Random Discussions On The Case

[serpentsfall]

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

Exactly. I'm hoping you'll never make the same kind of mistakes when you finally get to practice! Too bad attorneys can't have cheering sections at trials to help whip the jury into a frenzy for each side.

[William Anthony]

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.

That is why the concept of reasonable doubt looms large in my mind and ITA.

[tv]

Mark Partridge was an interesting witness. He sat on the plane next to Simpson on the return flight to LA. He was a copyright lawyer and took notes of the conversation. He said Simpson told him Nicole and a man had been killed and they had been found in the garden by the street where she lived. The problem with this is that the police hadn't released this information yet. The only thing Det. Phillips told Simpson was that Nicole had been killed, he never mentioned a second victim and he never told him it happened in the garden.

[Kate Sachel]

I began reading Vincent Bugliosi's book on the case last night and was struck by the fact that he was very adamant in his opinion that the predominantly black jury was not biased and that he did not believe that they were of the thought process to let OJ Simpson have a free pass to murdering human beings just because he is black and famous.

In fact, he goes on to berate Chris Darden for having such little in his own race to have made the statement in his book that he "knew" the first time he laid eyes on the jury that they were never going to get a conviction, that he saw in the jury members a need to settle a score.

Kate

[tv]

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. :)
I think you've understood Rubin's testimony all along. :)

[serpentsfall]

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 hate to date myself, but I had a computer in 1994. Shoot, I had a couple Apple computers long before Mac came along. 5" floppys? I have a collection in my attic along with one of the old Apple PC's. Hmmm...wonder what that would bring on ebay??? I'd have to brush up on writing DOS commands to make it work. OJ wasn't the only person who had a cell phone back then - my first one was attached to a portable box. Arnelle may well have had a cell phone of her own.

[tv]

I began reading Vincent Bugliosi's book on the case last night and was struck by the fact that he was very adamant in his opinion that the predominantly black jury was not biased and that he did not believe that they were of the thought process to let OJ Simpson have a free pass to murdering human beings just because he is black and famous.

In fact, he goes on to berate Chris Darden for having such little in his own race to have made the statement in his book that he "knew" the first time he laid eyes on the jury that they were never going to get a conviction, that he saw in the jury members a need to settle a score.

Kate

Hi Kate,

I've urged the not-guilty supporters to read Vincent Bugliosi's book and all I get is ridicule. Personally, I think it's a fascinating book on the subject.

[tv]

I hate to date myself, but I had a computer in 1994. Shoot, I had a couple Apple computers long before Mac came along. 5" floppys? I have a collection in my attic along with one of the old Apple PC's. Hmmm...wonder what that would bring on ebay??? I'd have to brush up on writing DOS commands to make it work. OJ wasn't the only person who had a cell phone back then - my first one was attached to a portable box. Arnelle may well have had a cell phone of her own.I think we had one of the Radio Shack Tandy computers for the kids. That was a looong time ago. I thought about Arnelle aka Lady Kenmore having a cell phone but I've never heard it mentioned.

[Kate Sachel]

Hi Kate,

I've urged the not-guilty supporters to read Vincent Bugliosi's book and all I get is ridicule. Personally, I think it's a fascinating book on the subject.

I'm surprised at the ridicule, especially given that Bugliosi shared the majority opinion of not-guilty supporters that the prosecution was incompetent.

Kate

[serpentsfall]

Mark Partridge was an interesting witness. He sat on the plane next to Simpson on the return flight to LA. He was a copyright lawyer and took notes of the conversation. He said Simpson told him Nicole and a man had been killed and they had been found in the garden by the street where she lived. The problem with this is that the police hadn't released this information yet. The only thing Det. Phillips told Simpson was that Nicole had been killed, he never mentioned a second victim and he never told him it happened in the garden.

That's the kind of evidence that got lost thanks to the trial turning into a three-ring circus thanks to MF.

[weezer]

I began reading Vincent Bugliosi's book on the case last night and was struck by the fact that he was very adamant in his opinion that the predominantly black jury was not biased and that he did not believe that they were of the thought process to let OJ Simpson have a free pass to murdering human beings just because he is black and famous.

In fact, he goes on to berate Chris Darden for having such little in his own race to have made the statement in his book that he "knew" the first time he laid eyes on the jury that they were never going to get a conviction, that he saw in the jury members a need to settle a score.

Kate

I think that Darden's 'reading' of the criminal jury proved to be correct.

[William Anthony]

Exactly. I'm hoping you'll never make the same kind of mistakes when you finally get to practice! Too bad attorneys can't have cheering sections at trials to help whip the jury into a frenzy for each side.

I have learned through depositions not to over question a witness and a mock trial to trust the jury. I hope I will keep these in mind. There is a trial on trutv now in which, imho, Pamela Mackey, who represented Kobe, is doing cross examination of witnesses and doing an excellent job. The commentators have called her cross surgical without being aggressive. I saw her become momentarily aggressive with one witness but that was done tactfully. I am watching her technique and hope to adopt it. Her co-counsel is also effective but a tad bit more confrontational. I like his style but it does appear to me to be brash at times. Since I represented myself, I had to learn to take emotion out and focus on what I had to prove and allow the jury the capability of understanding. They were all civil matters but I tended at first to seek that illusive Perry Mason moment.:)

[tv]

That's the kind of evidence that got lost thanks to the trial turning into a three-ring circus thanks to MF.That was presented in the civil trial. In the criminal trial, the three-ring circus could have been avoided if Ito had had more control over his courtroom and hadn't had a personal grudge against Mark Fuhrman because of his wife. Ito is the one that allowed the trial within a trial.

[William Anthony]

That's the kind of evidence that got lost thanks to the trial turning into a three-ring circus thanks to MF.

Partridge did not testify in the criminal trial.

[William Anthony]

That was presented in the civil trial. In the criminal trial, the three-ring circus could have been avoided if Ito had had more control over his courtroom and hadn't had a personal grudge against Mark Fuhrman because of his wife. Ito is the one that allowed the trial within a trial.

Link to judge Ito having a personal grudge against MF?

[tv]

I'm surprised at the ridicule, especially given that Bugliosi shared the majority opinion of not-guilty supporters that the prosecution was incompetent.

KateHe thinks OJ Simpson is guilty. I think that's the basis of the ridicule.

[tv]

Link to judge Ito having a personal grudge against MF? No, my dear William. If other posters can just say they read it in a book or heard it on the news so can I.

[William Anthony]

I think you've understood Rubin's testimony all along. :)

You give me too much credit as I did not associate gloves with having a memory but now understanding computers I figured out his testimony. :)

[William Anthony]

He thinks OJ Simpson is guilty. I think that's the basis of the ridicule.

Not for me. I haven't read the book but based on the comments posted I see envy.

[William Anthony]

No, my dear William. If other posters can just say they read it in a book or heard it on the news so can I.

Now, I understand it is something you read or heard and it is your opinion based on that and not a fact. :)

[tv]

Not for me. I haven't read the book but based on the comments posted I see envy.
You're wrong. I've told you before that due to your interest in the law you might enjoy his book. One thing he does that I enjoyed is that he presented what he might have said to the jury.

[William Anthony]

I think that Darden's 'reading' of the criminal jury proved to be correct.

About as correct as the decision to do the glove demonstration, imho, or should I say to try the case.

[tv]

Now, I understand it is something you read or heard and it is your opinion based on that and not a fact. :)

You would be wrong again. It came from Mark Fuhrman who had a working relationship with Ito's wife as you well know. No need to go to the trouble of posting the proof. You'll just have to accept it just like you do other poster's unsubstantiated claims.

[William Anthony]

You're wrong. I've told you before that due to your interest in the law you might enjoy his book. One thing he does that I enjoyed is that he presented what he might have said to the jury.

From the posts I have read it seems he was critical of both the prosecution and the magnificent one. I think that is allowed but it conveys a certain amount of arrogance and envy, imho.

[tv]

From the posts I have read it seems he was critical of both the prosecution and the magnificent one. I think that is allowed but it conveys a certain amount of arrogance and envy, imho.
For heaven's sake -- don't read it then. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

You would be wrong again. It came from Mark Fuhrman who had a working relationship with Ito's wife as you well know. No need to go to the trouble of posting the proof. You'll just have to accept it just like you do other poster's unsubstantiated claims.

You mean the derogatory remarks made by MF against Ito's wife and other women, which, IIRC, you said were in the context of a fictional character in a screen play. Now, why would Ito feel animosity toward the actor, MF?

[William Anthony]

For heaven's sake -- don't read it then. :shrug:

Thank you for allowing me the privilege, Ms. Tvdinner. :) I am just joking.

[martin II]

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?

All the phones in the guest houses were connected to the main house phone.
Remember Kato was talking to his girl on the phone in his room and he got off to talk to oj about the security number.That is what i remember.

If fung is collecting blood dropes in the field, how does he know who they belong to before they are tested at the lab. He may see 10 blood drops but he does not know what they say.So if he collects five he has enough of what? maby the five he collects belongs to the maid.

I am not sure the prosecution made the claim that Arnell did the wash.That may be a claim by a poster here.not sure.

I am sure there were pay phones in chicago just no proof that oj used one to call Arnell. It seems that when the prosecution ran into trouble with evidence they just floated all kinds of other possibilities like the glove shrinking.

I don't know about then but on one of my phone here even local calls are put on my bill giving time and number of minutes as i am charged my minutes.

Remember Kato said he heard Arnell walking to her room when she came home.Would he have been able to hear her if she walked out of her room? Kato could walk from his room through a small office into the main house also.imo

[martin II]

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. :)

tv

I don't ask you for links most of the time as i believe you are honest and fair
in your posting.

[martin II]

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:

Thats what i mean by Rubin running his mouth to make excuses and ended up not making sense. Maby the Memory caused the gloves to go to the size of the real killers hands and this is why they did not fit ojs hands.

[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.

I remember reading someplace that white broncos were very popular in Brentwood and LA at that time.Even that Furhman owned one but it had light green stripe down the sides of the doors.

[William Anthony]

tv

I don't ask you for links most of the time as i believe you are honest and fair
in your posting.

ITA and would add irrationally loyal. :) Just joking again. I once told a poster that they would not have liked me in my youth. I have since seen the error of my ways and have lived a life more inclined to what society requires, say 22 years or more. I thought about my earlier post and did not want there to be any mistakes. My lifestyle and environment demanded that retribution be paid or I would have become a target. It is not an excuse for my actions. I simply understand how poor choices can dictate a person's actions and, in the final analysis, we must take accountability for our own actions. Involving the police in a dispute was not an option for either myself or the person who stabbed me. I am happy to say that I was able to change my lifestyle and my environment and only wish I had done so sooner.

[William Anthony]

Thats what i mean by Rubin running his mouth to make excuses and ended up not making sense. Maby the Memory caused the gloves to go to the size of the real killers hands and this is why they did not fit ojs hands.

I would say that he got an F for effort.

[martin II]

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?

All juries hear witnesses and decided if they believe that invidual witness at that time. That has nothing to do with what the finally decide in deliberations.

Example: The glove demostration.Some jurors may have believed the glove fit and others that they did not fit. That was only on one issue.Import to some not important as a whole to either. They decided the whole in deliberations.imo

[martin II]

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

I think JS said one arm at the window i guess,she did not see a sleeve.

[martin II]

Mark Partridge was an interesting witness. He sat on the plane next to Simpson on the return flight to LA. He was a copyright lawyer and took notes of the conversation. He said Simpson told him Nicole and a man had been killed and they had been found in the garden by the street where she lived. The problem with this is that the police hadn't released this information yet. The only thing Det. Phillips told Simpson was that Nicole had been killed, he never mentioned a second victim and he never told him it happened in the garden.

Partridge proberly heard the news and just misquoted oj.However i believe
after Le talked to oj about Nicole i am sure he called friends in LA to understand what had happened like CR before he boarded the plane back.

[Kate Sachel]

From the posts I have read it seems he was critical of both the prosecution and the magnificent one. I think that is allowed but it conveys a certain amount of arrogance and envy, imho.

I have not gotten far enough along in the book to find any critical remarks regarding Johnnie Cochran. The only remarks I have encountered thus far are those that speak of a respect for him.

I am interested in your thoughts on how being critical of someone equates into arrogance and envy. I am wholly critical of both the prosecution and the defense in the criminal trial and can say with confidence that I am neither arrogant nor envious.

Kate

[martin II]

I think VB was interestred in some kind of consultant role in directing the prosecutions case based on his past record as a prosecutor and maby the Manson conviction. When he did not get it he just decided to make them pay by his critical views on all of their mistakes.imo

[weezer]

I think VB was interestred in some kind of consultant role in directing the prosecutions case based on his past record as a prosecutor and maby the Manson conviction. When he did not get it he just decided to make them pay by his critical views on all of their mistakes.imo

do you base your belief on anything substantial or is it just your belief because he's critical of the outcome of the tial?

[William Anthony]

I have not gotten far enough along in the book to find any critical remarks regarding Johnnie Cochran. The only remarks I have encountered thus far are those that speak of a respect for him.

I am interested in your thoughts on how being critical of someone equates into arrogance and envy. I am wholly critical of both the prosecution and the defense in the criminal trial and can say with confidence that I am neither arrogant nor envious.

Kate

That is because you are neither a prosecutor or a defense lawyer and, as such, like me, have no need to be jealous of the participants in the alleged "Trial of the Century". However, from the posts I have read VB seems to arrogantly say that he would have done a better job than the prosecution and that the magnificent one did not understand the concept of reasonable doubt in that he argued his client's innocence as opposed to not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I then looked at that statement by the magnificent one and it was clearly made in regard to the wording of the jury instruction.

[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.

Clark understood that telephone records documented the actual time that Allan Park saw Simpson for the first time that night and according to Kaelin’s testimony it was only a few minutes after Kaelin heard the noises on his wall. That’s what she told the jury in her closing argument. That fact supports Jill Shively’s grand jury testimony about her encounter with Simpson and his speeding Bronco.

Clark’s Closing Argument September 26, 1995

“Kato said that he hung up from his call with Rachel pretty quickly after he heard the thumping. He estimated for you two to three minutes. Now, with Allan's cell phone call bill we can be very, very precise when that was. He indicated that he went out to investigate the noises, hung up with Rachel, went out to investigate two to three minutes after he heard the thumping. And he hung up thirty seconds after seeing him walk in the house and after seeing Kato on the side yard, so at 10:54 Kato was out in the side yard. Hearing the thumping noises two to three minutes before, that means that he heard the thumping on his wall at 10:51 to 10:52.”

bobaugust

[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. :)

I’m sorry William but you are mistaken. The comment by Parker was made after not before I posted “Answers to Incorrect Comments” which included my polite correction to your incorrect recollection. Fuhrman’s opinion was regarding a photograph of Fung in Simpson’s bathroom, not a photograph taken of Fung holding a sweat suit outside of Simpson’s washing machine that you incorrectly recall. As far as I know there were no photographs taken inside Simpson’s laundry room, only a video tape that was taken for insurance purposes. The photograph of dark colored sweats in Simpson’s washing machine was taken from that video tape.

bobaugust

[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.

I repeat, Fuhrman’s opinion was regarding a photograph of Fung in Simpson’s bathroom, not a photograph taken of Fung holding a sweat suit outside of Simpson’s washing machine that you incorrectly recall. As far as I know there were no photographs taken inside Simpson’s laundry room, only a video tape that was taken for insurance purposes. The photograph of dark colored sweats in Simpson’s washing machine was taken from that video tape; the same video tape that was shown in court to Gigi, Simpson’s housekeeper, when she identified Arnelle’s clothing and laundry basket.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Clark understood that telephone records documented the actual time that Allan Park saw Simpson for the first time that night and according to Kaelin’s testimony it was only a few minutes after Kaelin heard the noises on his wall. That’s what she told the jury in her closing argument. That fact supports Jill Shively’s grand jury testimony about her encounter with Simpson and his speeding Bronco.

Clark’s Closing Argument September 26, 1995

“Kato said that he hung up from his call with Rachel pretty quickly after he heard the thumping. He estimated for you two to three minutes. Now, with Allan's cell phone call bill we can be very, very precise when that was. He indicated that he went out to investigate the noises, hung up with Rachel, went out to investigate two to three minutes after he heard the thumping. And he hung up thirty seconds after seeing him walk in the house and after seeing Kato on the side yard, so at 10:54 Kato was out in the side yard. Hearing the thumping noises two to three minutes before, that means that he heard the thumping on his wall at 10:51 to 10:52.”

bobaugust

March 22,

"Q: AT THAT POINT THAT YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL, SIR, APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN ON THE PHONE WITH RACHEL FERRARA?

A: ABOUT A HALF HOUR.

Q: AND SO APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL?

A: AT ABOUT 10:40.

Q: IS THAT EXACT, 10:40?

A: WELL, WHAT I REMEMBER. I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE CLOCK, BUT AROUND 10:40.

Q: DO YOU RECALL PREVIOUSLY TESTIFYING THAT IT WAS 10:40 TO 10:45?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES. "

[serpentsfall]

Partridge proberly heard the news and just misquoted oj.However i believe
after Le talked to oj about Nicole i am sure he called friends in LA to understand what had happened like CR before he boarded the plane back.

I'm curious. Why do you say "I am sure" when you can't possibly know what Simpson did that day? Why would Simpson assume LE would have given more details to anyone in LA than they gave to him? More time had elapsed by the time LE spoke with Simpson. I would assume LE had more up-to-date info by the time they finally got in contact with him than they'd initially had when others were awakened and interviewed earlier. I doubt any info was made available to the general public before Simpson was notified. I'd expect an innocent Simpson to be more concerned with where and how his kids were than the details of the murder.

[William Anthony]

I’m sorry William but you are mistaken. The comment by Parker was made after not before I posted “Answers to Incorrect Comments” which included my polite correction to your incorrect recollection. Fuhrman’s opinion was regarding a photograph of Fung in Simpson’s bathroom, not a photograph taken of Fung holding a sweat suit outside of Simpson’s washing machine that you incorrectly recall. As far as I know there were no photographs taken inside Simpson’s laundry room, only a video tape that was taken for insurance purposes. The photograph of dark colored sweats in Simpson’s washing machine was taken from that video tape.

bobaugust

It seems that you misunderstood. Your call to action was made by that poster as early as March 22, IIRC, when he stated this,

Originally Posted by Parker View Post
Green Ice, you obviously believe then that a 'conspiracy', for want of a better term, was entered into by LAPD and the DA right from the get go.

