William Anthony]

William,

After JS' story hit the media, I remember she was credited with having to have said that when she first looked at the driver of the Bronco, she thought it was Marcus Allen. I am not saying that she said this or how this came about but I do have to wonder if perhaps Clark was told that JS had made that comment. JS not only destroyed Clark's timeline but if she made that comment, then she destroys Clark's prime suspect, IMO.

Have you ever heard that the other driver was found? I also to wonder if other cars saw this.

I have never heard that her story was verified by anyone. I think that, if she did say the driver was MA, then this would have been devastating to the prosecution's case, which if the defense could have verified she said it was MA, they would have called her. I believe Ms. Shively was looking for her 15 minutes of fame but chose the wrong 15 minutes.

[William Anthony]

You're assuming this was a well thought-out event instead of a series of reactions. Nobody but the person who was operating the washer was in the Rockingham house. They didn't run the dryer, which usually vents outside, so its not likely it would be heard outside. I wish the contents of that washer had been entered as evidence, but in the final analysis, it matters no more or less than any of our posts and opinions. Its water under the bridge at this point. I would be interested to know if there is evidence of any phone calls being made to Arnelle that night.

I must say that you are more inclined than some to consider both sides of an issue. You make remarks about assumptions and you readily admit you make assumptions. This is probably most human in that we all make assumptions. I try not to but try to look at the evidence and what inferences can be drawn from it. I do not assume that the evidence is one thing and then try to make scenarios that fit my assumptions (or at least I hope I don't):). This is not a criticism of anyone as I have said it is only human nature and this in effect is a problem with selecting a jury and Due Process. I only discuss it because it is something that of which I must remain cognizant, if life should permit me to become a licensed lawyer.

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

It is my understanding that we had formed a cordial relationship after many debates on how we view the evidence. I would like to continue that relationship without interference from others into our established cordiality. I will say that you are as adamant in your feelings that Simpson is guilty as I am in my belief that there was reasonable doubt. I have decided that, if we can't remain cordial, then I simply will not respond to your or any other poster's post, as I believe that is in line with the moderator's instructions.

[weezer]

Serpentsfall,

My point is that Simpson did not need to dress the part to intimidate Nicole. I do not believe Park was lying and testified to what he thought he saw or didn't see. However, there is the question if Park, while outside smoking, would have heard the Bronco drive up. Would he have seen the gate being opened? Park did not testify that he was standing outside his vehicle smoking when he saw the 'figure.' Park testified that he was inside his car talking on the phone to his boss.

I am pretty sure that in Simpson's circle there were at least white Broncos, Paula's, A.C.'s and Simpson's. I am sure that these three people are not the only people that drive a white Bronco. come on now -- what are the odds?

The problem I have with the Jill Schively story is that she claims Simpson was so angry and in such a hurry, he stuck his head out of the window to scream at the other driver. Well if was trying to hide his identity, then why stick his head out of the window? Why draw attention to himself? Why not just let the other car drive away? Also, where is the other driver? What would that driver's testimony be? Would it be the same as JS'? If this driver did come forward his/her's story may have a lot different on several key points. I think we can all agree that if orenthal had been thinking right that night, he wouldn't have murdered two people; he wouldn't have left his hat, glove, hair, blood, fiber and size 12 footprints at the murder scene that night either.

While it is common belief the "true" reason Clark didn't use JS was because of the timeline. However, I believe there is a lot more to it. Clark didn't use JS because JS sold her story to the tabloids and the prosecutors believe that act jeopardized her testimony.

You ask a very good question, how did Goldman's blood get into the Bronco. However, I have another couple questions---when did his blood get into the Bronco and who's blood was the unidentified blood in the Bronco--some one of hispanic decent, I think that was the testimony. There was no unidentified blood in the Bronco -- much less that of someone of hispanic descent.

One more thing, Paula's Bronco was stolen and used to stalk Nicole--so if someone would steal Paula's white bronco to stalk her, is it that hard to believe that someone would still Simpson's bronco and kill her? The case has more questions then answers, IMO.

there are too many things that directly connect orenthal to the murders and if someone is reasonable and logical, the answers are there.