I don't agree with that idea in this case. The first person police should and do usually check is the spouse or partner. In many cases, not all, he or she is the prime suspect. There was, IMO, more than enough evidence that could have been presented to convict OJ. The fact that the DA couldn't and didn't do a good enough job doesn't mean that the facts weren't there that if, presented correctly, could have brought in a guilty verdict.

Bob Anthony knows way more about this case than I do and if he says there was video of the sweats that belonged to OJ, which were used by OJ on the night of the double murders and were found in OJ's washing machine, then I believe him.

It was then that I corrected him about the name and you later felt compelled to say what I posted was incorrect. It was only after he made the rock on comment that I took exception to what you posted. You seem to think that your recollection and that of MF's is infallible. However, I prefaced my comment with IIRC, and you labeled your post "Answers to incorrect comments" and singled Martin and me out. I will still rely on my memory and allow you to rely on yours and MF's. I have no problem with your rocking and posting but why not say that it is incorrect to say DF testified to finding blood in the drains and say what that poster wrote was an incorrect comment, as opposed to trying to defend it.

[weezer]

I'm curious. Why do you say "I am sure" when you can't possibly know what Simpson did that day? Why would Simpson assume LE would have given more details to anyone in LA than they gave to him? More time had elapsed by the time LE spoke with Simpson. I would assume LE had more up-to-date info by the time they finally got in contact with him than they'd initially had when others were awakened and interviewed earlier. I doubt any info was made available to the general public before Simpson was notified. I'd expect an innocent Simpson to be more concerned with where and how his kids were than the details of the murder.

hey, his number one priority were his gold clubs -- to hell with his children and what they were going through -- I gotta get to those golf clubs before I kill myself. . . .

[Kate Sachel]

That is because you are neither a prosecutor or a defense lawyer and, as such, like me, have no need to be jealous of the participants in the alleged "Trial of the Century". However, from the posts I have read VB seems to arrogantly say that he would have done a better job than the prosecution and that the magnificent one did not understand the concept of reasonable doubt in that he argued his client's innocence as opposed to not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I then looked at that statement by the magnificent one and it was clearly made in regard to the wording of the jury instruction.

I will continue to read and will be interested as to what he says in regard to what Johnnie Cochran did or did not understand on the concept of reasonable doubt.

I might assume that he is arrogant, I find in general that a great many individuals deemed as one of the greatest in history in their profession carry that air of arrogance with them. However, I don't doubt that he could have done a much better job.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I will continue to read and will be interested as to what he says in regard to what Johnnie Cochran did or did not understand on the concept of reasonable doubt.

I might assume that he is arrogant, I find in general that a great many individuals deemed as one of the greatest in history in their profession carry that air of arrogance with them. However, I don't doubt that he could have done a much better job.

Kate

I should not be the one to comment on arrogance, as I once had a lawyer tell me that he didn't like people who lawyer shopped, when I suggested another lawyer had informed me that the approach he intended would not work. He told me he was arrogant and I told him I was to, at which point he handed me back my papers. :) I don't think there is anything wrong with being arrogant or should I say confident. I do have a problem with envy.

[bobaugust]

March 22,

"Q: AT THAT POINT THAT YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL, SIR, APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN ON THE PHONE WITH RACHEL FERRARA?

A: ABOUT A HALF HOUR.

Q: AND SO APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL?

A: AT ABOUT 10:40.

Q: IS THAT EXACT, 10:40?

A: WELL, WHAT I REMEMBER. I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE CLOCK, BUT AROUND 10:40.

Q: DO YOU RECALL PREVIOUSLY TESTIFYING THAT IT WAS 10:40 TO 10:45?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES. "

Estimated times not supported by anything except memory of time passing are only guesses and not as reliable as times that are supported by telephone records. Kaelin testified that he went to check out the noises a few minutes after hearing the noises. Allan Park saw Kaelin come from around Simpson’s house on his way to check out the noises, according to Park’s telephone records at about 10:55.

March 22, 1995 Kaelin

Q: IS THAT EXACT, 10:40?
A: WELL, WHAT I REMEMBER. I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE CLOCK, BUT AROUND 10:40

November 19, 1996 Kaelin

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Okay. Do you have an estimate of the time that you heard these noises?
A. In between the 10:40 to 10:50 hour.
Q. Okay. Now, is that -- what do you base that on?
A. The phone calls.
Q. All right. Did you at any time --
A. I didn't, I never looked at a clock.
Q. I can't hear you.
A. I didn't look at a clock.
Q. At any time?
A. No.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

It seems that you misunderstood. Your call to action was made by that poster as early as March 22, IIRC, when he stated this,


It was then that I corrected him about the name and you later felt compelled to say what I posted was incorrect. It was only after he made the rock on comment that I took exception to what you posted. You seem to think that your recollection and that of MF's is infallible. However, I prefaced my comment with IIRC, and you labeled your post "Answers to incorrect comments" and singled Martin and me out. I will still rely on my memory and allow you to rely on yours and MF's. I have no problem with your rocking and posting but why not say that it is incorrect to say DF testified to finding blood in the drains and say what that poster wrote was an incorrect comment, as opposed to trying to defend it.

My posting “Answers to Incorrect Comments” had absolutely nothing to do with anything Parker wrote, it had to do with all the incorrect comments Martin II was making between 3/15/09 and 3/24/09 as well as a couple of things you said that I believed were incorrect. The comment by Parker I was referring to was regarding the word “rocking” you used in the impolite post you made after I corrected your incorrect recollection. I suggest we drop this and both of us continue to make cordial postings even when we disagree.

As far as I know there were no photographs shown in this case taken in Simpson’s laundry room, only a video tape. If you recall something that contradicts my beliefs then by all means produce it. I would be very interested in knowing about it.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Estimated times not supported by anything except memory of time passing are only guesses and not as reliable as times that are supported by telephone records. Kaelin testified that he went to check out the noises a few minutes after hearing the noises. Allan Park saw Kaelin come from around Simpson’s house on his way to check out the noises, according to Park’s telephone records at about 10:55.

March 22, 1995 Kaelin

Q: IS THAT EXACT, 10:40?
A: WELL, WHAT I REMEMBER. I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE CLOCK, BUT AROUND 10:40

November 19, 1996 Kaelin

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Okay. Do you have an estimate of the time that you heard these noises?
A. In between the 10:40 to 10:50 hour.
Q. Okay. Now, is that -- what do you base that on?
A. The phone calls.
Q. All right. Did you at any time --
A. I didn't, I never looked at a clock.
Q. I can't hear you.
A. I didn't look at a clock.
Q. At any time?
A. No.

bobaugust

A few minutes after hearing the noises. Isn't a few minutes an estimate? Is 10:45 in between 10:40 and 10:50? Is 1995 closer to 1994 than 1996?

[William Anthony]

My posting “Answers to Incorrect Comments” had absolutely nothing to do with anything Parker wrote, it had to do with all the incorrect comments Martin II was making between 3/15/09 and 3/24/09 as well as a couple of things you said that I believed were incorrect. The comment by Parker I was referring to was regarding the word “rocking” you used in the impolite post you made after I corrected your incorrect recollection. I suggest we drop this and both of us continue to make cordial postings even when we disagree.

As far as I know there were no photographs shown in this case taken in Simpson’s laundry room, only a video tape. If you recall something that contradicts my beliefs then by all means produce it. I would be very interested in knowing about it.

bobaugust

I rely on my recollection until I have the opportunity to review my tapes.

[William Anthony]

I should not be the one to comment on arrogance, as I once had a lawyer tell me that he didn't like people who lawyer shopped, when I suggested another lawyer had informed me that the approach he intended would not work. He told me he was arrogant and I told him I was to, at which point he handed me back my papers. :) I don't think there is anything wrong with being arrogant or should I say confident. I do have a problem with envy.

Correction-and I told him I was too...

[William Anthony]

My posting “Answers to Incorrect Comments” had absolutely nothing to do with anything Parker wrote, it had to do with all the incorrect comments Martin II was making between 3/15/09 and 3/24/09 as well as a couple of things you said that I believed were incorrect. The comment by Parker I was referring to was regarding the word “rocking” you used in the impolite post you made after I corrected your incorrect recollection. I suggest we drop this and both of us continue to make cordial postings even when we disagree.

As far as I know there were no photographs shown in this case taken in Simpson’s laundry room, only a video tape. If you recall something that contradicts my beliefs then by all means produce it. I would be very interested in knowing about it.

bobaugust

I would not have taken umbrage, if you had said "Answers to comments I Believe Incorrect" as you now state. So, let us move forward with that caveat.

[martin II]

I'm curious. Why do you say "I am sure" when you can't possibly know what Simpson did that day? Why would Simpson assume LE would have given more details to anyone in LA than they gave to him? More time had elapsed by the time LE spoke with Simpson. I would assume LE had more up-to-date info by the time they finally got in contact with him than they'd initially had when others were awakened and interviewed earlier. I doubt any info was made available to the general public before Simpson was notified. I'd expect an innocent Simpson to be more concerned with where and how his kids were than the details of the murder.

OJ was told Nicole was dead some time around 4-5 am by le. Oj said he would catch the next flight to la. I think betwen that time and the time he boarded the plane, couple of hours i assume that he would call someone in la
to ask what happened. Maby CR whom le had already talked to as Arnell gave them her number. This is when they discovered that his trip was planned in asdvance and not on 6/12.The media was at Bundy shortly after le got there so the story/news flash would have been reported on tv or radio as soon as they arrived.imo And i believe CR would have been calling around to get more details and reported back to oj.

Le told simpson on the phone where his kids were so that was not a question and he must have called AC from Chicago and asked him to take the kids to the Browns Chicago because when he returned the kids were at the browns.

Martin II

[martin II]

My posting “Answers to Incorrect Comments” had absolutely nothing to do with anything Parker wrote, it had to do with all the incorrect comments Martin II was making between 3/15/09 and 3/24/09 as well as a couple of things you said that I believed were incorrect. The comment by Parker I was referring to was regarding the word “rocking” you used in the impolite post you made after I corrected your incorrect recollection. I suggest we drop this and both of us continue to make cordial postings even when we disagree.

As far as I know there were no photographs shown in this case taken in Simpson’s laundry room, only a video tape. If you recall something that contradicts my beliefs then by all means produce it. I would be very interested in knowing about it.

bobaugust

Bob
Things have been going quite ok on the thread. I hope your return to posting does not mean a reopening of your previous MO of attacks on MartinII and creating long arguments directed at William.imo

MartinII

[martin II]

Estimated times not supported by anything except memory of time passing are only guesses and not as reliable as times that are supported by telephone records. Kaelin testified that he went to check out the noises a few minutes after hearing the noises. Allan Park saw Kaelin come from around Simpson’s house on his way to check out the noises, according to Park’s telephone records at about 10:55.

March 22, 1995 Kaelin

Q: IS THAT EXACT, 10:40?
A: WELL, WHAT I REMEMBER. I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE CLOCK, BUT AROUND 10:40

November 19, 1996 Kaelin

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Okay. Do you have an estimate of the time that you heard these noises?
A. In between the 10:40 to 10:50 hour.
Q. Okay. Now, is that -- what do you base that on?
A. The phone calls.
Q. All right. Did you at any time --
A. I didn't, I never looked at a clock.
Q. I can't hear you.
A. I didn't look at a clock.
Q. At any time?
A. No.

bobaugust

I read a report that Kato came from his quarters and walked directly to the south walkway. That park was mistaken when he said he saw Kato standing
at the north walkway look around.

[weezer]

Bob
Things have been going quite ok on the thread. I hope your return to posting does not mean a reopening of your previous MO of attacks on MartinII and creating long arguments directed at William.imo

MartinII

going ok for whom martin? you two guys almost got us shut down! :punch:

[weezer]

OJ was told Nicole was dead some time around 4-5 am by le. Oj said he would catch the next flight to la. I think betwen that time and the time he boarded the plane, couple of hours i assume that he would call someone in la
to ask what happened. Maby CR whom le had already talked to as Arnell gave them her number. This is when they discovered that his trip was planned in asdvance and not on 6/12.The media was at Bundy shortly after le got there so the story/news flash would have been reported on tv or radio as soon as they arrived.imo And i believe CR would have been calling around to get more details and reported back to oj.

Le told simpson on the phone where his kids were so that was not a question and he must have called AC from Chicago and asked him to take the kids to the Browns Chicago because when he returned the kids were at the browns.

Martin II

arnelle said in her testimony that the police were insisting she go get the kids and she didn't think she could handle it herself so she had called ac. orenthal didn't ask about the kids on the phone and didn't see them when he got back -- he was busy driving around trying to get his golf clubs.

[weezer]

I read a report that Kato came from his quarters and walked directly to the south walkway. That park was mistaken when he said he saw Kato standing
at the north walkway look around.

I read a report that orenthal was wearing the women's lingerie under the dark sweatsuit.

[martin II]

i posted the link to this a few days ago.

Park's memory of his June 12th encounter with O.J. was tested numerous times against hard evidence and Kato's testimony. On every point that mattered to him when he went to Rockingham, his memory measured against that evidence and Kato's testimony was consistent. On every point that mattered only after the Bundy murders his memory was not consistent. He did not recall seeing O.J.'s Bronco on Rockingham when he left for LAX although it must have been there. He recalled O.J. saying something that Kato said. He recalled Kato standing on the north path when no one disputes Kato was down by the south path. Park recalled seeing a duffle bag open but described the contents of the golf bag sheeth. He recalled Arnelle's SAAB parked behind the Bentley when it could not have been there. He marked where he saw the blue bag almost dead center of where he recalled seeing the SAAB.

[martin II]

going ok for whom martin? you two guys almost got us shut down! :punch:

How would you know that? or should i say link please.

[martin II]

arnelle said in her testimony that the police were insisting she go get the kids and she didn't think she could handle it herself so she had called ac. orenthal didn't ask about the kids on the phone and didn't see them when he got back -- he was busy driving around trying to get his golf clubs.

I guess you are making another wild assumption that oj didn't know his kids were at the Browns.

[weezer]

I guess you are making another wild assumption that oj didn't know his kids were at the Browns.

it wasn't a wild assumption martin -- it was arnelle's testimony. geez

[weezer]

How would you know that? or should i say link please.

because the rest of us were posting and you two weren't?

[martin II]

it wasn't a wild assumption martin -- it was arnelle's testimony. geez

I don't remember Arnell testifying that oj did not know where his kids were when he returned to LA.

[martin II]

WEEZER

I feel a lot of anger in your post so i think i should just ignore them.:punch:

[bobaugust]

A few minutes after hearing the noises. Isn't a few minutes an estimate? Is 10:45 in between 10:40 and 10:50? Is 1995 closer to 1994 than 1996?

Kaelin made the same two to three minutes estimate in his criminal trial testimony in 1995 as in his civil trial testimony in 1996.

March 22, 1995 Kaelin

Q AND WHAT -- HOW LONG DID YOU SPEAK TO HER AFTER YOU HEARD HE THUMPS ON THE WALL?
A YOU KNOW, TWO TO THREE MINUTES.

Q HOW DID YOU FEEL ABOUT GOING BACK THERE ONTO THAT LITTLE ATHWAY?
A SCARED.
Q WHY?
A BECAUSE THERE COULD BE SOMEONE BACK THERE AND I JUST HAD A LITTLE FLASHLIGHT.

Q WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT?
A OKAY.
I HUNG UP THE PHONE AND I GOT THE FLASHLIGHT AND I WALKED THE PATHWAY, THE FRONT PATHWAY OUT OF MY FRONT DOOR, TO THE DRIVEWAY.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I rely on my recollection until I have the opportunity to review my tapes.

And I still believe your recollection is incorrect unless you can provide something other than your memory to support it.

[bobaugust]

Bob
Things have been going quite ok on the thread. I hope your return to posting does not mean a reopening of your previous MO of attacks on MartinII and creating long arguments directed at William.imo

MartinII

Referring to yourself in the third person made me laugh. I have no intention of attacking anyone, I simply corrected some incorrect comments that you, Martin II, previously posted.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I read a report that Kato came from his quarters and walked directly to the south walkway. That park was mistaken when he said he saw Kato standing
at the north walkway look around.

I’m not sure what kind of report you read or who wrote it but Allan Park testified in the criminal trial that he saw a blond hair person come from behind the house with a flashlight who stopped and looked at Park when he got to the driveway.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

i posted the link to this a few days ago.

Park's memory of his June 12th encounter with O.J. was tested numerous times against hard evidence and Kato's testimony. On every point that mattered to him when he went to Rockingham, his memory measured against that evidence and Kato's testimony was consistent. On every point that mattered only after the Bundy murders his memory was not consistent. He did not recall seeing O.J.'s Bronco on Rockingham when he left for LAX although it must have been there. He recalled O.J. saying something that Kato said. He recalled Kato standing on the north path when no one disputes Kato was down by the south path. Park recalled seeing a duffle bag open but described the contents of the golf bag sheeth. He recalled Arnelle's SAAB parked behind the Bentley when it could not have been there. He marked where he saw the blue bag almost dead center of where he recalled seeing the SAAB.


These were unimportant details to Park when they happened. What is important is what Park did remember, not what he didn’t remember.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I’m not sure what kind of report you read or who wrote it but Allan Park testified in the criminal trial that he saw a blond hair person come from behind the house with a flashlight who stopped and looked at Park when he got to the driveway.

bobaugust

Park also testified that he saw two cars parked where there was only one from that same Ashford gate view.

[bobaugust]

Park also testified that he saw two cars parked where there was only one from that same Ashford gate view.