[weezer]

Serpentsfall,

If you can, put yourself in the mode to murder your ex--with a knife. By the time you finished the deed, you knew you had to get rid of the clothes, shoes, weapon, etc., because of the blood on them. Would you honestly think that throwing the bloody clothes in the washing machine would do the trick? Have we all forgotten just how hard it is to get blood out of clothes, doesn't matter, light or dark, blood is very hard to get out clothes. what someone else would or would not do with bloody clothes is a non-issue. the facts are that a dark sweatsuit (along with women's lingerie) was found in the washing machine in orenthal's laundry room -- he obviuosly didn't know what else to do with them.

Who would have contacted Arnelle to do a load of wash? Simpson's where abouts were well documented, if it was him who called her, then there would have been records of it. why would there have been a record of it? he made other calls from the pay phone, what makes you think he he didn't call arnelle and tell her to start the wash?

It makes no sense that Simpson would have done just an awesome of job getting rid of the shoes and the knife, that he would risk tossing the bloody clothes into the washing machine. again, orenthal made stupid mistakes that night -- left his hair, blood, hat, glove, fiber and size 12 footprints at the crime scene.

BTW, was Kato ever asked if heard a washing machine while he was in that area with Simpson? if the washing wasn't done until after orenthal left the house, why would you believe kato would have heard the machine running?

There is no evidence that the clothes in the washing machine contained a sweat suit and that sweat suit could only have been OJ's Simpson's. We know at least one person handled it and I don't think he ever testifed about these clothes. We have only heard sound bytes about his alleged reasoning. there are video and pictures of the sweatsuit in the washer and no, it doesn't prove that it only belonged to orenthal. the sweatsuit proved #1 that orenthal lied about what he was wearing, #2 that Park saw exactly what he said he saw, #3 that arnelle helped her father clean up.

Petrocelli floated the theory that Arnelle was his accomplice, well if he firmly believed that, then why weren't charges filed against her? She would be just as guilty as her father and at least one Simpson would have ended up behind bars.

most people understand and believe that arnelle lied and covered up for her daddy. psst -- one Simpson is behind bars.

[weezer]

So, they listened to all the evidence and weighed the evidence they heard and came to a final decision during deliberations. They followed the instructions. Thanks.

they were good weren't they? they listened to 8-9 months of testimony, saw hundreds of pieces of evidence and bam! in less than four hours they 'got deliberated.'

[weezer]

Recall that Simpson was sweating profusely...he probably had the window down to get some quick air. Who knows; maybe he felt sick. He was going to be out of town; he had no reason to think he was going to be an immediate suspect. I doubt he was thinking at the point Shively saw him - he was more likely simply reacting.

Wasn't OJ's housekeeper, who also used the Bronco, hispanic? I believe she was but not sure what point you're making.

OJ didn't report his Bronco stolen - but then he's not too into making theft reports. And whose idea was it to stalk Nicole with Paula's stolen Bronco?

why would orenthal report his Bronco stolen? when was it stolen? IIRC, kardashian said it was orenthal's idea.

[bobaugust]

MF wrote. End of discussion for me.:) You drew first blood, remember, in your post claiming I made incorrect posts.

I drew first blood? No, I simply posted a polite response to your incorrect recollection that there is a photo of Dennis Fung holding a sweat suit outside of Simpson’s washing machine. If you think your recollection is correct then by all means produce something to support it. I would be very interested in seeing or knowing that such a photo exists.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Of course, he wasn't thinking that JS saw him. Neither The prosecution nor the plaintiffs put her on the stand to testify she did. Even when he was at his fastest, he was not able to be near Bundy and at Rockingham at the same time.:)

The only way Simpson was at Bundy and at Rockingham at the same time is if you want to believe estimated times are actual times. I believe It’s the order events happened in that tells us what Simpson did that night, not the different estimated times from different witnesses. I believe the only reliable time estimates in this case are the ones that are supported by telephone records.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Again, that wasn't my point. However, if you insist......

Clark did not use Simpson's statement even though he said he had not been to Nicole's about 10 days prior to the murders--because she said that Cochran was going to make the case of it being old blood.

There were 5 unidentified blood drops found at the scene, yet Lange gave the impression that this was not followed up on because there was no way to determine when it was left there.

As to what the arriving officers saw---I still can't figure out how they saw the "fresh blood drops", the hat and glove but missed a bloody finger print on the gate. They knew the killer exited through that gate.

GreenIce, the point is that neither Clark nor Lange ever said that “you can’t determine the age of blood” right? And Cochran never made the claim that five blood drops were old blood, right? The two patrol officers who first arrived at Bundy were not searching for or inspecting evidence; they saw what was obvious when they looked at the bodies and walked around the property.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have never heard that her story was verified by anyone. I think that, if she did say the driver was MA, then this would have been devastating to the prosecution's case, which if the defense could have verified she said it was MA, they would have called her. I believe Ms. Shively was looking for her 15 minutes of fame but chose the wrong 15 minutes.

I believe Shively testified truthfully to what she saw the night of the murders. Her run in with Simpson fits right in the time line starting with what Robert Hiedstra heard and saw and then what Kato Kaelin heard and Allan Park saw.

The story about Shively first thinking it was Marcus Allen she saw comes from Dick Wagner, not her testimony.

Right Before Our Eyes, Dick Wagner
http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/eyes.htm

“She saw that it was a large black man, and her immediate impression was that it was Marcus Allen, whom she had seen around Brentwood. But then the Bronco driver turned his face to her and glared, and she realized it was O.J. Simpson, whom she also knew on sight from that neighborhood. A moment later when the Bronco driver yelled at the Nissan, and she heard the voice, she was positive that the Bronco driver was O.J. Simpson. A minute after the encounter began the intersection was clear and the Bronco sped off.”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

bobaugust,

It is my understanding that we had formed a cordial relationship after many debates on how we view the evidence. I would like to continue that relationship without interference from others into our established cordiality. I will say that you are as adamant in your feelings that Simpson is guilty as I am in my belief that there was reasonable doubt. I have decided that, if we can't remain cordial, then I simply will not respond to your or any other poster's post, as I believe that is in line with the moderator's instructions.

I also thought we had established a cordial relationship after many debates. After what I thought was a polite correction to your incorrect recollection I was some what surprised by your impolite response referring to your use of IIRC and past debates regarding proof as well as your sarcastic use of the word “rocking” based on something some other poster said. Despite your comments I believe all my recent responses to you have been cordial and I intend to remain cordial. I hope you will do the same.

bobaugust

[weezer]

Serpentsfall,

I don't think it takes a really smart person to know how hard it is to rid of blood, really on any surface, let alone clothes. I don't know if this has ever happend to you but I remember one time when I was little, I was wearing my brand new school uniform. Well I was playing ball in my uniform and somehow I got cut. I will never forget my mother's first reaction, "You're getting blood on your uniform!". Now, I am a mother and my son plays hockey. This year, he got cut again, I had to walk all the way over to the bench and the first thing I said to him was, "you got blood on your uniform, it will never come out!". The fact that I had to take him to hospital to get stitches still did not change the fact that I was never going to get the blood of his uniform. now come one -- you know that orenthal isn't the shiniest fork in the drawer! :tongue: and I've never heard anyone claim that orenthal had any great expertise in washing clothes so why wouldn't his first action be to remove the sweatsuit and throw it in the washer?

In regards to our speculation about the contents in the washer is basically correct--if we treat this as just the only opportunity missed in regards to the evidence in this case. However, there is way too many pieces of evidence that was some how missed, contaminated/destroyed, tossed out, etc., to ignore. IMO. Fung's alleged reasoning on why he did not collect the clothes doesn't add up with his testimony on why he collected the socks.

It wasn't Fung's alleged reasoning about not collecting the sweatsuit -- at the time the sweatsuit was seen, LE had not heard kato's statement as to what orenthal was wearing that night and by the time they were able to get another warrant, guess what? the sweatsuit and women's lingerie were no longer around.

[weezer]

Mr. August,

I was not responding to the age of the blood. A post was made about LE not obligated to collect every single speck of blood at a crime scene and I posted why I disagreed with the statement.

As you have posted testimony about how the blood appeared--however, there is no way for anyone to look at the drops and determine who's blood it is, if it is standing alone or is a mixture of other's blood.