That’s not quite correct. Park thought he saw two cars parked on the driveway the second time he pulled his limousine up to the Rockingham gate stopping right next to where the Bronco was later found parked. Park looked to his left through the Rockingham gate and up the dark driveway and thought that he saw two cars parked there so he decided to return to the Ashford gate to enter the estate. He put his limousine in reverse and backed up to Ashford street once again driving right past where the Bronco was later found parked. The Bronco was not there at that time.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Referring to yourself in the third person made me laugh. I have no intention of attacking anyone, I simply corrected some incorrect comments that you, Martin II, previously posted.

bobaugust

Bob
If any one poster spent his/her time correcting all the mistakes, or different opinions posted on these threads the one doing the correcting would make most of the post. Targeting one or two posters for as you say correction,if you are the corrector, leaves other mistaken post mistaken or should i say uncorrected.imo

[martin II]

That’s not quite correct. Park thought he saw two cars parked on the driveway the second time he pulled his limousine up to the Rockingham gate stopping right next to where the Bronco was later found parked. Park looked to his left through the Rockingham gate and up the dark driveway and thought that he saw two cars parked there so he decided to return to the Ashford gate to enter the estate. He put his limousine in reverse and backed up to Ashford street once again driving right past where the Bronco was later found parked. The Bronco was not there at that time.

bobaugust

Under questioning about the number of cars he saw in the driveway Park said two.When asked if he was sure there were two cars parked there he responded yes. imo

[William Anthony]

Kaelin made the same two to three minutes estimate in his criminal trial testimony in 1995 as in his civil trial testimony in 1996.

March 22, 1995 Kaelin

Q AND WHAT -- HOW LONG DID YOU SPEAK TO HER AFTER YOU HEARD HE THUMPS ON THE WALL?
A YOU KNOW, TWO TO THREE MINUTES.

Q HOW DID YOU FEEL ABOUT GOING BACK THERE ONTO THAT LITTLE ATHWAY?
A SCARED.
Q WHY?
A BECAUSE THERE COULD BE SOMEONE BACK THERE AND I JUST HAD A LITTLE FLASHLIGHT.

This testimony places the sound closer to 10:40 than 10:50.

Q WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT?
A OKAY.
I HUNG UP THE PHONE AND I GOT THE FLASHLIGHT AND I WALKED THE PATHWAY, THE FRONT PATHWAY OUT OF MY FRONT DOOR, TO THE DRIVEWAY.

bobaugust

March 22, Kato

"Q: AND SO APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL?

A: AT ABOUT 10:40.

Q: IS THAT EXACT, 10:40?

A: WELL, WHAT I REMEMBER. I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE CLOCK, BUT AROUND 10:40.

Q: DO YOU RECALL PREVIOUSLY TESTIFYING THAT IT WAS 10:40 TO 10:45?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES. "



Rachel Ferra March 28th

"Q: OKAY. AND ABOUT HOW LONG AFTER YOU HAD ASKED THE TIME AND HE TOLD YOU IT WAS 10:30 DID HE DESCRIBE AN EARTHQUAKE OCCURRING?

A: AFTER 10:30?

Q: RIGHT. YOU ASKED HIM WHAT TIME IT WAS; HE SAID 10:30, CORRECT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: AT SOME POINT AFTER THAT HE DESCRIBED AN EARTHQUAKE OCCURRING?

A: UH-HUH.

Q: HOW LONG AFTER THAT TIME WHEN HE SAID IT WAS 10:30 DID HE DESCRIBE HEARING AN EARTHQUAKE?

A: APPROXIMATELY TEN MINUTES.

Q: AND HOW DID HE DESCRIBE THAT EARTHQUAKE SOUND?

A: HE SAID IT WAS A BANG. "

[martin II]

This post confirms that Kato heard bangs on his wall and the time he heard it.


Clark: AT THAT POINT THAT YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL, SIR, APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN ON THE PHONE WITH RACHEL FERRARA?
Kaelin: ABOUT A HALF HOUR.
Clark: AND SO APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL?
Kaelin: AT ABOUT 10:40.
Kato time estimate for noise 10:40
Based on a call made at 10:10 and ending at 10:45

26 CLARK: HOW LONG AFTER HEARING THE THUMP DID YOU --
27 HOW LONG AFTER YOU MADE THE PHONE CALL DID YOU HEAR THE
28 THUMP?
1 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?
2 KATO: WHEN I CALLED HER UP, WHEN DID I HEAR IT DURING
3 OUR CONVERSATION? HOW LONG HAD I BEEN ON?
4 CLARK: YES.
5 KATO: I'M THINKING ABOUT A HALF-HOUR.
6 CLARK: SO IT WAS A HALF-HOUR INTO THE CALL?
7 KATO: I THINK SO.
8 I THINK IN THE PHONE RECORD IT WILL SHOW.
9 CLARK: HOW LONG AFTER HEARING THE THUMP DID YOU HANG
10 UP THAT PHONE?
11 KATO: 5 MINUTES AFTER I HEARD THE THUMP.
12 IT WAS PRETTY FAST. I MEAN, WITHIN 1 TO 5
13 MINUTES.
*** Fuhrman testified time estimated as 10:45, made the morning of June 13th ***
Fuhrman: {Kaelin} SAID ABOUT 10:45 P.M. THE PREVIOUS NIGHT, I BELIEVE HE SAID HE WAS TALKING ON THE PHONE. HE SAID HE HEARD A CRASH OR A THUMP ON HIS WALL. HE THOUGHT THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN EARTHQUAKE AND HIS PICTURE SHOOK.

[martin II]

The first part Kato talks about Ojs remarks about his daughter in recital.

Kaelin Defines Simpson's demeanor for Grand Jury:
KAELIN: HE SAID, "SHE WAS WONDERFUL, BEAUTIFUL," AND HE WAS PROUD OF HER.
CLARK: TELL ME HOW HE WAS BEHAVING. DID HE SEEM AGITATED? UPSET? NERVOUS?
KAELIN: NO; NONCHALANT.
CLARK: RELAXED?
KAELIN: YES.


What would change it? Prosecution never addressed this. Instead the misrepresented Simpson's mood at recital. A fact demonstrated by the video tape.
NOTE: "Good-Natured" It comports well with the video.
CLARK: DID HE MAKE ANY MENTION TO YOU OF NICOLE AT THAT TIME?
KAELIN: IN A GOOD-NATURED SORT OF WAY, HE HAD MENTIONED WHO -- SHE WAS WITH GIRLFRIENDS, I BELIEVE, NO NAMES, I DON'T KNOW WHO; THAT HE WAS WONDERING IF THEY WERE GOING TO AGE GRACEFULLY AND WHAT KIND OF OUTFITS THEY WERE GOING TO BE WEARING.
IT WAS ABOUT WEARING TIGHT-FITTING CLOTHES, IN REFERENCE -- GOOD NATURED, CAN'T YOU WEAR THAT IF THE -- WHEN SHE'S GOING TO BE OLDER, JOKING, LIKE WEARING TIGHT-FITTING CLOTHES, GOOD NATUREDLY, LIKE A GRANDMA.
CLARK: WHEN YOU SAY, "GOOD NATUREDLY," THAT'S WHAT HE WAS ACTING LIKE?
WAS HE LAUGHING?
KAELIN: YEAH; JOKING, LAUGHING.

[weezer]

I don't remember Arnell testifying that oj did not know where his kids were when he returned to LA.

I didn't say that martin. I said he didn't ask or care about the children the night he murdered their mother or the days after.

A. And at that point, I had to -- I had a discussion with Lange
about the kids and getting the kids and picking them up. I told them
that I just couldn't do it by myself, I would have to call somebody,

A.C., to help me. So as I was walking to my room to change, 'cause I
was in my pajamas, the phone rang again, and I picked up the phone,
it was my father, and I had a discussion with him then.
....
A. He had called and he had said, "Arnelle, what's going on?" I had
said, "Dad, I don't know. It's crazy. I'm scared. They tell me I
have to go pick up the kids." He had said, "What's going on? What's
going on?" And I said, "I don't know. They just keep saying that
Nicole is dead and that there was somebody else with her."

[GreenIce]

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.

TV,

Again, it was the news station that reported the sweats were taken and no blood was found on them.

[GreenIce]

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

Mr. August,

So what if blood was found in the drains? I don't understand what this proves--really. I could understand if there is a way to take samples to test it.

[martin II]

It is my personal belief that between the time Oj was informed of Nicoles death and his arrival back to la he knew that AC had taken his kids to the Browns and that they were safe there. I also believe that after his interview with Vanhatter he had opportunity to speak with his kids by phone and that he took this opportunity to do so. At the Browns they were shielded from the media.

[fgump2]

I think Arnelle lied twice about what happened between her and the detectives in the early morning after the murders.
The civil trial description of Arnelle's testimony says this: She contradicted detective’s stories about how they got into Simpson's house and what they told her before they talked to her father.

The detectives and Arnelle disagreed about which door she opened for them to enter the main house. This has been posted about several times on this forum, so I won't repeat it.

Arnelle and Det Lange also disagreed on what he told her about Nicole's death. He said he just told her that Nicole had been killed. Arnelle said that he told her there was a second victim. Both the detective and Arnelle agreed that she became very upset.
I realize I may have overlooked some details in the transcripts.

If one person disagrees with four people, we usually take the word of the greater number. Also, as some people have pointed out, the cops got there stories down well before they could have known that which door was opened would be important. If there had been only one disagreement between Arnelle and the detectives, I might think it was just an accident, she was tired and upset; but two disagreements in favor of her father makes it look like she was lying. Arnelle also had more motives for lying than the detectives did.

[martin II]

Mr. August,

So what if blood was found in the drains? I don't understand what this proves--really. I could understand if there is a way to take samples to test it.

Since no test was done to confirm the presumptive test as blood we don;t know if it was blood or tomato paste.Saying it very well could have been blood means nothing and proves nothing.

[GreenIce]

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

Originally Posted by GreenIce
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.

USING CAPS SO YOU KNOW WHAT MY REPLIES ARE--NOT YELLING.

YOUR RESPONSES TO THIS POST IS WHY I AVOID YOUR POSTS.

YOU ARE MAKING RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS/COMMENTS THAT HAVE NOTHING DO WITH THE ISSUE. I SAID THERE WAS A QUESTION WHEN PARK WENT OUT SIDE TO SMOKE, WOULD HE HAVE HEARD THE BRONCO PULLING UP. THERE IS ALSO A QUESTION WOULD HE HAVE SEEN OR BE ABLE TO SEE THE GATE OPEN. I MADE NO COMMENT ABOUT WHEN HE SAW THE PERSON COME OUT OF THE HOUSE. WOULD HE HAVE HEARD THE GATES OPEN.

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?

WHAT ARE THE ODDS THAT PAULA'S WHITE BRONCO WOULD BE STOLEN AND THE PERSON WHO STOLE IT WAS STALKING NICOLE?

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.

THIS ISN'T EVEN CLOSE - I MADE A POST ABOUT JS AND THE OTHER DRIVER---MADE NO MENTION OF THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY.

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.

MARCIA CLARK KNEW THE GUY WHO SOLD A KNIFE TO OJ SOLD HIS STORY BUT USED HIM ANY WAY. SINCE YOU KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE, WHY DID CLARK USE THE GUY WHO SOLD THE KNIFE TO OJ AND NOT USE AN EYE WITNESS?

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.

TELL YOU WHAT, ASK MR. AUGUST ABOUT ANOTHER PERSON'S DNA FOUND IN THE BRONCO---HE MADE THE EXACT SAME COMMENT THAT OJ'S MAID WAS HISPANIC AND I THOUGH SHE WAS ASIAN.

[fgump2]

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


There are a lot of heavy rains in May and June in LA. So if OJS hadn't been there for a couple of weeks, it would be almost impossible for it to be old blood. Of course, that would depend on the weather records. The detectives also said the blood looked fresh.

I think that most criminologists pick up a representative sample of the blood if there is much blood; in other words not all the blood.

[GreenIce]

I'm surprised at the ridicule, especially given that Bugliosi shared the majority opinion of not-guilty supporters that the prosecution was incompetent.

Kate

Kate,

Hey, how are you?

I do not believe the prosection was incompetent. VB, by blaming the DA's for losing the case is not just not being truthful about the evidence, IMO.

Remember, the DA's had much more money then Simpson for this case, they had a huge team of lawyers just devoted to this case. How could all of them screw this case up?

The DA's don't collect evidence, they don't examine it for trace evidence, they don't use the equipment to find blood that is not visiable to the naked eye. Then how could they explain that the blood in this case was left baking in a CSI truck because of a broken AC?

I have no problem with VB writing about the case, however, he is also a defense lawyer--if he was one of Simpson's lawyer and wrote a book, I bet his "Outrage" would be aimed the police, the DA's, their witnesses and he be lovin' on the jury. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I think Arnelle lied twice about what happened between her and the detectives in the early morning after the murders.
The civil trial description of Arnelle's testimony says this: She contradicted detective’s stories about how they got into Simpson's house and what they told her before they talked to her father.

The detectives and Arnelle disagreed about which door she opened for them to enter the main house. This has been posted about several times on this forum, so I won't repeat it.

Arnelle and Det Lange also disagreed on what he told her about Nicole's death. He said he just told her that Nicole had been killed. Arnelle said that he told her there was a second victim. Both the detective and Arnelle agreed that she became very upset.
I realize I may have overlooked some details in the transcripts.

If one person disagrees with four people, we usually take the word of the greater number. Also, as some people have pointed out, the cops got there stories down well before they could have known that which door was opened would be important. If there had been only one disagreement between Arnelle and the detectives, I might think it was just an accident, she was tired and upset; but two disagreements in favor of her father makes it look like she was lying. Arnelle also had more motives for lying than the detectives did.

fgump2,

I am asking a serious question, what does it matter if Arnelle testifed that Lange did tell her or if he didn't? I don't get the importance of this.

[martin II]

Properly done, a blood presumptive test rules out the possibility that a fluid is blood. A blood presumptive test relies on the use of chemicals that will change color when in the presence of blood. As one common example, a solution of phenolphthalein, which is colorless, will turn an intense pink when added to a blood stain in the presence of hydrogen peroxide. The formation of a pink color indicates that the fluid could be, and indeed, likely may be, blood. However, confirmation requires the more detailed lab analyses.

Another chemical called o-tolidine can also be used in conjunction with hydrogen peroxide instead of phenolphthalein. Again, the formation of the characteristic color must be followed up by a more detailed and confirmatory examination of the sample.

When a blood presumptive test is done at a crime or accident scene, an investigator must include the use of controls to ensure the accuracy of the result. This is because a blood presumptive test can be subject to what is known as a false positive result. This is when the characteristic color reaction is produced by a sample that is in fact not blood. As well, a false negative reaction is possible, where for some reason a blood sample does not produce the characteristic color change in the indicator chemical.

[martin II]

There are a lot of heavy rains in May and June in LA. So if OJS hadn't been there for a couple of weeks, it would be almost impossible for it to be old blood. Of course, that would depend on the weather records. The detectives also said the blood looked fresh.

I think that most criminologists pick up a representative sample of the blood if there is much blood; in other words not all the blood.

I think what you are saying is that if there are 10 blood spots in the walkway at Bundy,it is ok for the crimiinologist to collect only 5. The first five may belong to a victim.The second 5 may belong to someone not previously known as a suspect and may not be charged because his blood was not collected.

[martin II]

Two issues
Presumptive test and Vanhatters lie to get search warrant.

For those that believe a presumptive test is proof of blood.

THE COURT: HOLD ON. LET'S ASSUME ARNELLE SIMPSON AND CATHY RANDA TOLD OR CATHY RANDA TOLD THE DETECTIVES THAT HE IS IN CHICAGO FOR A HERTZ MEETING, THAT IT WAS -- ARRANGEMENTS HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY MADE, "HE'S STAYING AT A PARTICULAR HOTEL, HERE'S HIS HOTEL NUMBER." ALL RIGHT. THAT IS DIFFERENT OR CONTRARY TO VANNATTER'S STATEMENT IN THE SEARCH WARRANT WHICH WAS DONE LATER, THAT THIS WAS AN UNSCHEDULED TRIP TO CHICAGO.

THE COURT: WELL, MISS CLARK, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT APPEARED OBVIOUS TO ME AS A PROBLEM AT TRIAL WHEN I RULED AT THE 1538 THAT THE STATEMENTS WERE MADE WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH IF YOU RECALL.



MS. CLARK: THERE'S ONLY ONE PROBLEM.

THE COURT: WAIT. THEN FUNG'S PRESUMPTIVE TESTS FOR BLOOD ON THE BRONCO WAS A PRESUMPTIVE TEST. THAT'S ALL IT WAS. IT IS NOT A TEST THAT IS POSITIVE FOR HUMAN BLOOD, CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: CORRECT.

THE COURT: AND THAT WAS KNOWN BEFORE HE WROTE THE SEARCH WARRANT, CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: CORRECT.

MS. CLARK: NO. THAT'S A PRETRIAL ISSUE WE LITIGATED BEFORE, YOUR HONOR. IT GAVE ME CONCERN THAT YOUR HONOR HAD THE FEELINGS THAT IT DID, YOU DID ABOUT DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND THE SEARCH WARRANT. THAT DID GIVE ME CAUSE FOR CONCERN. BUT THAT A JURY WAS GOING TO HEAR ABOUT THAT -- WHY SHOULD A JURY EVER HEAR ABOUT A COURT'S RULING ON A PRETRIAL MOTION LIKE A 1538.8. I'VE NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A THING.

THE COURT: THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO HEAR. THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER MADE STATEMENTS LONG AGO THAT TURNED OUT NOT TO BE TRUE. THOSE TWO, CORRECT?

MR. SHAPIRO: CORRECT.

[William Anthony]

I think Arnelle lied twice about what happened between her and the detectives in the early morning after the murders.
The civil trial description of Arnelle's testimony says this: She contradicted detective’s stories about how they got into Simpson's house and what they told her before they talked to her father.

The detectives and Arnelle disagreed about which door she opened for them to enter the main house. This has been posted about several times on this forum, so I won't repeat it.

Arnelle and Det Lange also disagreed on what he told her about Nicole's death. He said he just told her that Nicole had been killed. Arnelle said that he told her there was a second victim. Both the detective and Arnelle agreed that she became very upset.
I realize I may have overlooked some details in the transcripts.

If one person disagrees with four people, we usually take the word of the greater number. Also, as some people have pointed out, the cops got there stories down well before they could have known that which door was opened would be important. If there had been only one disagreement between Arnelle and the detectives, I might think it was just an accident, she was tired and upset; but two disagreements in favor of her father makes it look like she was lying. Arnelle also had more motives for lying than the detectives did.

Are you suggesting that Ms. Arnelle is the killer, because only the killer would know there were two people murdered, if LE had not told her? She testified that she told her father after LE told her. Don't you think LE had a reason to cover up their human error and mistake of telling Ms. Arnelle by saying that they didn't, since they were trying to convict Simpson and the dream team and magnificent one were pointing out their numerous mistakes and human errors? Notice that I did not use the word liar.