I'm not even going there about the age of the blood. I know you and I feel differently about this so I am just leaving it alone. However, I do find it intersting that both Lange and Clark made the same basic statement, you can't determine the "age" of blood.

orenthal testified that he hadn't been at Bundy for a couple of weeks and had not bled when he was there.

[weezer]

I agree. For all the books they later wrote, the prosecution was terrible at laying out a plausible story the jury could believe.

odd that the majority of people believe the prosecution did lay out a plausible story and believe that orenthal james simpson did murder Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. maybe the jury was blinded to the truth by their bias?

[William Anthony]

The only way Simpson was at Bundy and at Rockingham at the same time is if you want to believe estimated times are actual times. I believe It’s the order events happened in that tells us what Simpson did that night, not the different estimated times from different witnesses. I believe the only reliable time estimates in this case are the ones that are supported by telephone records.

bobaugust

I understand that you want to dismiss the testimony and want to believe that the times fit. The prosecution put the witnesses on and they testified as to what times certain events happened during the conversation. Those testimonies fit exactly in placing, whom some want to believe is Simpson behind Kato's quarters banging into or running into the wall and having him driving near Bundy as JS claimed. Obviously, the prosecution believed the witnesses, Kato and his girlfriend, to be more credible than JS, because she destroyed their time line. In order to make Simpson the murderer, one would have to impeach the testimony of the witnesses to include JS had the prosecution or the plaintiff's decided to use her. This anomaly reinforces my belief that there was reasonable doubt.

[weezer]

Serpentsfall,

First off, Simpson did know he was the prime suspect. Apparently the only 4 people in the world who did not know that the ex or spouse is the prime suspect was Lange, Vanatter, Fuhrman and Philips!

You may be correct why, if it was Simpson, he did those things. However, the real issue is that there was another witness who could have confirmed JS's story.

For some reason, I thought the housekeep was Asian but she may be hispanic. Perhaps the DA's should have asked her for a sample of DNA so they would know if it was her's? I also do know recall when the this person's DNA's was found--was it before or after Goldman's blood was found?

Did that DNA match the five blood drops left at Bundy? Lange said there was no way to tell when it was left there--what if the DNA in those drops match the DNA in the Bronco? orenthal's DNA matched the drops left at Bundy. and, the blood of the murderer and the victims were all found in the Bronco.

Who ever stole Paula's Bronco to stalk Nicole either was a truly stupid man or he was very clever. Still haven't figured that one out yet!

IIRC, kardashian said orenthal wanted Nicole spied on so I guess your first statement would be tru -- he was a truly stupid man.

[martin II]

why do you do this? Fung testified that the presumptive tests were positive for blood.

you and martin can start down that road again with your hateful responses to other posters if you want to but you're not going to like the results. :shrug:

Wezzer

I posted the differance between a presumptive positive for blood and the required confirmation test to prove the presumptive test.I don't understand why you don't get that.

I have seen no hatefuil post by anyone and don't understand why you continue to use negaticve comments with posters that don't agree with your ideas.imo

[William Anthony]

I also thought we had established a cordial relationship after many debates. After what I thought was a polite correction to your incorrect recollection I was some what surprised by your impolite response referring to your use of IIRC and past debates regarding proof as well as your sarcastic use of the word “rocking” based on something some other poster said. Despite your comments I believe all my recent responses to you have been cordial and I intend to remain cordial. I hope you will do the same.

bobaugust

We shall do all within our respective powers to remain cordial. I will not address the obvious ploy, imho, of another poster and, only say that after his comment, you felt compelled to state my recollection was incorrect and supported your comment by a statement of a convicted perjurer. At this point, I will rely on my recollection and I do not mean any offense. I think we both recognize the problem and are wise and intelligent enough to make the proper adjustments so that we can remain cordial. :)

[William Anthony]

I drew first blood? No, I simply posted a polite response to your incorrect recollection that there is a photo of Dennis Fung holding a sweat suit outside of Simpson’s washing machine. If you think your recollection is correct then by all means produce something to support it. I would be very interested in seeing or knowing that such a photo exists.

bobaugust

It is my firm belief that I saw that picture on my tapes. However, I am not up to looking through them and don't have a workable VCR, presently. I rely on my recollection and you rely on MF's. :) This is truly lighthearted banter.

[martin II]

in your scenario you said you would go for a finger -- what makes you think that during the struggle Ron didn't do exactly that? if someone had their arm around my neck, I would be grabbing and pulling at the hand to get the arm off.

The hand was out of reach as it would be at rons right ear.maby you don't know what a headlock position looks like.

[William Anthony]

IIRC, kardashian said orenthal wanted Nicole spied on so I guess your first statement would be tru -- he was a truly stupid man.

Who was convicted of the murder of Ms. NBS?

[William Anthony]

The hand was out of reach as it would be at rons right ear.maby you don't know what a headlock position looks like.

Martin,

I thought that Mr. RG was in an upright position and that, after just doing an experiment with my son, based on that premise, he grabbed my closed fist to pull my arm away, making it impossible for the glove to have come off in that manner or in the manner the prosecution claimed. I did not consider the headlock position, which may have been a possibility. Either way, it is my opinion, that the glove wouldn't have come off as the prosecution claimed.

[martin II]

That's why the sweats were washed right away - so nobody would easily see the blood. Who knew LE would get into the Rockingham house and grounds before OJ returned? OJ was an ex-husband; the only reason the cops should have come to his door because of the death of his ex-wife would be to bring his kids over. And I agree with the hypothesis that Arnelle was asked to bring over some items that were obviously her own and run them through another cycle with the sweats before LE got there.

The ex is always the first suspect. oj had to know the bodies would be discovered quickly. That le would be to his house with a crew to search as they did. That the house and property would be searched. He had the option
of several bags to carry the items away. Some say he carried the knife and shoes away and left the bloody sweat suite in a washer to be found.Why wash a item when the objective is to get rid of it.

[William Anthony]

odd that the majority of people believe the prosecution did lay out a plausible story and believe that orenthal james simpson did murder Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. maybe the jury was blinded to the truth by their bias?

Would that be the minority of the majority, who believe Simpson to be guilty of murder?

[William Anthony]

The ex is always the first suspect. oj had to know the bodies would be discovered quickly. That le would be to his house with a crew to search as they did. That the house and property would be searched. He had the option
of several bags to carry the items away. Some say he carried the knife and shoes away and left the bloody sweat suite in a washer to be found.Why wash a item when the objective is to get rid of it.

If it does not fit...

[William Anthony]

orenthal testified that he hadn't been at Bundy for a couple of weeks and had not bled when he was there.

IIRC, he testified that he did not recall bleeding there.

[martin II]

Martin,

I thought that Mr. RG was in an upright position and that, after just doing an experiment with my son, based on that premise, he grabbed my closed fist to pull my arm away, making it impossible for the glove to have come off in that manner or in the manner the prosecution claimed. I did not consider the headlock position, which may have been a possibility. Either way, it is my opinion, that the glove wouldn't have come off as the prosecution claimed.

In a headlock position the killers inside elbow would be tight at Rons mouth.his closed fist would be around at Rons right ear.If Ron tugged at anything it would be the killers inside elbow. I also believe that at some point Ron was forced into a sitting position with killer behind him for more control of him and this may account for the blood on rons jeans.

If it was necessary to insert each finger into those channels of these tight fitting gloves it would be necessary to tug at each finger to get the glove off.imo

[William Anthony]

In a headlock position the killers inside elbow would be tight at Rons mouth.his closed fist would be around at Rons right ear.If Ron tugged at anything it would be the killers inside elbow. I also believe that at some point Ron was forced into a sitting position with killer behind him for more control of him and this may account for the blood on rons jeans.

If it was necessary to insert each finger into those channels of these tight fitting gloves it would be necessary to tug at each finger to get the glove off.imo

ITA and, if Mr. RG was in an upright position and the killer grabbed him around the neck the elbow would bend around the neck, placing a closed fist near to Mr. RG's right shoulder.