[William Anthony]

This is on the memory of the detective who called Simpson in Chicago and notified him of Ms. NBS's killing.

February 17th

"Q: DO YOU KNOW THE NAME OF AN LAPD TRAINEE CRIMINALIST BY THE NAME OF MAZZOLA, M-A-Z-Z-O-L-A?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I EVER MET THAT PERSON, SIR.

Q: DID YOU SEE A FEMALE BY THE NAME OF MAZZOLA AT THAT SCENE THAT MORNING WITH FUNG?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. HE JUST SAID HE NEVER HEARD OF THAT PERSON.

MR. COCHRAN: I AM ASKING IF HE SAW A FEMALE.

THE COURT: YOU SAID BY THE NAME OF MAZZOLA.

MR. COCHRAN: STRIKE THE NAME OF MAZZOLA.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU SEE A FEMALE ACCOMPANYING FUNG AT THE SCENE THAT MORNING EITHER AT ROCKINGHAM OR AT BUNDY?

A: NO. "


"Q: -- WITH ARNELLE? DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHETHER SHE WENT TO PUNCH IN AN ALARM KEYPAD WHEN YOU FIRST ENTERED?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: DOES THAT MEAN SHE DIDN'T DO IT?

A: I DIDN'T SEE HER DO IT. I HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER SHE DID IT OR NOT.

Q: SHE COULD HAVE. YOU JUST DON'T KNOW?

A: I DON'T KNOW. "

However, we are to believe that he was correct in his memory of what he told Simpson about the murders. He also testified that he could not say whether or not Ms. Arnelle took the alarm off the house.

[Parker]

going ok for whom martin? you two guys almost got us shut down! :punch:

I'd say that that's a good point, fbg.

No William Anthony and Martin you do not speak for everyone.

You post your opinions. That's all they are.

You are not the be all and the end all about OJ. Other people have their opinions and they have the right to post them.

You both are on here all the time. I mean, what lives do you have beyond trying to beat people down about OJ?

Get a grip and get a life. Others have the right to post about OJ. What you say is not definitive.

I don't mean that I don't enjoy reading your posts:) but i don't agree with you on most points.

I think Bob August is the man. Like I think Dayle Hinman is the profiler.

[William Anthony]

I'd say that that's a good point, fbg.

No William Anthony and Martin you do not speak for everyone.

You post your opinions. That's all they are.

You are not the be all and the end all about OJ. Other people have their opinions and they have the right to post them.

You both are on here all the time. I mean, what lives do you have beyond trying to beat people down about OJ?

Get a grip and get a life. Others have the right to post about OJ. What you say is not definitive.

I don't mean that I don't enjoy reading your posts:) but i don't agree with you on most points.

I think Bob August is the man. Like I think Dayle Hinman is the profiler.

What I care to share about my life is my business. With that said, :seeya:, :seeya:, :seeya: and :seeya:.

[bobaugust]

March 22, Kato

"Q: AND SO APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL?

A: AT ABOUT 10:40.

Q: IS THAT EXACT, 10:40?

A: WELL, WHAT I REMEMBER. I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE CLOCK, BUT AROUND 10:40.

Q: DO YOU RECALL PREVIOUSLY TESTIFYING THAT IT WAS 10:40 TO 10:45?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES. "



Rachel Ferra March 28th

"Q: OKAY. AND ABOUT HOW LONG AFTER YOU HAD ASKED THE TIME AND HE TOLD YOU IT WAS 10:30 DID HE DESCRIBE AN EARTHQUAKE OCCURRING?

A: AFTER 10:30?

Q: RIGHT. YOU ASKED HIM WHAT TIME IT WAS; HE SAID 10:30, CORRECT?

A: RIGHT.

Q: AT SOME POINT AFTER THAT HE DESCRIBED AN EARTHQUAKE OCCURRING?

A: UH-HUH.

Q: HOW LONG AFTER THAT TIME WHEN HE SAID IT WAS 10:30 DID HE DESCRIBE HEARING AN EARTHQUAKE?

A: APPROXIMATELY TEN MINUTES.

Q: AND HOW DID HE DESCRIBE THAT EARTHQUAKE SOUND?

A: HE SAID IT WAS A BANG. "

You’ve posted some examples of unreliable time estimates. Neither Kaelin nor Ferrara looked at a clock or a watch during their telephone conversations. Ferrara guessed at times that were even more unreliable than Kaelin’s.

Ferrara thought Kaelin stayed on the phone ten minutes after the noises. Kaelin testified it was only two to three minutes.

Ferrara testified that Kaelin called her back at about 11:05 after he checked out the noises. She said during that conversation the call was interrupted by call waiting, Simpson calling to give Kaelin instructions to set the house alarm.

Kaelin testified that that he called Ferrara back at about 11:15, 11:20 after Simpson left for the airport. During that phone call Kaelin testified that call waiting beeped about 11:40. That was when Simpson called Kaelin and gave him instructions to set the house alarm. Park testified that he and Simpson arrived at the airport about 11:35 and Simpson testified that he called Kaelin from the airport to set the house alarm. Kaelin, Park, and Simpson all contradict Ferrara’s time guesses.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

This post confirms that Kato heard bangs on his wall and the time he heard it.


Clark: AT THAT POINT THAT YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL, SIR, APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN ON THE PHONE WITH RACHEL FERRARA?
Kaelin: ABOUT A HALF HOUR.
Clark: AND SO APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL?
Kaelin: AT ABOUT 10:40.
Kato time estimate for noise 10:40
Based on a call made at 10:10 and ending at 10:45

26 CLARK: HOW LONG AFTER HEARING THE THUMP DID YOU --
27 HOW LONG AFTER YOU MADE THE PHONE CALL DID YOU HEAR THE
28 THUMP?
1 DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?
2 KATO: WHEN I CALLED HER UP, WHEN DID I HEAR IT DURING
3 OUR CONVERSATION? HOW LONG HAD I BEEN ON?
4 CLARK: YES.
5 KATO: I'M THINKING ABOUT A HALF-HOUR.
6 CLARK: SO IT WAS A HALF-HOUR INTO THE CALL?
7 KATO: I THINK SO.
8 I THINK IN THE PHONE RECORD IT WILL SHOW.
9 CLARK: HOW LONG AFTER HEARING THE THUMP DID YOU HANG
10 UP THAT PHONE?
11 KATO: 5 MINUTES AFTER I HEARD THE THUMP.
12 IT WAS PRETTY FAST. I MEAN, WITHIN 1 TO 5
13 MINUTES.
*** Fuhrman testified time estimated as 10:45, made the morning of June 13th ***
Fuhrman: {Kaelin} SAID ABOUT 10:45 P.M. THE PREVIOUS NIGHT, I BELIEVE HE SAID HE WAS TALKING ON THE PHONE. HE SAID HE HEARD A CRASH OR A THUMP ON HIS WALL. HE THOUGHT THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN EARTHQUAKE AND HIS PICTURE SHOOK.

The testimony you posted shows some of the unreliable time estimates Kaelin made. Kaelin never looked at clock he was only guessing at these times. The only reliable time estimates in this case are time estimates that are supported by telephone records. We know that Kaelin heard the noises on his wall about 10:52 based on Allan Park’s telephone records documenting the time of 10:55 when Park saw Kaelin, with a flashlight come from around the house after leaving his room two to three minutes after he heard the noises.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You’ve posted some examples of unreliable time estimates. Neither Kaelin nor Ferrara looked at a clock or a watch during their telephone conversations. Ferrara guessed at times that were even more unreliable than Kaelin’s.

Ferrara thought Kaelin stayed on the phone ten minutes after the noises. Kaelin testified it was only two to three minutes.

Ferrara testified that Kaelin called her back at about 11:05 after he checked out the noises. She said during that conversation the call was interrupted by call waiting, Simpson calling to give Kaelin instructions to set the house alarm.

Kaelin testified that that he called Ferrara back at about 11:15, 11:20 after Simpson left for the airport. During that phone call Kaelin testified that call waiting beeped about 11:40. That was when Simpson called Kaelin and gave him instructions to set the house alarm. Park testified that he and Simpson arrived at the airport about 11:35 and Simpson testified that he called Kaelin from the airport to set the house alarm. Kaelin, Park, and Simpson all contradict Ferrara’s time guesses.

bobaugust

Kato testified it was between ten forty and ten forty five when he heard the noise. Ms. Rachel testified it was approximately ten minutes after ten thirty when he said he heard the noises, making it closer to ten forty. If we go by the time are only estimates, then Kato saying he waited two to three minutes could also be five minutes or longer. Kato also testified, IIRC, that he started to the rear of his quarters, changed his mind but subsequently did go to check out the noises. The fact is that the testimonies conflict with JS's times and neither the prosecution nor the plaintiffs used Ms. Shively. Therefore, the testimony is what it is and leads to reasonable doubt, imho.

[Parker]

William Anthony,I don't know where you get the bit about who you share your life with but anyway. Bob, the blood stains on the sweats in OJ's washing machine. They were videotaped. You said so. I believe you.
OJ's telling people to set his house alarm. What's up with that?

[William Anthony]

William Anthony,I don't know where you get the bit about who you share your life with but anyway.

From this.

Get a grip and get a life. Others have the right to post about OJ. What you say is not definitive.



:seeya:, :seeya: and :seeya:, :).

[Parker]

Kato testified it was between ten forty and ten forty five when he heard the noise. Ms. Rachel testified it was approximately ten minutes after ten thirty when he said he heard the noises, making it closer to ten forty. If we go by the time are only estimates, then Kato saying he waited two to three minutes could also be five minutes or longer. Kato also testified, IIRC, that he started to the rear of his quarters, changed his mind but subsequently did go to check out the noises. The fact is that the testimonies conflict with JS's times and neither the prosecution or the plaintiffs used Ms. Shively. Therefore, the testimony is what it is and leads to reasonable doubt, imho.

Bob August, you're on line this is so cool. The sweats in the washing machine. If LE had them now, do you think they could find any DNA?

[GreenIce]

I think Arnelle lied twice about what happened between her and the detectives in the early morning after the murders.
The civil trial description of Arnelle's testimony says this: She contradicted detective’s stories about how they got into Simpson's house and what they told her before they talked to her father.

The detectives and Arnelle disagreed about which door she opened for them to enter the main house. This has been posted about several times on this forum, so I won't repeat it.

Arnelle and Det Lange also disagreed on what he told her about Nicole's death. He said he just told her that Nicole had been killed. Arnelle said that he told her there was a second victim. Both the detective and Arnelle agreed that she became very upset.
I realize I may have overlooked some details in the transcripts.

If one person disagrees with four people, we usually take the word of the greater number. Also, as some people have pointed out, the cops got there stories down well before they could have known that which door was opened would be important. If there had been only one disagreement between Arnelle and the detectives, I might think it was just an accident, she was tired and upset; but two disagreements in favor of her father makes it look like she was lying. Arnelle also had more motives for lying than the detectives did.

fgump2,

The detectives had plenty of motivation for lying and all of them sticking to the same story. The second they all walked on Simpson's property, they were bound and could not waiver from certain events. You keep forgetting, they know what door was used---they knew it would be 4 against 1, I take those odds in a heartbeat.

All this about Arnelle and the door issue, the sweats, etc., only proves one thing only, both the DA's and Petrocelli believe Simpson had help. Petrocelli knew he had to come up with answers and phrase them in such away that it appeared that he answered every single question that the DA's failed to answer.

Petrocelli takes credit for a few things that simply can't be true--as in Kato. Did Kato get up in the civil trial and do his demonstration against the wall?

[William Anthony]

"A: OKAY. SO I HAD THE FLASHLIGHT AND THE LIMO WAS HERE, (INDICATING), SO I START WALKING THIS WAY, (INDICATING), AND I HAD THE LIGHT ON AND I WENT -- THERE IS A GATE HERE, (INDICATING), THAT IS -- I COULD PICK UP THE GATE. YOU CAN PICK IT UP, IT IS NOT WORKING, SO I LEANED IT AGAINST THE TREE AND I WENT DOWN JUST A BIT -- THE PEN LIGHT -- THE LIGHT WAS PRETTY DIM. I LOOKED A LITTLE BIT AND THEN I CAME BACK.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS INDICATED HE WALKED SOUTH ON THE DRIVEWAY OVER TO THE GARAGE AREA, MADE A LEFT AT THE CORNER OF THE GARAGE AND WALKED IN ON THAT SOUTH PATHWAY A SHORT DISTANCE.

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. AS FAR AS YOU GOT ON THAT SOUTH PATHWAY, SIR, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THE AREA -- THE GROUND AREA AROUND THE AIR CONDITIONER IN YOUR ROOM?

A: NO.

Q: AND WHY DID YOU STOP ON THE PATHWAY WHERE YOU DID?

A: I JUST DID. I COULDN'T SEE. I WAS -- I JUST STOPPED.

Q: WHY?

A: YOU KNOW, I WAS SCARED, BUT -- THAT IS IT.

Q: YOU WERE SCARED?

A: SCARED, YEAH.

Q: OKAY. AND SO YOU BACKED OUT AGAIN?

A: YES, I DID. "

Kato's testimony-March 22nd.

[William Anthony]

Testimony of Allan Park-March 28th

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME HAD YOU ALREADY LOOKED AT THE -- AT THE HOUSE, THE AREA THAT YOU WERE DIRECTED TO LOOK AT BY DALE ST. JOHN, TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY LIGHTS?

A: YES.

Q: AND AFTER YOU SAW THAT THERE WERE NO LIGHTS, WAS IT AFTER THAT POINT THAT YOU SAW THIS WHITE MALE?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: AND THAT PERSON THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING, HAVE YOU SINCE LEARNED WHAT HIS NAME IS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT IS HIS NAME?

A: KATO.

Q: CAN YOU SHOW US ON THE DIAGRAM, DIRECT THE POINTER TO WHERE YOU SAW HIM ON THE SIDE YARD?

A: RIGHT THERE WHERE THE ARROW WAS WHERE THE PATH -- WHERE THE PATH COMES OUT FROM BEHIND THE HOUSE. HE CAME OUT TO JUST ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY, RIGHT THERE, (INDICATING).

Q: WAS HE ON THE DRIVEWAY OR WAS HE ON THE GRASS?

A: NO, HE WAS OFF A COUPLE FEET.

Q: OKAY. TELL THE POINTER WHERE TO GO.

A: JUST RIGHT -- RIGHT THERE, (INDICATING).

Q: OKAY. WAS HE ON THE GRASS OR ON THE PATH?

A: I COULDN'T SEE.

Q: YOU COULDN'T TELL?

A: NO.

Q: SO IS THAT THE GENERAL LOCATION WHERE HE WAS?

A: YES.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHAT KIND OF FLASHLIGHT HE HAD?

A: AT THAT TIME, NO.

Q: WHAT WAS HE DOING WHEN YOU SAW HIM?

A: HE WAS JUST STANDING THERE, FROM WHAT I OBSERVED.

Q: OKAY. COULD YOU TELL WHERE HE WAS LOOKING OR WHAT HE WAS DOING?

A: HE LOOKED AT ME AND THEN HE JUST -- HE STARTED TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, IN THE AREA OF THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY.

Q: NOW, WHEN HE WAS LOOKING AT YOU, WHERE WERE YOU?

A: I WAS INSIDE THE CAR ON THE PHONE.

Q: TALKING TO YOUR BOSS?

A: YES. "

[martin II]

The testimony you posted shows some of the unreliable time estimates Kaelin made. Kaelin never looked at clock he was only guessing at these times. The only reliable time estimates in this case are time estimates that are supported by telephone records. We know that Kaelin heard the noises on his wall about 10:52 based on Allan Park’s telephone records documenting the time of 10:55 when Park saw Kaelin, with a flashlight come from around the house after leaving his room two to three minutes after he heard the noises.

bobaugust

I think Park was just plain wrong about seeing Kato standing at the walkway
at the time he stated.

I think Park had seen tv reports of events on 6/12 and without realizing it he transposed some info from these reports into his testimony.He was overly prepared by cLarke, known for dictating her versions of evnts to witnesses and his lawyer mother that sat next to him in court.
I think the mistakes he made were caused by some level of confusion and his inability to remember what he was suppose to say.

When a witness is asked to give a story that is in conflict with what he knows
actually happened, change of testimony from testimony to testimony and statements that don't jive with the facts is the results.

I think the first time Park saw Kato was when Kato returned from his first walk to the south walkway entrance and opened the gate for him.

Kato knew a limo was comming for oj. Seeing one was not a surprise. Why would he stand where Park say he stood, looking at the limo in a area where there was no lights.

Park sat at the Ashford gate getting in and out of the limo to buzz the house to making telephone calls on his cell. I don't believe his eyes were focused 100% of the time at the front door the driveway or any other area.

He arrived at Rockingham, drove to Ashford, then drove back to Rockingham
then drove back to Ashford. Parked across the street, smoked a cigarette
and then he pulled his limo up to the gaste.Impossible that he saw everything inside the gate and at the font door.imo

[William Anthony]

I think Park was just plain wrong about seeing Kato standing at the walkway
at the time he stated.

I think Park had seen tv reports of events on 6/12 and without realizing it he transposed some info from these reports into his testimony.He was overly prepared by cLarke, known for dictating her versions of evnts to witnesses and his lawyer mother that sat next to him in court.
I think the mistakes he made were caused by some level of confusion and his inability to remember what he was suppose to say.

When a witness is asked to give a story that is in conflict with what he knows
actually happened, change of testimony from testimony to testimony and statements that don't jive with the facts is the results.

I think the first time Park saw Kato was when Kato returned from his first walk to the south walkway entrance and opened the gate for him.

Kato knew a limo was comming for oj. Seeing one was not a surprise. Why would he stand where Park say he stood, looking at the limo in a area where there was no lights.

Park sat at the Ashford gate getting in and out of the limo to buzz the house to making telephone calls on his cell. I don't believe his eyes were focused 100% of the time at the front door the driveway or any other area.