[tv]

The ex is always the first suspect. oj had to know the bodies would be discovered quickly. That le would be to his house with a crew to search as they did. That the house and property would be searched. He had the option
of several bags to carry the items away. Some say he carried the knife and shoes away and left the bloody sweat suite in a washer to be found.Why wash a item when the objective is to get rid of it.
martin, if I lived close to you I'd make you one of my Pineapple Upside-Down Supreme cakes! :beer:

[William Anthony]

martin, if I lived close to you I'd make you one of my Pineapple Upside-Down Supreme cakes! :beer:

Don't eat it, Martin!!!:) Good Morning again Ms. Tvdinner.

[martin II]

I agree. For all the books they later wrote, the prosecution was terrible at laying out a plausible story the jury could believe.

Bingo

That was a major problem the prosecution created for themselves and some experts agree with you.

The jury sat and waited for the prosecution to give them the complete story
sort of like to book or movie. A to Z . The story they told did Not sound true.

One expert commented about the closings of both.
'the prosecution focused on abuse and the defense walked the jury through the evidence'

[martin II]

martin, if I lived close to you I'd make you one of my Pineapple Upside-Down Supreme cakes! :beer:

And i would attack it promptly.Cakes are my problem.:cool:

[tv]

Don't eat it, Martin!!!:) Good Morning again Ms. Tvdinner.Good morning. Why, William, do you suspect me of having ulterior motives? I wouldn't harm a single hair on martin's head. :)

[tv]

And i would attack it promptly.Cakes are my problem.:cool: You keep making statements admitting OJ Simpson is the killer and I might make you all my special cakes. :)

[William Anthony]

Good morning. Why, William, do you suspect me of having ulterior motives? I wouldn't harm a single hair on martin's head. :)

It wasn't his head hair I was concerned about. I just wanted him to be able to continue to think and communicate and not suffer from a sugar attack.:)

[tv]

TV,

Never did I post that.

This is post #1201 posted by you.

TV,

A news station reported the police did take the sweats from the washer, they were tested and no blood was found.

[martin II]

IIRC, kardashian said orenthal wanted Nicole spied on so I guess your first statement would be tru -- he was a truly stupid man.

RK hired a addict to steal Paulas white bronco according to MN. The addict is now dead.

[tv]

It wasn't his head hair I was concerned about. I just wanted him to be able to continue to think and communicate and not suffer from a sugar attack.:)
Oh, I see. If martin has a sugar problem I'll make it with Splenda. :)

[William Anthony]

Oh, I see. If martin has a sugar problem I'll make it with Splenda. :)

Beware of strangers bearing gifts, especially those over anxious to please. :)

[martin II]

This is post #1201 posted by you.

TV,

A news station reported the police did take the sweats from the washer, they were tested and no blood was found.

How does one post a link to a news station story.Remember the news story
leaked by the prosecution about some blood results connecting oj when the test results had not been done.People post claims made in books here every day.

[martin II]

That's why the sweats were washed right away - so nobody would easily see the blood. Who knew LE would get into the Rockingham house and grounds before OJ returned? OJ was an ex-husband; the only reason the cops should have come to his door because of the death of his ex-wife would be to bring his kids over. And I agree with the hypothesis that Arnelle was asked to bring over some items that were obviously her own and run them through another cycle with the sweats before LE got there.

In answer to your earlier question.

Oj was on a plane at about 11 45 or 12:00. Arnell got home at about 1:30 2:00 am.

So if oj called Arnell after he arrived in chicago from his hotel the call would be long distance from Chicago to Arnells room which was connected to his house phone.This call would be on the phone records from the hotel room if le
decided he did call his home before they arrived. Since this was not presented in the trial i assume le did not believe the story.imo

[tv]

How does one post a link to a news station story.Remember the news story
leaked by the prosecution about some blood results connecting oj when the test results had not been done.People post claims made in books here every day.

martin, I'm getting tired of beating this dead horse. She posted it as fact. If that's okay with everyone else on the forum then it's okay with me. The next time I post something that you're not sure is from a reliable source please don't ask me to support my claim. :)

[William Anthony]

I read some of Rubin's testimony yesterday and there was a reason, imho, that the gloves were so expensive. They had a computer in them. He kept saying the gloves had memory.:)

[martin II]

there are too many things that directly connect orenthal to the murders and if someone is reasonable and logical, the answers are there.