He arrived at Rockingham, drove to Ashford, then drove back to Rockingham
then drove back to Ashford. Parked across the street, smoked a cigarette
and then he pulled his limo up to the gaste.Impossible that he saw everything inside the gate and at the font door.imo

Martin,

Bobaugust's theory is destroyed by the same phone records he relies on. Kato could not have heard the noises at ten fifty two, because he testified he waited two to three minutes after hearing the noises to go check them out. Park made the call at ten fifty two, by that time Kato had gotten a flash light walked down to the south pathway, checked it out and started back to open the gate for Park. Allowing for all of this places the time of the thumps closer to ten forty five and the questioning by Clark, IIRC, making him remember his GJ testimony that the thumps were at ten forty five, reinforces what she wanted the time to be. Waiting three minutes to go check out the thumps, ten forty eight, and then getting a flashlight, walking down to the south parkway, noticing Park, somewhat checking the thumps by walking behind the quarters, walking back out and then going to open the gate is more consistent with hearing the thumps between ten forty and ten forty five, imho.

[martin II]

fgump2,

The detectives had plenty of motivation for lying and all of them sticking to the same story. The second they all walked on Simpson's property, they were bound and could not waiver from certain events. You keep forgetting, they know what door was used---they knew it would be 4 against 1, I take those odds in a heartbeat.

All this about Arnelle and the door issue, the sweats, etc., only proves one thing only, both the DA's and Petrocelli believe Simpson had help. Petrocelli knew he had to come up with answers and phrase them in such away that it appeared that he answered every single question that the DA's failed to answer.

Petrocelli takes credit for a few things that simply can't be true--as in Kato. Did Kato get up in the civil trial and do his demonstration against the wall?

For some reason some law and order types deny that some le lie on the stand
simply because they are cops and for them cops don't lie.
The Bluie Wall of silence is well known to be a part of how some cops operate
yet some believe this wall will not cause 4 cops to lie against one witness.

I remember a case where two cops used a plunger strick on a person being held.Two,Three others saw then go into thebathroom with the operson and heard the person yelling in Pain. For about a year all of them denied what happened and they all stuck to a story that did not meet the common truth stest. Finally one cop decided he didn't want to go to jail and he told on all of them.He cracked the Blue Wall but was attacked by other cops until he just quit trhe job.

[martin II]

Martin,

Bobaugust's theory is destroyed by the same phone records he relies on. Kato could not have heard the noises at ten fifty two, because he testified he waited two to three minutes after hearing the noises to go check them out. Park made the call at ten fifty two, by that time Kato had gotten a flash light walked down to the south pathway, checked it out and started back to open the gate for Park. Allowing for all of this places the time of the thumps closer to ten forty five and the questioning by Clark, IIRC, making him remember his GJ testimony that the thumps were at ten forty five, reinforces what she wanted the time to be. Waiting three minutes to go check out the thumps, ten forty eight, and then getting a flashlight, walking down to the south parkway, noticing Park, somewhat checking the thumps by walking behind the quarters, walking back out and then going to open the gate is more consistent with hearing the thumps between ten forty and ten forty five, imho.


I totally agree. bob dosent understad that some of what he says is dead wrong but he likes to believe he can corect certain posters that he has targeted.His use of 'OJ COULD HAVE"OJ MUST HAVE" MABY OJ DID" as proof of something is comical to say the least.

Kato testified many times but he always got back to 10:40 10:45.

Cochram blew the case wide open when he found and brought Heidstra foward. Clarks 10:20 time went out of the window.

I think Bill Pavalic found Heidstra.

[martin II]

William Anthony,I don't know where you get the bit about who you share your life with but anyway. Bob, the blood stains on the sweats in OJ's washing machine. They were videotaped. You said so. I believe you.
OJ's telling people to set his house alarm. What's up with that?

Almost every poster has agreed that Fung did not see blood on the sweats when he examined them and now you say there was blood on the sweats.
Who told you that?? What causes you to be so confused about the obvious.

[William Anthony]

I totally agree. bob dosent understad that some of what he says is dead wrong but he likes to believe he can corect certain posters that he has targeted.His use of 'OJ COULD HAVE"OJ MUST HAVE" MABY OJ DID" as proof of something is comical to say the least.

Kato testified many times but he always got back to 10:40 10:45.

Cochram blew the case wide open when he found and brought Heidstra foward. Clarks 10:20 time went out of the window.

I think Bill Pavalic found Heidstra.

Perhaps, my use of the word destroys was too harsh in regard to bobaugust's theory and I should have said severely damages.

[bobaugust]

I think Park was just plain wrong about seeing Kato standing at the walkway
at the time he stated.

I think Park had seen tv reports of events on 6/12 and without realizing it he transposed some info from these reports into his testimony.He was overly prepared by cLarke, known for dictating her versions of evnts to witnesses and his lawyer mother that sat next to him in court.
I think the mistakes he made were caused by some level of confusion and his inability to remember what he was suppose to say.

When a witness is asked to give a story that is in conflict with what he knows
actually happened, change of testimony from testimony to testimony and statements that don't jive with the facts is the results.

I think the first time Park saw Kato was when Kato returned from his first walk to the south walkway entrance and opened the gate for him.

Kato knew a limo was comming for oj. Seeing one was not a surprise. Why would he stand where Park say he stood, looking at the limo in a area where there was no lights.

Park sat at the Ashford gate getting in and out of the limo to buzz the house to making telephone calls on his cell. I don't believe his eyes were focused 100% of the time at the front door the driveway or any other area.

He arrived at Rockingham, drove to Ashford, then drove back to Rockingham
then drove back to Ashford. Parked across the street, smoked a cigarette
and then he pulled his limo up to the gaste.Impossible that he saw everything inside the gate and at the font door.imo

Allan Park consistently testified that he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house with a flashlight and almost simultaneously he saw Simpson walk up from his driveway into the light of the front entry and enter his house. Park was on the telephone at the time inside his limousine parked at the Ashford gate where he could see both of these individuals yet they could not see each other. Park could see the side of Simpson’s house from where Kaelin came from as well as the front entrance where Simpson entered the house.

If you can’t understand that then look at this overhead aerial photo of the estate.
http://bobaugust.com/aerialxx.jpg


You wrote,
“He arrived at Rockingham, drove to Ashford, then drove back to Rockingham
then drove back to Ashford. Parked across the street, smoked a cigarette
and then he pulled his limo up to the gate.”

That’s not quite correct. Park arrived at the estate on Rockingham and identified the estate by the house numbers on the curb just to the left of the Rockingham gate. He drove past the gate to Ashford St. and turned right seeing the Ashford gate. He drove past that gate turned around, parked, and had a cigarette to kill some time. He then went back to the Rockingham gate and looked through the gate and up the driveway to see if he could pull into the estate through that gate. He testified it didn’t look very easy to make that turn so he reversed the limo and backed it up to Ashford. Turning left he then pulled the limousine up to the Ashford gate and parked.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Martin,

Bobaugust's theory is destroyed by the same phone records he relies on. Kato could not have heard the noises at ten fifty two, because he testified he waited two to three minutes after hearing the noises to go check them out. Park made the call at ten fifty two, by that time Kato had gotten a flash light walked down to the south pathway, checked it out and started back to open the gate for Park. Allowing for all of this places the time of the thumps closer to ten forty five and the questioning by Clark, IIRC, making him remember his GJ testimony that the thumps were at ten forty five, reinforces what she wanted the time to be. Waiting three minutes to go check out the thumps, ten forty eight, and then getting a flashlight, walking down to the south parkway, noticing Park, somewhat checking the thumps by walking behind the quarters, walking back out and then going to open the gate is more consistent with hearing the thumps between ten forty and ten forty five, imho.

Park first saw Kaelin come from around the house at about 10:55. Kaelin testified that he left his room to investigate the noises two to three minutes after hearing the noises. That makes the time of the noises at about 10:52.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I'd say that that's a good point, fbg.

No William Anthony and Martin you do not speak for everyone.

You post your opinions. That's all they are.

You are not the be all and the end all about OJ. Other people have their opinions and they have the right to post them.

You both are on here all the time. I mean, what lives do you have beyond trying to beat people down about OJ?

Get a grip and get a life. Others have the right to post about OJ. What you say is not definitive.

I don't mean that I don't enjoy reading your posts:) but i don't agree with you on most points.

I think Bob August is the man. Like I think Dayle Hinman is the profiler.

Parker

I think most posters post testimony ,evidence or opinions. People accept or reject others opinions for a variety of reasons. Its all good.

Do you know if JB is on vacation or AWOL for a while?

[William Anthony]

Allan Park consistently testified that he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house with a flashlight and almost simultaneously he saw Simpson walk up from his driveway into the light of the front entry and enter his house.



bobaugust

Please provide the date of the testimony where Park testified he saw Simpson as opposed to someone of Simpson's approximate height. If you can't, I will gladly post as to what Park actually testified? You are correct that Park testified he the first time he saw Kato was when Kato came from behind the quarters, which means he did not see Kato come from the quarters and he was not on the phone with his boss at that time, meaning the logical inference to be drawn is that Kato exited at sometime before ten fifty two.

[William Anthony]

Park first saw Kaelin come from around the house at about 10:55. Kaelin testified that he left his room to investigate the noises two to three minutes after hearing the noises. That makes the time of the noises at about 10:52.

bobaugust

Link to Park first saw Kato at ten fifty five by the testimony he was on the phone with his boss and that call ended at ten fifty five? The earliest he could have been on the phone with his boss, by the records you rely on, is ten fifty two and Kato, by the logical inference, had already somewhat checked behind his quarters by ten fifty two.:)

[martin II]

Park first saw Kaelin come from around the house at about 10:55. Kaelin testified that he left his room to investigate the noises two to three minutes after hearing the noises. That makes the time of the noises at about 10:52.

bobaugust

I think in the black of night Park was just wrong. I think Kato did look at Park maby but it was when he returned from his first walk to the south walkway and returned to open the gate for him.He just didn't see Kato when he first passed. imo

[William Anthony]

Parker

I think most posters post testimony ,evidence or opinions. People accept or reject others opinions for a variety of reasons. Its all good.

Do you know if JB is on vacation or AWOL for a while?

There is a familiar ring to the initials JB. Oh yes, Joseph Bell. I remember now.

[William Anthony]

I think in the black of night Park was just wrong. I think Kato did look at Park maby but it was when he returned from his first walk to the south walkway and returned to open the gate for him.He just didn't see Kato when he first passed. imo

Excellent post, Martin.

By Park's own testimony, he was on the phone with his mother, getting his boss' home phone number at ten forty three and that phone call lasted shortly over two minutes. Ten forty three to ten forty five, which explains why he did not see Kato leave his quarters, imho, which collaterally confirms Kato's ten forty to ten forty five time line for hearing the thumps. Reasonable doubt comes to my mind.

[Parker]

Allan Park consistently testified that he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house with a flashlight and almost simultaneously he saw Simpson walk up from his driveway into the light of the front entry and enter his house. Park was on the telephone at the time inside his limousine parked at the Ashford gate where he could see both of these individuals yet they could not see each other. Park could see the side of Simpson’s house from where Kaelin came from as well as the front entrance where Simpson entered the house.

If you can’t understand that then look at this overhead aerial photo of the estate.
http://bobaugust.com/aerialxx.jpg


You wrote,
“He arrived at Rockingham, drove to Ashford, then drove back to Rockingham
then drove back to Ashford. Parked across the street, smoked a cigarette
and then he pulled his limo up to the gate.”

That’s not quite correct. Park arrived at the estate on Rockingham and identified the estate by the house numbers on the curb just to the left of the Rockingham gate. He drove past the gate to Ashford St. and turned right seeing the Ashford gate. He drove past that gate turned around, parked, and had a cigarette to kill some time. He then went back to the Rockingham gate and looked through the gate and up the driveway to see if he could pull into the estate through that gate. He testified it didn’t look very easy to make that turn so he reversed the limo and backed it up to Ashford. Turning left he then pulled the limousine up to the Ashford gate and parked.

bobaugust

Thanks for posting the truth on these 'facts'. I think there are a lot of posts on here that are presented as 'truth' that are the opinions of William Anthony and Martin and are their opinions only.

I don't know why anyone would be congatulating William Anthony and Martin and opening up more forums.

Bob August, you are an honest man and you continue to speak the truth.

Crime Library continues to allow two men who are obviously biased to present themselves as 'the truth'. Anyone who reads here must wonder why this is allowed to continue.

Bob Anthony, I will continue to read your posts.

[William Anthony]

We seem to have a couple of new posters, a Bob August and a Bob Anthony. Let me welcome them aboard.

[tv]

Excellent post, Martin.

By Park's own testimony, he was on the phone with his mother, getting his boss' home phone number at ten forty three and that phone call lasted shortly over two minutes. Ten forty three to ten forty five, which explains why he did not see Kato leave his quarters, imho, which collaterally confirms Kato's ten forty to ten forty five time line for hearing the thumps. Reasonable doubt comes to my mind.

Park was on the phone with his mother from 10:46:30 to 10:48:50 getting the number of Dale St. John. It was his boss, Dale St. John, that he paged at 10:43:44. At 10:52:17 he was standing next to the buzzer when he heard his cell phone ring in the car. He hurried back to the car and got in. He hung up at 10:55:12. He saw Kato for the first time while he was on this call with his boss which would be approximately 10:54:30. Kato testifed that it was between two and a half to three and a half minutes between the time he heard the thumps on the wall and the time he reached the front of the house. That pinpoints the time of the thumps at 10:51 to 10:52.

[William Anthony]

Park was on the phone with his mother from 10:46:30 to 10:48:50 getting the number of Dale St. John. It was his boss, Dale St. John, that he paged at 10:43:44. At 10:52:17 he was standing next to the buzzer when he heard his cell phone ring in the car. He hurried back to the car and got in. He hung up at 10:55:12. He saw Kato for the first time while he was on this call with his boss which would be approximately 10:54:30. Kato testifed that it was between two and a half to three and a half minutes between the time he heard the thumps on the wall and the time he reached the front of the house. That pinpoints the time of the thumps at 10:51 to 10:52.

You are correct. At any rate he was in the car at 10:43, stepped out and rang the intercom, returned to the car and at ten forty six was calling his mother, which is consistent with Kato hearing the thumps between ten forty and ten forty five waiting two to three minutes to go check, around ten forty eight while Park was getting the number of his boss and not seeing Kato go behind the quarters, which severely damages bobaugust's theory and reinforces Kato's estimate.

[William Anthony]

Park was on the phone with his mother from 10:46:30 to 10:48:50 getting the number of Dale St. John. It was his boss, Dale St. John, that he paged at 10:43:44. At 10:52:17 he was standing next to the buzzer when he heard his cell phone ring in the car. He hurried back to the car and got in. He hung up at 10:55:12. He saw Kato for the first time while he was on this call with his boss which would be approximately 10:54:30. Kato testifed that it was between two and a half to three and a half minutes between the time he heard the thumps on the wall and the time he reached the front of the house. That pinpoints the time of the thumps at 10:51 to 10:52.

Perhaps, this will make it clearer.

"Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU THINK YOU SAW THE LIMO DRIVER -- EXCUSE ME -- THE LIMOUSINE PARKED AT THE ASHFORD GATE?

A: ABOUT 10:50. "

This would indicate that Park was not seen and is consistent with Kato hearing the thumps at approximately ten forty five, waiting two or three minutes to go and check, placing Park near the end of his ten forty eight phone call. Park then returns to the limo to answer his boss' phone call at ten fifty two at which time Kato has finished his cursory check and goes to open the gate.

Link please, to Kato testifying it was two to three minutes between the time he heard the thumps and reached the front of the house?

[tv]

I disagree. The phone records tell the story. They don't lie and they're not mistaken.

[William Anthony]

I disagree. The phone records tell the story. They don't lie and they're not mistaken.

Link please, to Kato testifying it was two to three minutes between the time he heard the thumps and reached the front of the house?

The phone records help explain the story.

[martin II]

Martin,

Bobaugust's theory is destroyed by the same phone records he relies on. Kato could not have heard the noises at ten fifty two, because he testified he waited two to three minutes after hearing the noises to go check them out. Park made the call at ten fifty two, by that time Kato had gotten a flash light walked down to the south pathway, checked it out and started back to open the gate for Park. Allowing for all of this places the time of the thumps closer to ten forty five and the questioning by Clark, IIRC, making him remember his GJ testimony that the thumps were at ten forty five, reinforces what she wanted the time to be. Waiting three minutes to go check out the thumps, ten forty eight, and then getting a flashlight, walking down to the south parkway, noticing Park, somewhat checking the thumps by walking behind the quarters, walking back out and then going to open the gate is more consistent with hearing the thumps between ten forty and ten forty five, imho.


HE is confused and confusing another poster.

[martin II]

Park was on the phone with his mother from 10:46:30 to 10:48:50 getting the number of Dale St. John. It was his boss, Dale St. John, that he paged at 10:43:44. At 10:52:17 he was standing next to the buzzer when he heard his cell phone ring in the car. He hurried back to the car and got in. He hung up at 10:55:12. He saw Kato for the first time while he was on this call with his boss which would be approximately 10:54:30. Kato testifed that it was between two and a half to three and a half minutes between the time he heard the thumps on the wall and the time he reached the front of the house. That pinpoints the time of the thumps at 10:51 to 10:52.


tv
check your times.Park was on the phone with his boss when he saw the AA walk into the house.He did not see Kato when he was talking to his boss.At least he did not testify to that.

[martin II]

Example of Park transfering media info into false testimony.
obviously he had seen this picture on tv or the print media before his testimony and just adopted it.

Alan Park sees two cars matching PHOTO

COCHRAN: AND WE HAVE ALREADY COVERED THE FACT THAT YOU ARE CLEAR ABOUT THE BENTLEY, BUT NOT SO CLEAR ABOUT THE CAR BEHIND, RIGHT?
PARK: CORRECT.
COCHRAN: AND DOES THAT PHOTOGRAPH {people's 136} COMPORT WITH YOUR PRESENT RECOLLECTION OF HOW THE CARS WERE CONFIGURED THAT NIGHT WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING INTO THE ROCKINGHAM GATE?
PARK: YES.
Return to 2241 10:41

[martin II]

Petrocelli quotes Simpson on buzzer to Simpson
Petrocelli: And as you're talking about Alan Park, and you say: "He called me on two occasions at that time. You don't buzz my gate. My gate is not a buzz gate. He could have pushed it eight times. The phone is going to ring X amount of times and stop. It's not a when you push the button the gate buzzes. It doesn't work that way. I don't know if the prosecution ever took the time to figure that out. It just doesn't work that way." What did you mean by the gate not being a "buzz gate"? I don't understand what you were saying there.
Simpson: It's not--when you push the button, it doesn't buzz.


The buzzer system does not buzz a bell everytime it is pushed.

When the outside buzzer is pushed it rings on a phone for a few rings and quits.If one rings the buzzer constantly 3-4 times it only rings on the phone once for a few rings and stops.

Obviously Park though that everytime he hit the buzzer it was buzzing inside
but was not the case.

[William Anthony]

HE is confused and confusing another poster.

I can only reiterated that the evidence on the issue of the thumps being made by Simpson, yields itself to reasonable doubt, imho.

[martin II]

I'd say that that's a good point, fbg.

No William Anthony and Martin you do not speak for everyone.

You post your opinions. That's all they are.

You are not the be all and the end all about OJ. Other people have their opinions and they have the right to post them.

You both are on here all the time. I mean, what lives do you have beyond trying to beat people down about OJ?

Get a grip and get a life. Others have the right to post about OJ. What you say is not definitive.

I don't mean that I don't enjoy reading your posts:) but i don't agree with you on most points.

I think Bob August is the man. Like I think Dayle Hinman is the profiler.

I cannot prevent anyone from posting here and it is obvious that many do.

If the frequency of my post bothers you i suggest you put me on ignore or just skip over them but i don't agree with you posting false claims against me on these threads.

[martin II]

ONE Of Parks testimonies about what he was doing at Rockingham gate.

Park looks at address NOT CARS

COCHRAN AND AS YOU TOLD US EARLIER, AT THAT POINT YOU WERE FOCUSING ON THE ADDRESS AND ON THE HOUSE AT THAT POINT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
PARK YES.
COCHRAN AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, AS YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY, YOU WERE NOT FOCUSING ON ANY CARS, PARTICULAR CARS PARKED THERE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
PARK THAT'S CORRECT.
COCHRAN AND YOU CANNOT TELL THIS JURY POSITIVELY THAT A VEHICLE WAS PARKED THERE OUTSIDE THE ROCKINGHAM GATE OR NOT, CAN YOU?
PARK NO.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BY MS. CLARK: ARE YOU SURE YOU DIDN'T SEE IT?
THE WITNESS: I WOULDN'T SAY I'M POSITIVE. I WASN'T LOOKING FOR A CAR. I WAS LOOKING FOR AN ADDRESS

[William Anthony]

I disagree. The phone records tell the story. They don't lie and they're not mistaken.

"Q: OKAY. YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HEARD THE THUMPS AT 9:40 TO 9:45?

A: NOT AT THAT TIME, NO. IT WAS 10:00.

Q: I'M SORRY, 10:40 TO 10:45. THANK YOU, SIR. AND YOU REMAINED ON THE PHONE WITH RACHEL FERRARA FOR ANOTHER TWO TO THREE MINUTES?

A: YES.

Q: SO AT APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU EXITED YOUR ROOM TO GO OUT TO THE PATHWAY?

A: SO IT WAS ABOUT TWO TO THREE MINUTES AFTER THAT TIME, 10:43, 10:44.

Q: OKAY. AND WHEN YOU WENT OUT TO THE PATHWAY, DID YOU -- WHERE YOU WENT OUT ON THE LAWN AREA?

A: YEAH, BUT I STAYED ON THIS PATH, (INDICATING).

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT DID YOU SEE WHEN YOU WERE ON THAT PATH?

A: ON THIS PATH?

Q: YES.

A: NOTHING. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING UNTIL I GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY.

Q: WHEN YOU GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY AREA WHERE THE PATH MEETS THE DRIVEWAY?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE?

A: I SAW A LIMOUSINE. "

Least I forget my manners, Good afternoon, Ms. Tvdinner,

I can see from what I placed in bold where one might think he walked to the front of the house in two to three minutes but, as I read it, he only exited his quarters in two to three minutes after hearing the thumps. Given the other things that he did, it is reasonable to assume that he saw the limo at approximately ten fifty or ten fifty two and Park saw him at ten fifty two or shortly thereafter as he was on the phone with his boss.

[martin II]

tv

This is what Kato said he did when he left his room

Kaelin: --and then I took the pen light and headed back up out the door--to the pathway, past Ashford. I was going to go behind the garage and head down there.
Petrocelli: Now, when you came up to--when you got out of your door and you went up the stairs, you were intending to go to the location behind your room. That's where you heard the noise, and that's where you were going to investigate. Now, was there another way of getting there instead of going around the house, out to the Ashford side and coming back around?
Kaelin: I could have gone--Yes, there is. I could have gone--instead of going up the pathway, I could have gone right. Past Arnelle's room. And then gone though--past the maid's other room. And then there is a gate or--wrought iron gate, but there is no door to it. And you could kinda squeeze in through there, but there was like a lot of trees, a lot of mud. It was a thing that you wouldn't do normally. You would never go--it wasn't a path. A person would never go there like at nighttime. It was like muddy and spider webs, and it was a thing where you kinda--I scraped-- Well, there's like a --there's a garden but not really a garden. It's just like a patch of mud that's --where a garden should be, but I imagine, yeah, there would be mud there.
Petrocelli: But you went up --down the steps, past the pool, around this path. And then you came around this path that heads on near Ashford Street. Go past the entrance to the house? And your intention was to walk from that point all the way in an easterly direction until you get behind your room. Right?
Kaelin: Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petrocelli: Had you ever done that before?
Kaelin: No. There was a guy from the cable company once, I believe, phone company or cable company, that I went back there with a long time ago, and the kids had been back there once or twice before in the daytime, and that was it.
So I had gone through my room door up the stairs to the pathway, and when I got to the pathway looked to my right, and I noticed that there was a limo parked out in front at the gates. The gates were not opened. So I looked and I thought, okay, there's a limo there. I thought it was all attended to, and I walked back to the garage, the first gate.
There's a--first gate here is broken. You can pick it up manually and lean it against the tree. There's a tree there. So I picked it up, placed it there, and I walked down about five feet and-- [You went about halfway down the length of the garage.] I think I was looking with the flashlight kind of like this (Indicating) and going, oh, it's dark. I shouldn't be back here, and turned around, and I just turned around.
I just had an eerie feeling that night, so it was just adding up. So I turned around. put the gate up, and I walked and I noticed the limo guy was still out there. And so when I saw the limo guy still out there, I went, huh, I probably should let him in. So I went to this gate control box (Indicating - inside the Ashford gate), and it's a button--
So I pressed the box--the button, and the doors opened up on the gate. And Chachi was right there, the dog, and the guy started the car, pulled up, and I saw Chachi crossing. Chachi went in front of the limo and laid down in this one spot that he lays.

He went up to the driveway right here (Indicating) where the two park benches are. And stopped there.

[martin II]

"Q: OKAY. YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HEARD THE THUMPS AT 9:40 TO 9:45?

A: NOT AT THAT TIME, NO. IT WAS 10:00.

Q: I'M SORRY, 10:40 TO 10:45. THANK YOU, SIR. AND YOU REMAINED ON THE PHONE WITH RACHEL FERRARA FOR ANOTHER TWO TO THREE MINUTES?

A: YES.

Q: SO AT APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU EXITED YOUR ROOM TO GO OUT TO THE PATHWAY?

A: SO IT WAS ABOUT TWO TO THREE MINUTES AFTER THAT TIME, 10:43, 10:44.

Q: OKAY. AND WHEN YOU WENT OUT TO THE PATHWAY, DID YOU -- WHERE YOU WENT OUT ON THE LAWN AREA?

A: YEAH, BUT I STAYED ON THIS PATH, (INDICATING).

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT DID YOU SEE WHEN YOU WERE ON THAT PATH?

A: ON THIS PATH?

Q: YES.

A: NOTHING. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING UNTIL I GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY.

Q: WHEN YOU GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY AREA WHERE THE PATH MEETS THE DRIVEWAY?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE?

A: I SAW A LIMOUSINE. "

Least I forget my manners, Good afternoon, Ms. Tvdinner,

I can see from what I placed in bold where one might think he walked to the front of the house in two to three minutes but, as I read it, he only exited his quarters in two to three minutes after hearing the thumps. Given the other things that he did, it is reasonable to assume that he saw the limo at approximately ten fifty or ten fifty two and Park saw him at ten fifty two or shortly thereafter as he was on the phone with his boss.

BY MS. CLARK: NOW, APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU THINK YOU SAW THE LIMO DRIVER -- EXCUSE ME -- THE LIMOUSINE PARKED AT THE ASHFORD GATE?
Kaelin: ABOUT 10:50. SO I HAD THE FLASHLIGHT AND THE LIMO WAS HERE, (INDICATING), SO I START WALKING THIS WAY, (INDICATING), AND I HAD THE LIGHT ON AND I WENT -- THERE IS A GATE HERE, (INDICATING), THAT IS -- I COULD PICK UP THE GATE. YOU CAN PICK IT UP, IT IS NOT WORKING, SO I LEANED IT AGAINST THE TREE AND I WENT DOWN JUST A BIT -- THE PEN LIGHT -- THE LIGHT WAS PRETTY DIM. I LOOKED A LITTLE BIT AND THEN I CAME BACK.

[martin II]

Petrocelli: When you first came out the path and saw the limousine driver. Starting from that moment in time and continuing walking down the driveway, going around, opening the gate, going down, coming back, coming around and going to the control box.
Kaelin: Minute to two minutes.

[martin II]

William this has not been discussed:

i believe Kato came from his room directly to the garage and the south pathway.When Kato passed the front door the porch lights were not on.

When Kato got to the garage Oj came down stairs and deposited the two duffle bags on the porch that Park saw when he drove in to the door. Oj then walked to the bently area and brought the golf bag near the park benches at the porch this is when Park saw the AA enter the house. The fact that Kato said the golf bag was not at the bench when he was going to the garage area But were at the bench when he walked back from the garage means that oj moved the golf bag oJ entered the house and turned the porch lights on.The proof of this is that when Kato came back from the garage area and passed the fornt door he saw the porch lights on.

It was the porch lights that park saw come on not the interior lights.
The duffle bags were put on the porch when Kato had passed the front door
going to the garage. meaning oj came down stairs and placed them there.So he must have been in the house all the time.
-------------------------------------------------
Petrocelli: - when you went by the door the first time to investigate, did you go past the Bentley to get to the garage?
Kaelin: Yes, I walked by. {the Bentley, & The Bentley was in the driveway.}
Petrocelli: Did you see anything behind the Bentley?
Kaelin: I don't remember. l don't think so. I think it was -- there was nothing there.
Petrocelli: In other words, did you see this black knapsack that later on you saw?
Kaelin: At that time I believe I did not see it.
Petrocelli: And then you walked by the Bentley and you go investigate. Now, when you came back and walked back to the limousine -- to the area where the limousine was waiting outside, you then let the limousine in. So on your way back to letting the limousine in, did you notice if any of the downstairs interior lights had been turned on?
Kaelin: I thought the lights were on. I thought then lights were on.
Petrocelli: And did you also think that the downstairs coach lights on the outside of the entryway door were on?
Kaelin: I think so. I think they were on.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

I am asking a serious question, what does it matter if Arnelle testifed that Lange did tell her or if he didn't? I don't get the importance of this.

I believe Arnelle was covering up for the fact that her father knew about the second victim (Ron Goldman) along with Nicole before he got back to LA. Cops try to avoid giving out infomation before they have to. If they question someone, the person may give himself away by talking about something that he shouldn't know about unless they were guilty.

I would guess that cops would be even more careful not to give out information if they were trying to frame someone. Look at it this way, the more information you give an innocent person, the more likely he is to prove his innocent. It is better to keep him in the dark.

On the way back to LA from Chicago OJS sat next to a lawyer named Partridge, who said that his ex wife had been killed in a garden and there was a second victim. The question is how did he know that? I think the plaintiff lawyer in the civil trial made a mistake by asking a leading question about the killings taking place in a garden (Petrocelli supplied the word garden), but the question remains, how did OJS get that information?

It is also odd that in the initial interview with the police he asked no questions about why they thought he was guilty, or about the second victim, but he spent some energy trying to minimize the importance of the cut: "I knew I was bleeding, but it was no big deal. I bleed all the time. I play gold and stuff, so there's always something".

It should puzzle people that he had curiosity about what Kato told the police, and retrieving his golf clubs, but little interest in finding out about how Nicole died, why the police suspected him, or the well being of his children.

[martin II]

The testimony you posted shows some of the unreliable time estimates Kaelin made. Kaelin never looked at clock he was only guessing at these times. The only reliable time estimates in this case are time estimates that are supported by telephone records. We know that Kaelin heard the noises on his wall about 10:52 based on Allan Park’s telephone records documenting the time of 10:55 when Park saw Kaelin, with a flashlight come from around the house after leaving his room two to three minutes after he heard the noises.

bobaugust

It is convient to accept times that you like and reject times that conflict with you ideas.I call it cherry picking.But its all good.

[martin II]

I believe Arnelle was covering up for the fact that her father knew about the second victim (Ron Goldman) along with Nicole before he got back to LA. Cops try to avoid giving out infomation before they have to. If they question someone, the person may give himself away by talking about something that he shouldn't know about unless they were guilty.

I would guess that cops would be even more careful not to give out information if they were trying to frame someone. Look at it this way, the more information you give an innocent person, the more likely he is to prove his innocent. It is better to keep him in the dark.

On the way back to LA from Chicago OJS sat next to a lawyer named Partridge, who said that his ex wife had been killed in a garden and there was a second victim. The question is how did he know that? I think the plaintiff lawyer in the civil trial made a mistake by asking a leading question about the killings taking place in a garden (Petrocelli supplied the word garden), but the question remains, how did OJS get that information?

It is also odd that in the initial interview with the police he asked no questions about why they thought he was guilty, or about the second victim, but he spent some energy trying to minimize the importance of the cut: "I knew I was bleeding, but it was no big deal. I bleed all the time. I play gold and stuff, so there's always something".

It should puzzle people that he had curiosity about what Kato told the police, and retrieving his golf clubs, but little interest in finding out about how Nicole died, why the police suspected him, or the well being of his children.

Do you read a lot of detective stories or do you just make this suff up and post before you say you have no proof?

[tv]

Do you read a lot of detective stories or do you just make this suff up and post before you say you have no proof?

martin, this was rude.

[tv]

Petrocelli quotes Simpson on buzzer to Simpson
Petrocelli: And as you're talking about Alan Park, and you say: "He called me on two occasions at that time. You don't buzz my gate. My gate is not a buzz gate. He could have pushed it eight times. The phone is going to ring X amount of times and stop. It's not a when you push the button the gate buzzes. It doesn't work that way. I don't know if the prosecution ever took the time to figure that out. It just doesn't work that way." What did you mean by the gate not being a "buzz gate"? I don't understand what you were saying there.
Simpson: It's not--when you push the button, it doesn't buzz.


The buzzer system does not buzz a bell everytime it is pushed.

When the outside buzzer is pushed it rings on a phone for a few rings and quits.If one rings the buzzer constantly 3-4 times it only rings on the phone once for a few rings and stops.

Obviously Park though that everytime he hit the buzzer it was buzzing inside
but was not the case.We only have the defendant's word for how the buzzer worked.

[tv]

Petrocelli: When you first came out the path and saw the limousine driver. Starting from that moment in time and continuing walking down the driveway, going around, opening the gate, going down, coming back, coming around and going to the control box.
Kaelin: Minute to two minutes.
Park saw Kato while on the phone with his boss at approximately 10:54. If you subtract one or two minutes from that you get 10:52 or 10:53. Sounds about right to me.

[William Anthony]

Park saw Kato while on the phone with his boss at approximately 10:54. If you subtract one or two minutes from that you get 10:52 or 10:53. Sounds about right to me.

Link please to Park seeing Kato at approximately ten fifty four?

[weezer]

Link please to Park seeing Kato at approximately ten fifty four?

oh for Pete's sake -- how about you supply the link proving different?

[martin II]

martin, this was rude.

ok but read the post,

[martin II]

We only have the defendant's word for how the buzzer worked.

That may be true but he is the only one that would know.

[martin II]

Park saw Kato while on the phone with his boss at approximately 10:54. If you subtract one or two minutes from that you get 10:52 or 10:53. Sounds about right to me.

Clark: SO AT APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU EXITED YOUR ROOM TO GO OUT TO THE PATHWAY?
Kaelin: SO IT WAS ABOUT TWO TO THREE MINUTES AFTER THAT TIME, 10:43, 10:44.
Clark suggestion of 10:40-10:45 is accepted by Kaelin:

[weezer]

Clark: SO AT APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU EXITED YOUR ROOM TO GO OUT TO THE PATHWAY?
Kaelin: SO IT WAS ABOUT TWO TO THREE MINUTES AFTER THAT TIME, 10:43, 10:44.
Clark suggestion of 10:40-10:45 is accepted by Kaelin:

what part of APPROXIMATELY do you not get?

[weezer]

Do you read a lot of detective stories or do you just make this suff up and post before you say you have no proof?

this is rude!

[weezer]

It is convient to accept times that you like and reject times that conflict with you ideas.I call it cherry picking.But its all good.

you mean like you do testimony? LOL

[bobaugust]

Link please to Park seeing Kato at approximately ten fifty four?

Let the record correct all the speculating about what some think Park said happened.

March 28, 1995 Allan Park

Q AT SOME POINT DURING YOUR PHONE CONVERSATION WITH DALE ST. JOHN DID SOMETHING ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION?
A YES. A WHITE MALE WALKED FROM BEHIND THE HOUSE AREA ON A PATHWAY AND HE HAD A FLASHLIGHT IN HIS HAND AND HE STOPPED -- HE STOPPED BEFORE HE GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY.
Q OKAY.
A SO I -- I TOLD DALE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY IS HOME.


Q AND THAT PERSON THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING, HAVE YOU SINCE LEARNED WHAT HIS NAME IS?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT IS HIS NAME?
A KATO.

Q WHAT WAS HE DOING WHEN YOU SAW HIM?
A HE WAS JUST STANDING THERE, FROM WHAT I OBSERVED.
Q OKAY.
COULD YOU TELL WHERE HE WAS LOOKING OR WHAT HE WAS DOING?
A HE LOOKED AT ME AND THEN HE JUST -- HE STARTED TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, IN THE AREA OF THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY.
Q NOW, WHEN HE WAS LOOKING AT YOU, WHERE WERE YOU?
A I WAS INSIDE THE CAR ON THE PHONE.
Q TALKING TO YOUR BOSS?
A YES.