Park was across the street from the Ashford gate either sitting on the curb or standing behind his limo at the time oj would have arrived in the bronco.
It was reported that that Model Bronco had a very loud muffler and would have been heard by him if he had been paying attention.Maby he was concentrating on his smokes and relaxing.

[martin II]

I believe Shively testified truthfully to what she saw the night of the murders. Her run in with Simpson fits right in the time line starting with what Robert Hiedstra heard and saw and then what Kato Kaelin heard and Allan Park saw.

The story about Shively first thinking it was Marcus Allen she saw comes from Dick Wagner, not her testimony.

Right Before Our Eyes, Dick Wagner
http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/eyes.htm

“She saw that it was a large black man, and her immediate impression was that it was Marcus Allen, whom she had seen around Brentwood. But then the Bronco driver turned his face to her and glared, and she realized it was O.J. Simpson, whom she also knew on sight from that neighborhood. A moment later when the Bronco driver yelled at the Nissan, and she heard the voice, she was positive that the Bronco driver was O.J. Simpson. A minute after the encounter began the intersection was clear and the Bronco sped off.”

bobaugust


js said her car clock was off by 8-9 minutes then she said she left home, at 10:45. Her time was off and this may have been one reason Clarke did not use her.Clarke said JS lied.

[tv]

I read some of Rubin's testimony yesterday and there was a reason, imho, that the gloves were so expensive. They had a computer in them. He kept saying the gloves had memory.:)
Too bad they really didn't have a memory...or even a tape recorder. :rolleyes:

[serpentsfall]

I understand that you want to dismiss the testimony and want to believe that the times fit. The prosecution put the witnesses on and they testified as to what times certain events happened during the conversation. Those testimonies fit exactly in placing, whom some want to believe is Simpson behind Kato's quarters banging into or running into the wall and having him driving near Bundy as JS claimed. Obviously, the prosecution believed the witnesses, Kato and his girlfriend, to be more credible than JS, because she destroyed their time line. In order to make Simpson the murderer, one would have to impeach the testimony of the witnesses to include JS had the prosecution or the plaintiff's decided to use her. This anomaly reinforces my belief that there was reasonable doubt.

One thing I always have a problem with is how and why people are ever so sure of the time. The drive between Bundy and Rockingham did not take very long IIRC ~ 5 or 6 minutes? In my own home and cars there are several clocks and none of them are in sync. TV shows don't always start and end right at the top or bottom of an hour. Even if I were to say "I know what time it was because I looked at a clock" that is still an "estimate" in my home, because my clocks aren't always accurately set.

[martin II]

I read some of Rubin's testimony yesterday and there was a reason, imho, that the gloves were so expensive. They had a computer in them. He kept saying the gloves had memory.:)

Rubin had a agenda when he came to the trial and in his efforts to accomplish this agenda he just talked to much and made false claims.

[William Anthony]

Too bad they really didn't have a memory...or even a tape recorder. :rolleyes:

How much do you think those would have cost?:)

[William Anthony]

One thing I always have a problem with is how and why people are ever so sure of the time. The drive between Bundy and Rockingham did not take very long IIRC ~ 5 or 6 minutes? In my own home and cars there are several clocks and none of them are in sync. TV shows don't always start and end right at the top or bottom of an hour. Even if I were to say "I know what time it was because I looked at a clock" that is still an "estimate" in my home, because my clocks aren't always accurately set.

The testimonies about the time are what they are and the prosecution was stuck with the best estimate of the witnesses. How could the prosecution put forth a witness and ask the jury to believe him/her and at the same time say the witness was wrong?

[serpentsfall]

In answer to your earlier question.

Oj was on a plane at about 11 45 or 12:00. Arnell got home at about 1:30 2:00 am.

So if oj called Arnell after he arrived in chicago from his hotel the call would be long distance from Chicago to Arnells room which was connected to his house phone.This call would be on the phone records from the hotel room if le
decided he did call his home before they arrived. Since this was not presented in the trial i assume le did not believe the story.imo

Do you know for a fact that Arnelle did not have a separate phone line? Were there no payphones in Chicago back then? You've already acknowledged that LE did not collect or present at trial everything they could or should have. Would it be so unreasonable to believe if they didn't collect every drop of blood because they thought they had enough that they wouldn't collect Arnelle's phone records because they thought they had enough to make their case without it?