Q HOW LONG -- NOW, AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU SAW KATO KAELIN IN THE SIDE YARD, DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE?
A YES. I SAW A FIGURE COME DOWN -- WELL, NOT COME DOWN, BUT I SAW A FIGURE COME INTO THE ENTRANCEWAY OF THE HOUSE JUST ABOUT WHERE THE -- WHERE THE DRIVEWAY STARTS.

Q OKAY.
AND HOW -- IN RELATIONSHIP TO WHEN YOU SAW KATO KAELIN, WHEN DID YOU FIRST SEE THIS PERSON?
A IT WAS JUST -- IT WAS ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY. IT WAS SECONDS AFTER I SAW HIM.

Q AND THIS SIX-FOOT 200-POUND AFRICAN AMERICAN PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING, WAS THIS PERSON MOVING QUICKLY OR SLOWLY?
A NOT QUICKLY, NOT SLOWLY, A GOOD PACE WALK IT SEEMED TO BE.
Q AND MOVING IN WHAT DIRECTION, SIR?
A INTO THE HOUSE OR TOWARD THE HOUSE.

Q AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT PERSON, DID THAT PERSON WALK INTO THE ENTRANCE?
A YES.
Q AFTER THAT PERSON WALKED INTO THE ENTRANCE, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I THEN PROCEEDED TO -- WELL, I WAS STILL TALKING TO DALE AT THE SAME TIME. I SAID "SOMEBODY'S HERE."
HE SAID, "FINE, FINISH THE JOB, TAKE HIM TO THE AIRPORT AND I WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW" OR WHATEVER. I HUNG UP THE PHONE AND I STILL WAITED ANOTHER -- IT WAS ABOUT ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS OR SO BEFORE I GOT OUT OF THE CAR, BUT I WAS STILL WAITING FOR SOME SOMEBODY TO COME OPEN THE GATE. I FIGURED SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO COME OPEN THE GATE FOR ME. THEY STILL DIDN'T.

Q HOW LONG AFTER YOU SAW THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING GO INTO THE HOUSE DID YOU CONTINUE TO TALK TO DALE ST. JOHN?
A OH, IT WAS JUST ANYWHERE BETWEEN TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS. IT WASN'T VERY LONG.
Q OKAY.
SO ON THE PHONE BILL IN FRONT OF YOU, SIR, ON THAT LAST CALL WHERE IT INDICATES 10:52 AND 17 SECONDS, DOES IT INDICATE HOW LONG THE PHONE CALL WAS FOR, THE DURATION OF THE CALL?
A UMM, YES, TWO MINUTES AND 55 SECONDS.
Q OKAY. DOES THAT COMPORT WITH YOUR MEMORY OF THE LENGTH OF THE PHONE CALL?
A YES.
Q AND SO YOU WOULD HAVE HUNG UP WITH HIM AT 10:55 AND 12 SECONDS?
A YES.
Q AND IT WAS WITHIN THE LAST TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS OF THAT CALL AT 10 -- OF ENDING THAT CALL AT 10:55 THAT YOU SAW THIS SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON GO INTO THE ENTRANCE?
A YES.

Q AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT PERSON, DID THAT PERSON WALK INTO THE ENTRANCE?
A YES.
Q AFTER THAT PERSON WALKED INTO THE ENTRANCE, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I THEN PROCEEDED TO -- WELL, I WAS STILL TALKING TO DALE AT THE SAME TIME. I SAID "SOMEBODY'S HERE." HE SAID, "FINE, FINISH THE JOB, TAKE HIM TO THE AIRPORT AND I WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW" OR WHATEVER. I HUNG UP THE PHONE AND I STILL WAITED ANOTHER -- IT WAS ABOUT ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS OR SO BEFORE I GOT OUT OF THE CAR, BUT I WAS STILL WAITING FOR SOME SOMEBODY TO COME OPEN THE GATE. I FIGURED SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO COME OPEN THE GATE FOR ME. THEY STILL DIDN'T.

Q WHEN THAT PERSON WALKED INTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOUSE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY CHANGE IN THE LIGHTING IN THE HOUSE?
A SOME LIGHTS CAME ON DOWNSTAIRS, YES.

Q HOW LONG AFTER THAT PERSON ENTERED THE HOUSE, THE FRONT ENTRANCE, DID THE LIGHTS GO ON DOWNSTAIRS?
A JUST SECONDS.
Q COULD YOU TELL WHICH LIGHTS WENT ON?
A NO. I JUST -- I JUST SAW -- YOU KNOW, FROM THE -- FROM THE WINDOWS AND THE CURTAINS THEY ILLUMINATED. I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHERE THE LIGHTS CAME FROM, NO.

Q BY MS. CLARK: AFTER YOU -- YOU INDICATED THAT YOU SAT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS. WHY DID YOU SIT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS IN YOUR CAR AFTER YOU HUNG UP?
A BECAUSE I WAS WAITING FOR THE GATE TO BE OPENED. I FIGURED SOMEBODY IS HOME, THEY SAW ME AND THEY ARE GOING TO LET ME IN.
Q AND DID KATO KAELIN COME OVER TO LET YOU IN?
A NO, HE DIDN'T.
Q AND DID THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON DRESSED IN ALL DARK CLOTHING COME TO LET YOU IN?
A NO.

Q AND AFTER THIRTY SECONDS WHAT DID YOU DO?
A THAT IS WHEN I GOT BACK UP AND OUT OF THE CAR AND RANG THE INTERCOM. THIS TIME THERE WAS AN ANSWER, WHICH WAS MR. SIMPSON. HE TOLD ME THAT HE OVERSLEPT AND HE JUST GOT OUT OF THE SHOWER AND HE WOULD BE DOWN IN A MINUTE.

Q BY MS. CLARK: AND AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON ON THE INTERCOM, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I GOT BACK INTO THE CAR AND WAITED ANOTHER TWENTY, THIRTY SECONDS AND BEFORE MR. KAELIN CAME OVER AND OPENED THE GATE.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Faye says she was on the phone with nicole from 9pm until 9;30

Petrocelli: Okay. And who called whom on June 12 at around 9 o'clock p.m.?
Resnick: I called Nicole. I returned her phone calls.
I made that call from a phone booth in Exodus Recovery Center.
I asked her how the recital went and she said it was great. She focused on the kids the most, and the recital, the conversation regarding the recital. I asked her if she - if O.J. showed up and she said she did - he did. I asked her how she, what did she say to him and she said she told him to leave her alone, that he was not welcome in her family any longer, that he was not welcome to join them for dinner. She said he was in a deep, dark mood and she said that he had been trying to get a hold of her and she wasn't returning his phone calls, or that she wasn't talking to him. And she was - the rest of the conversation was just brilliant. She was just the happiest girl I had ever talked to. She was free. She said she was free. And she was. She was free of him for a very short period of time.
Mr. Leonard: How long did that telephone conversation last?
Resnick: Approximately 30 minutes, I would think.

[weezer]

Faye says she was on the phone with nicole from 9pm until 9;30

Petrocelli: Okay. And who called whom on June 12 at around 9 o'clock p.m.?
Resnick: I called Nicole. I returned her phone calls.
I made that call from a phone booth in Exodus Recovery Center.
I asked her how the recital went and she said it was great. She focused on the kids the most, and the recital, the conversation regarding the recital. I asked her if she - if O.J. showed up and she said she did - he did. I asked her how she, what did she say to him and she said she told him to leave her alone, that he was not welcome in her family any longer, that he was not welcome to join them for dinner. She said he was in a deep, dark mood and she said that he had been trying to get a hold of her and she wasn't returning his phone calls, or that she wasn't talking to him. And she was - the rest of the conversation was just brilliant. She was just the happiest girl I had ever talked to. She was free. She said she was free. And she was. She was free of him for a very short period of time.
Mr. Leonard: How long did that telephone conversation last?
Resnick: Approximately 30 minutes, I would think.

and?

[martin II]

10;40 to 10;45 is approximate time.

[martin II]

Park saw Kato while on the phone with his boss at approximately 10:54. If you subtract one or two minutes from that you get 10:52 or 10:53. Sounds about right to me.

ok maby i was wrong.

[William Anthony]

oh for Pete's sake -- how about you supply the link proving different?

You did not make the original statement and I was asking the poster that did, because I may have missed something in the testimony.

[William Anthony]

Let the record correct all the speculating about what some think Park said happened.

March 28, 1995 Allan Park

Q AT SOME POINT DURING YOUR PHONE CONVERSATION WITH DALE ST. JOHN DID SOMETHING ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION?
A YES. A WHITE MALE WALKED FROM BEHIND THE HOUSE AREA ON A PATHWAY AND HE HAD A FLASHLIGHT IN HIS HAND AND HE STOPPED -- HE STOPPED BEFORE HE GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY.
Q OKAY.
A SO I -- I TOLD DALE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY IS HOME.


Q AND THAT PERSON THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING, HAVE YOU SINCE LEARNED WHAT HIS NAME IS?
A YES.
Q AND WHAT IS HIS NAME?
A KATO.

Q WHAT WAS HE DOING WHEN YOU SAW HIM?
A HE WAS JUST STANDING THERE, FROM WHAT I OBSERVED.
Q OKAY.
COULD YOU TELL WHERE HE WAS LOOKING OR WHAT HE WAS DOING?
A HE LOOKED AT ME AND THEN HE JUST -- HE STARTED TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, IN THE AREA OF THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY.
Q NOW, WHEN HE WAS LOOKING AT YOU, WHERE WERE YOU?
A I WAS INSIDE THE CAR ON THE PHONE.
Q TALKING TO YOUR BOSS?
A YES.

Q HOW LONG -- NOW, AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU SAW KATO KAELIN IN THE SIDE YARD, DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE?
A YES. I SAW A FIGURE COME DOWN -- WELL, NOT COME DOWN, BUT I SAW A FIGURE COME INTO THE ENTRANCEWAY OF THE HOUSE JUST ABOUT WHERE THE -- WHERE THE DRIVEWAY STARTS.

Q OKAY.
AND HOW -- IN RELATIONSHIP TO WHEN YOU SAW KATO KAELIN, WHEN DID YOU FIRST SEE THIS PERSON?
A IT WAS JUST -- IT WAS ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY. IT WAS SECONDS AFTER I SAW HIM.

Q AND THIS SIX-FOOT 200-POUND AFRICAN AMERICAN PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING, WAS THIS PERSON MOVING QUICKLY OR SLOWLY?
A NOT QUICKLY, NOT SLOWLY, A GOOD PACE WALK IT SEEMED TO BE.
Q AND MOVING IN WHAT DIRECTION, SIR?
A INTO THE HOUSE OR TOWARD THE HOUSE.

Q AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT PERSON, DID THAT PERSON WALK INTO THE ENTRANCE?
A YES.
Q AFTER THAT PERSON WALKED INTO THE ENTRANCE, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I THEN PROCEEDED TO -- WELL, I WAS STILL TALKING TO DALE AT THE SAME TIME. I SAID "SOMEBODY'S HERE."
HE SAID, "FINE, FINISH THE JOB, TAKE HIM TO THE AIRPORT AND I WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW" OR WHATEVER. I HUNG UP THE PHONE AND I STILL WAITED ANOTHER -- IT WAS ABOUT ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS OR SO BEFORE I GOT OUT OF THE CAR, BUT I WAS STILL WAITING FOR SOME SOMEBODY TO COME OPEN THE GATE. I FIGURED SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO COME OPEN THE GATE FOR ME. THEY STILL DIDN'T.

Q HOW LONG AFTER YOU SAW THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING GO INTO THE HOUSE DID YOU CONTINUE TO TALK TO DALE ST. JOHN?
A OH, IT WAS JUST ANYWHERE BETWEEN TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS. IT WASN'T VERY LONG.
Q OKAY.
SO ON THE PHONE BILL IN FRONT OF YOU, SIR, ON THAT LAST CALL WHERE IT INDICATES 10:52 AND 17 SECONDS, DOES IT INDICATE HOW LONG THE PHONE CALL WAS FOR, THE DURATION OF THE CALL?
A UMM, YES, TWO MINUTES AND 55 SECONDS.
Q OKAY. DOES THAT COMPORT WITH YOUR MEMORY OF THE LENGTH OF THE PHONE CALL?
A YES.
Q AND SO YOU WOULD HAVE HUNG UP WITH HIM AT 10:55 AND 12 SECONDS?
A YES.
Q AND IT WAS WITHIN THE LAST TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS OF THAT CALL AT 10 -- OF ENDING THAT CALL AT 10:55 THAT YOU SAW THIS SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON GO INTO THE ENTRANCE?
A YES.

Q AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT PERSON, DID THAT PERSON WALK INTO THE ENTRANCE?
A YES.
Q AFTER THAT PERSON WALKED INTO THE ENTRANCE, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I THEN PROCEEDED TO -- WELL, I WAS STILL TALKING TO DALE AT THE SAME TIME. I SAID "SOMEBODY'S HERE." HE SAID, "FINE, FINISH THE JOB, TAKE HIM TO THE AIRPORT AND I WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW" OR WHATEVER. I HUNG UP THE PHONE AND I STILL WAITED ANOTHER -- IT WAS ABOUT ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS OR SO BEFORE I GOT OUT OF THE CAR, BUT I WAS STILL WAITING FOR SOME SOMEBODY TO COME OPEN THE GATE. I FIGURED SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO COME OPEN THE GATE FOR ME. THEY STILL DIDN'T.

Q WHEN THAT PERSON WALKED INTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOUSE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY CHANGE IN THE LIGHTING IN THE HOUSE?
A SOME LIGHTS CAME ON DOWNSTAIRS, YES.

Q HOW LONG AFTER THAT PERSON ENTERED THE HOUSE, THE FRONT ENTRANCE, DID THE LIGHTS GO ON DOWNSTAIRS?
A JUST SECONDS.
Q COULD YOU TELL WHICH LIGHTS WENT ON?
A NO. I JUST -- I JUST SAW -- YOU KNOW, FROM THE -- FROM THE WINDOWS AND THE CURTAINS THEY ILLUMINATED. I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHERE THE LIGHTS CAME FROM, NO.

Q BY MS. CLARK: AFTER YOU -- YOU INDICATED THAT YOU SAT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS. WHY DID YOU SIT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS IN YOUR CAR AFTER YOU HUNG UP?
A BECAUSE I WAS WAITING FOR THE GATE TO BE OPENED. I FIGURED SOMEBODY IS HOME, THEY SAW ME AND THEY ARE GOING TO LET ME IN.
Q AND DID KATO KAELIN COME OVER TO LET YOU IN?
A NO, HE DIDN'T.
Q AND DID THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON DRESSED IN ALL DARK CLOTHING COME TO LET YOU IN?
A NO.

Q AND AFTER THIRTY SECONDS WHAT DID YOU DO?
A THAT IS WHEN I GOT BACK UP AND OUT OF THE CAR AND RANG THE INTERCOM. THIS TIME THERE WAS AN ANSWER, WHICH WAS MR. SIMPSON. HE TOLD ME THAT HE OVERSLEPT AND HE JUST GOT OUT OF THE SHOWER AND HE WOULD BE DOWN IN A MINUTE.

Q BY MS. CLARK: AND AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON ON THE INTERCOM, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I GOT BACK INTO THE CAR AND WAITED ANOTHER TWENTY, THIRTY SECONDS AND BEFORE MR. KAELIN CAME OVER AND OPENED THE GATE.

bobaugust

Thank you. So, there is no testimony that he saw Kato at approximately ten fifty four, correct?

[William Anthony]

ok maby i was wrong.

The only thing that is definite from the testimony is that he was on the phone with his boss shorty after or at ten fifty two and that he saw Kato at or near that time.:)

[martin II]

The only thing that is definite from the testimony is that he was on the phone with his boss shorty after or at ten fifty two and that he saw Kato at or near that time.:)

tvs times are wrong.

[William Anthony]

tvs times are wrong.

The times aren't wrong, only that Park approximated the time he saw Kato, which I have yet to see in the testimony.

[martin II]

martin, this was rude.

did you think him organizing a arenell slamming event and making me the judge was nice or rude.

[martin II]

The times aren't wrong, only that Park approximated the time he saw Kato, which I have yet to see in the testimony.

There is no getting around tha fact that two duffle bags were placed on the porch . Park saw them when he drove to the door.

conclusion oj was in the house all the time.

[martin II]

Park saw Kato while on the phone with his boss at approximately 10:54. If you subtract one or two minutes from that you get 10:52 or 10:53. Sounds about right to me.

i believe Kato came from his room directly to the garage and the south pathway.When Kato passed the front door the porch lights were not on.

When Kato got to the garage Oj came down stairs and deposited the two duffle bags on the porch that Park saw when he drove in to the door. Oj then walked to the bently area and brought the golf bag near the park benches at the porch this is when Park saw the AA enter the house. The fact that Kato said the golf bag was not at the bench when he was going to the garage area But were at the bench when he walked back from the garage means that oj moved the golf bag oJ entered the house and turned the porch lights on.The proof of this is that when Kato came back from the garage area and passed the fornt door he saw the porch lights on.

It was the porch lights that park saw come on not the interior lights.
The duffle bags were put on the porch when Kato had passed the front door
going to the garage. meaning oj came down stairs and placed them there.So he must have been in the house all the time.
-------------------------------------------------
Petrocelli: - when you went by the door the first time to investigate, did you go past the Bentley to get to the garage?
Kaelin: Yes, I walked by. {the Bentley, & The Bentley was in the driveway.}
Petrocelli: Did you see anything behind the Bentley?
Kaelin: I don't remember. l don't think so. I think it was -- there was nothing there.
Petrocelli: In other words, did you see this black knapsack that later on you saw?
Kaelin: At that time I believe I did not see it.
Petrocelli: And then you walked by the Bentley and you go investigate. Now, when you came back and walked back to the limousine -- to the area where the limousine was waiting outside, you then let the limousine in. So on your way back to letting the limousine in, did you notice if any of the downstairs interior lights had been turned on?
Kaelin: I thought the lights were on. I thought then lights were on.
Petrocelli: And did you also think that the downstairs coach lights on the outside of the entryway door were on?
Kaelin: I think so. I think they were on.