[martin II]

One thing I always have a problem with is how and why people are ever so sure of the time. The drive between Bundy and Rockingham did not take very long IIRC ~ 5 or 6 minutes? In my own home and cars there are several clocks and none of them are in sync. TV shows don't always start and end right at the top or bottom of an hour. Even if I were to say "I know what time it was because I looked at a clock" that is still an "estimate" in my home, because my clocks aren't always accurately set.

This may be true. Clarke said the murders happened at 10:20 based on when a witness told her the dog barked.This 10:20 time would have allowed oj to have free time before he arrived home.Maby she thiough he was getting rid of evidence. JS and Heidstra destroyed her time line. The jury heard this and maby did not believe Clarke knew what she was talking about.

[William Anthony]

Rubin had a agenda when he came to the trial and in his efforts to accomplish this agenda he just talked to much and made false claims.

Yes, the gloves would stretch but had a memory.:shrug: We want you to believe they were able to go back to their normal size after stretching but not after shrinking. :shrug:

[tv]

How much do you think those would have cost?:)
Considering in 1994 I would have laughed if anyone had told me I'd own a computer one day...I'd say way more than the $55 dollars they did cost. Now a tape recorder...just a few bucks.

[William Anthony]

Do you know for a fact that Arnelle did not have a separate phone line? Were there no payphones in Chicago back then? You've already acknowledged that LE did not collect or present at trial everything they could or should have. Would it be so unreasonable to believe if they didn't collect every drop of blood because they thought they had enough that they wouldn't collect Arnelle's phone records because they thought they had enough to make their case without it?

If one is inclined to think that Simpson wore the sweatsuit and Ms. Arnelle washed it, even though she was not home when Simpson departed for Chicago, then all phone records to any line should have been checked and to fail to do so was another of the prosecution's miserable failures, imho.

[serpentsfall]

The testimonies about the time are what they are and the prosecution was stuck with the best estimate of the witnesses. How could the prosecution put forth a witness and ask the jury to believe him/her and at the same time say the witness was wrong?

The prosecution made a huge error in trial strategy by trying to bring a timeline into evidence at all. They over-thought the issues and their presentation unnecessarily muddied the facts. In a word, the prosecution was ineffective.

[William Anthony]

Considering in 1994 I would have laughed if anyone had told me I'd own a computer one day...I'd say way more than the $55 dollars they did cost. Now a tape recorder...just a few bucks.

I know if they did 007 would want a pair. :)

[William Anthony]

The prosecution made a huge error in trial strategy by trying to bring a timeline into evidence at all. They over-thought the issues and their presentation unnecessarily muddied the facts. In a word, the prosecution was ineffective.

In a few words, the prosecution helped to create reasonable doubt.

[tv]

Rubin had a agenda when he came to the trial and in his efforts to accomplish this agenda he just talked to much and made false claims.OJ Simpson didn't want to go near the gloves in the civil trial. Wonder why?

[William Anthony]

OJ Simpson didn't want to go near the gloves in the civil trial. Wonder why?

Perhaps, because they had been handled by too many people and that distorted the gloves memory or someone disconnected the computer. :) Seriously, did the plaintiffs request a glove fitting demonstration?

[William Anthony]

Eureka, I think I now understand Rubin's testimony. The gloves would have fit, if the computer had not malfunctioned, allowing the gloves to shrink too much after they had been stretched. :)

[serpentsfall]

If one is inclined to think that Simpson wore the sweatsuit and Ms. Arnelle washed it, even though she was not home when Simpson departed for Chicago, then all phone records to any line should have been checked and to fail to do so was another of the prosecution's miserable failures, imho.

I think the sweatsuit was washed more than once. Simpson could easily have turned on the washer with only the sweatsuit in it when he threw it in and had Arnelle add her underwear with it to make it look like it was her laundry and run a second (or third) cycle later that morning. This case is so full of coulda, woulda, shouldas - that's why its fallen into the category of questionable cases ala Sam Shepherd, Lizzie Borden and the Lindberg baby. People will be debating the issues for years to come, probably to the same lack of satisfactory conclusion.