[GreenIce]

I believe Arnelle was covering up for the fact that her father knew about the second victim (Ron Goldman) along with Nicole before he got back to LA. Cops try to avoid giving out infomation before they have to. If they question someone, the person may give himself away by talking about something that he shouldn't know about unless they were guilty.

I would guess that cops would be even more careful not to give out information if they were trying to frame someone. Look at it this way, the more information you give an innocent person, the more likely he is to prove his innocent. It is better to keep him in the dark.

On the way back to LA from Chicago OJS sat next to a lawyer named Partridge, who said that his ex wife had been killed in a garden and there was a second victim. The question is how did he know that? I think the plaintiff lawyer in the civil trial made a mistake by asking a leading question about the killings taking place in a garden (Petrocelli supplied the word garden), but the question remains, how did OJS get that information?

It is also odd that in the initial interview with the police he asked no questions about why they thought he was guilty, or about the second victim, but he spent some energy trying to minimize the importance of the cut: "I knew I was bleeding, but it was no big deal. I bleed all the time. I play gold and stuff, so there's always something".

It should puzzle people that he had curiosity about what Kato told the police, and retrieving his golf clubs, but little interest in finding out about how Nicole died, why the police suspected him, or the well being of his children.

Fgump2,

When Simpson called the Browns house, the youngest sister was screaming that he had killed "THEM". You may be right, he may have known that there was a second victim before he got back to LA but the police were not the only one's who could have told them there was someone else as well. Didn't OJ spend most of the trip back to LA on the phone?

However, if you are saying is true, that he knew about the second victim even before he left for Chicago, only confirms my conviction that there was no way he would let the kids go the Browns before he had a chance to talk to them, to find out what they may have heard or seen that night, what questions did the police ask them, etc.

And I don't think it is a crime against humanity for any of the cops to ask the kids if they knew where there father was. Nor do I think it is a crime if they just listened to the kids and just repeated what the kids said.

In his interview, he told the detectives he knew he was the prime suspect and they were not telling him anything other then he had blood at his house.

[martin II]

oh for Pete's sake -- how about you supply the link proving different?

Very impolite post by you.
WA posted to another poster.

[martin II]

I believe Arnelle was covering up for the fact that her father knew about the second victim (Ron Goldman) along with Nicole before he got back to LA.There were many friends that oj had available to him to tell him what had happened including the names of the people killed. Cops try to avoid giving out infomation before they have to. What you think cops that you know may do has nothing to do with what lapd didIf they question someone, the person may give himself away by talking about something that he shouldn't know about unless they were guilty.AC went to the le station to get the kids i feel that he would have been able to get additional info easily.

I would guess that cops would be even more careful not to give out information if they were trying to frame someone. The media was at bundy shortly after le arrived. The story would have been on the air immediately.Look at it this way, the more information you give an innocent person, the more likely he is to prove his innocent. It is better to keep him in the dark.

On the way back to LA from Chicago OJS sat next to a lawyer named Partridge, I just think Partridge just misquoted oj. some may have called nicioles front yard a garden.what differance does it make?who said that his ex wife had been killed in a garden and there was a second victim. The question is how did he know that? I think the plaintiff lawyer in the civil trial made a mistake by asking a leading question about the killings taking place in a garden (Petrocelli supplied the word garden), but the question remains, how did OJS get that information?i have answered this

It is also odd that in the initial interview with the police he asked no questions about why they thought he was guilty, or about the second victim, but he spent some energy trying to minimize the importance of the cut:vanhatrter asked the questions and Simpson answered all of them. "I knew I was bleeding, but it was no big deal. I bleed all the time. I play gold and stuff, so there's always something".That is a true statement for a active athelete that plays golf daily.Do you play golf?

It should puzzle people that he had curiosity about what Kato told the police, and retrieving his golf clubs, but little interest in finding out about how Nicole died, By the time oj arrived in la i believe he had been told what the media reports were about the killings.who was killed and how.why the police suspected him, or the well being of his children. It is not fair to say he did not care about his children unless you have specific proof of such. OJ knew AC had taken his kids to the Browns.He knew they were safe. he knew he had some legal matters in front of him and you have no way of knowing if he talked to his kids daily or even visited them at the Browns. thanks to him and the Browns the kids were kept clear of the media rampage.

[martin II]

At another time Park testified that oj put THAT BAG in the back seat of the limo.



CLARK: WHAT ABOUT THE BAG BY THE ROLLS ROYCE? WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT BAG?
PARK: THE WHITE MALE OFFERED TO GO GET IT AND MR. SIMPSON SAID, "NO; NO. THAT'S OKAY. I CAN GET IT. THAT'S ALL RIGHT."
CLARK: DID MR. SIMPSON GET THAT BAG?
PARK: YES, HE DID.
CLARK: DID YOU SEE WHERE HE PUT IT?
PARK: HE PUT IT IN THE TRUNK.
CLARK: HE PUT THAT INTO THE TRUNK BEFORE OR AFTER HE STEPPED INTO THE HOUSE WITH THE MALE WHITE AND HAD THE CONVERSATION?
PARK: THAT WAS BEFORE.

[martin II]

At another time Kato said oj was wearing blue jeans and white shirt
when he got into the limo.Park had said that when oj came out of the house to go to the airport he was wearing a black overcoat.



17 CLARK: SO AFTER MR. SIMPSON SAID, "OH, IT'S THAT LATE
18 ALREADY," HE RAN INTO THE LIMO?
19 KATO: YES.
20 CLARK: DO YOU RECALL WHAT HE WAS WEARING AT THAT TIME?
21 KATO: I THINK IT WAS SWEATS, DARK SWEATS.
22 CLARK: DO YOU THINK IT WAS THE SAME DARK SWEATS THAT
23 HE WAS WEARING BEFORE?
24 KATO: I DON'T KNOW.

[martin II]

regardless of what oj was actually wearing most of the time Kato said he was wearing dark sweats. One time with white zipper down the front.

[serpentsfall]

It is not fair to say he did not care about his children unless you have specific proof of such. OJ knew AC had taken his kids to the Browns.He knew they were safe. he knew he had some legal matters in front of him and you have no way of knowing if he talked to his kids daily or even visited them at the Browns. thanks to him and the Browns the kids were kept clear of the media rampage.

Not fair? Says who? What legal matters did he have in front of him coming home from Chicago? LE contacted him because he was the father of two young children who were found at a murder scene, yet all these years later OJ Simpson says he's still never gotten around to discussing Nicole's murder with his children. Simpson was divorced from Nicole at the time of her death. How would sending his children to stay with Nicole's grieving parents be better for them? Like they didn't have enough on their plate! Why not have them stay with AC for a few hours until he can get home and take over his paternal role instead of giving Nicole's grieving family two scared kids to have to care for during that stressful time?

[martin II]

Not fair? Says who? What legal matters did he have in front of him coming home from Chicago? LE contacted him because he was the father of two young children who were found at a murder scene, yet all these years later OJ Simpson says he's still never gotten around to discussing Nicole's murder with his children. Simpson was divorced from Nicole at the time of her death. How would sending his children to stay with Nicole's grieving parents be better for them? Like they didn't have enough on their plate! Why not have them stay with AC for a few hours until he can get home and take over his paternal role instead of giving Nicole's grieving family two scared kids to have to care for during that stressful time?


I think you misquoted him. I heard him say the kids know they can discuss the murders when they are ready. For all we know they have.They all celebrate her birthdays and i would think other days as they see fit.
The children had good relationships with ojs sisters as well as the browns.
ThE Browns thought that the kids should be with them. The kids were well taken care of and have grown into well adjusted young adults regardless of the haters that claim they have problems.
As far as fair is concerned .I dont think it is fair to the kids or oj for people to post false information on a public message board giving him advice or saying the children must have all kinds of mental problems and social adjustment problems.

Le said they went to make the notice to oj because he was next of kin. But in fact he was not.

[serpentsfall]

I think you misquoted him. I heard him say the kids know they can discuss the murders when they are ready. For all we know they have.They all celebrate her birthdays and i would think other days as they see fit.
The children had good relationships with ojs sisters as well as the browns.
ThE Browns thought that the kids should be with them. The kids were well taken care of and have grown into well adjusted young adults regardless of the haters that claim they have problems.
As far as fair is concerned .I dont think it is fair to the kids or oj for people to post false information on a public message board giving him advice or saying the children must have all kinds of mental problems and social adjustment problems.

Le said they went to make the notice to oj because he was next of kin. But in fact he was not.

He was next of kin to the two motherless children found sleeping at the scene of their mother's murder. Given the amount of time you spend pondering the events of that night, doesn't it doesn't seem odd to you that in all these years they've never attempted to discuss any of the topics you discuss every day with their father?

[martin II]

Not fair? Says who? What legal matters did he have in front of him coming home from Chicago? LE contacted him because he was the father of two young children who were found at a murder scene, yet all these years later OJ Simpson says he's still never gotten around to discussing Nicole's murder with his children. Simpson was divorced from Nicole at the time of her death. How would sending his children to stay with Nicole's grieving parents be better for them? Like they didn't have enough on their plate! Why not have them stay with AC for a few hours until he can get home and take over his paternal role instead of giving Nicole's grieving family two scared kids to have to care for during that stressful time?

Serpentsfall

I found this stored in my external hard drive. It may be of interest to you.

I am only posting the last 3-4 paragraphs of a complete timeline analysis at Rockingham.I have the complete timeline.
-----------------
As we see, there is no opportunity for Simpson to have droped the incriminating glove near the air conditioner. Consider the prosecution scenario: In the dark -- at approximately 10:42:30 PM, while Kaelin and Farrara are talking -- Simpson opened the broken gate, ran down a dark, and somewhat narrow, pathway, opened a second gate and proceeded to run directly into a protruding airconditioner. The impact somehow caused three thumps, coinciding with Simpson droping the glove -- but nothing else. And the droped glove, obviously, went unnoticed. Simpson then runs back into the house -- remembering to close each of the gates. He suffers no bruise, or contusions, dispite the fact that he impacted with enough force to create an "earthquake". And, he is not in such a hurry as to forget to close a broken gate. He then runs into the house, and secretes all other evidence so that none -- save the glove and blood in the Bronco -- can be found.
If you have problems with that scenario, the prosecution provided a second alternative: Simpson arrives back from committing a double murder, some ten minutes after "the earthquake" -- is seen by Allan park entering the house -- but still, in some unexplained and unwitnessed manner manages to get behind Kaelin's room, and manages to have dropped the glove without crashing into Kaelin -- who was returning from investigating the noise behind his room. To offer this second scenario, Marcia Clark must disregard the testimony she developed with Kaelin, and which he has since affirmed in greater in detail at his February 14th Deposition Hearing.

Notice, when you place the prosecution scenarios side-by-side, they are mutually exclusive. And further, as we have seen in both, only Brian Kaelin goes behind the house along the south pathway. And it is Kaelin who opens the broken gate. It is the job of the prosecution to provide a coherent logic. All of the evidence presented must fit the theory of the crime in a coherent manner. In this case, we have two elements that follow mutually exclusive logic.

In addition, we have the testimony of Robert Heidstra, who hears Ronald Goldman confront the killer at 10:40, and sees a Jeep Cherokee, Blazer, or possibly Bronco at Bundy, at 10:45. Knowing that Detective Vannatter established the drive time is 5.5 to 6 minutes between Bundy and Rockingham -- Simpson would have arrived at approximately 10:51. He would have been just in time to run straight into Kaelin, or be seen by Park at 10:52. But, to the extent we have the eyewitness testimony that precludes Simpson from going onto the south pathway after 10:52, Simpson is precluded from dropping the glove behind Kaelin's room. And no amount of prosecutorial manipulation of times can alter that factual reality.


CONCLUSION: The Rockingham Glove was planted.
The prime suspect is Detective Mark Fuhrman.

[martin II]

He was next of kin to the two motherless children found sleeping at the scene of their mother's murder. Given the amount of time you spend pondering the events of that night, doesn't it doesn't seem odd to you that in all these years they've never attempted to discuss any of the topics you discuss every day with their father?

We. you and i don't know if the Simpsons have discussed nicoles Death in detail or not.To make a assumption sounding statement that in all of these years they have not discussed and resolved question about Nicole cannot be made by you or me with authority,accuracy or truth as you and i have no way of knowing what they have discussed. That is my point.

I one were to ask me my opinion i would assume that Nicoles death has been
discussed and resolved and that the children do not believe their Father killed their mother.
imo

PS

OJ statement that the children can discuss Nicoles death when they are ready was made after the criminal trial 13 years ago.At least that is when i read his comments on the subject.

[serpentsfall]

We. you and i don't know if the Simpsons have discussed nicoles Death in detail or not.To make a assumption sounding statement that in all of these years they have not discussed and resolved question about Nicole cannot be made by you or me with authority,accuracy or truth as you and i have no way of knowing what they have discussed. That is my point.

I one were to ask me my opinion i would assume that Nicoles death has been
discussed and resolved and that the children do not believe their Father killed their mother.
imo

PS

OJ statement that the children can discuss Nicoles death when they are ready was made after the criminal trial 13 years ago.At least that is when i read his comments on the subject.

I could be wrong, but IIRC Simpson wrote in "his" book that he had never discussed Nicole's death with her children because they've never asked him about it. He's the one who made that tidbit public.

[tv]

did you think him organizing a arenell slamming event and making me the judge was nice or rude.

martin, I think he was being humorous -- everyone knows you're an admirerer of Lady Kenmore. :shrug:

[tv]

Testimony of Allan Park from the civil trial:


Q. As I was was standing next to the buzzer, waiting for an answer,
for somebody, I then heard the phone ringing inside the car, and
grabbed the phone. And it was Dale.

Q. From looking at the cell phone records, can you tell the jury when
it was that you picked up that call from Dale?

A. 10:52:17.

Q. And when you heard the phone ring, did you get into the car to
answer it?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you sitting in the car?

A. Yes.

Q. Was your was your radio still on?

A. Very low.

Q. And was the door open or closed, if you remember?

A. Open.

Q. Okay.

Q. And you began a conversation with Dale St. John?

A. That is correct.

Q. And that conversation ended at what point in time, based on the
cell phone records?

A. At 10:55:12 p.m.

Q. Okay.

You may resume the witness stand.

So you're on the phone with Dale For about three minutes, right?

A. Correct.

Q. What -- relate your conversation with Dale.

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to the hearsay.

MR. PETROCELLI: It's subsequent conduct, Your Honor, under 1250.

THE COURT: All right. Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I told Dale that I didn't think anybody was home, said
there was a light on upstairs.

He told me that -- he said O.J. usually runs late, go ahead and wait
until 11:15. If he's not there by then, go ahead and come on home.

He asked me if there was a light on, and what looked to be skylights
over towards the garage area, little pantry -- little pantry area. He
said -- he asked me if the lights were on in there. He said he usually
watches TV in there.

I told him no there's no lights on in there.

And somewhere in the conversation, that's when I saw the white male
come out from behind the -- from the back of the house.Q. Okay.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I move to strike everything that Dale St. John
said because that is not subsequent conduct.

THE COURT: Stricken:

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When the -- The person appeared -- and I'll
show the layout in a second, but I want to focus on the timing right
now, okay?

When the person appeared, did you notice where that person came from?

A. From what I --

Q. The first person who appeared?

A. From what I noticed, from the back of the house.

Q. And he appeared where, in terms of your field of view?

You're looking straight ahead, in from the car?

A. Yes.

Q. And where did this person appear?

A. To my --

Q. So to your right, to your left?

A. To the left of me, on the edge of the driveway.

Q. Okay.

And can you describe to the jury this person whom you saw appear?

A. It was a blond-hair male, five-ten, 170 pounds.

Q. What did you then say to Dale St. John, without telling us what he
said?

A. I said to him that somebody's here.

Q. And did you say anything else?

A. Not that I remember.

[tv]

ok maby i was wrong.

You're getting closer to that cake. http://bestsmileys.com/eating1/7.gif :)

[GreenIce]

I could be wrong, but IIRC Simpson wrote in "his" book that he had never discussed Nicole's death with her children because they've never asked him about it. He's the one who made that tidbit public.

Serpentsfall,

Sydney and Justin saw the best professionals on dealing with the death of their mother. What are the chances that it was a professional who advised both the Browns and Simpson not to discuss or question the kids about it? They should wait for the kids to come to them with their questions and they better be prepared to deal with those questions right there and then.

Also, if Sydney and Justin believe their father is innocent--then why would they ask him what happened at Bundy that night?

[William Anthony]

Testimony of Allan Park from the civil trial:


Q. As I was was standing next to the buzzer, waiting for an answer,
for somebody, I then heard the phone ringing inside the car, and
grabbed the phone. And it was Dale.

Q. From looking at the cell phone records, can you tell the jury when
it was that you picked up that call from Dale?

A. 10:52:17.

Q. And when you heard the phone ring, did you get into the car to
answer it?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you sitting in the car?

A. Yes.

Q. Was your was your radio still on?

A. Very low.

Q. And was the door open or closed, if you remember?

A. Open.

Q. Okay.

Q. And you began a conversation with Dale St. John?

A. That is correct.

Q. And that conversation ended at what point in time, based on the
cell phone records?

A. At 10:55:12 p.m.

Q. Okay.

You may resume the witness stand.

So you're on the phone with Dale For about three minutes, right?

A. Correct.

Q. What -- relate your conversation with Dale.

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to the hearsay.

MR. PETROCELLI: It's subsequent conduct, Your Honor, under 1250.

THE COURT: All right. Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I told Dale that I didn't think anybody was home, said
there was a light on upstairs.

He told me that -- he said O.J. usually runs late, go ahead and wait
until 11:15. If he's not there by then, go ahead and come on home.

He asked me if there was a light on, and what looked to be skylights
over towards the garage area, little pantry -- little pantry area. He
said -- he asked me if the lights were on in there. He said he usually
watches TV in there.

I told him no there's no lights on in there.

And somewhere in the conversation, that's when I saw the white male
come out from behind the -- from the back of the house.Q. Okay.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I move to strike everything that Dale St. John
said because that is not subsequent conduct.

THE COURT: Stricken:

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When the -- The person appeared -- and I'll
show the layout in a second, but I want to focus on the timing right
now, okay?

When the person appeared, did you notice where that person came from?

A. From what I --

Q. The first person who appeared?

A. From what I noticed, from the back of the house.

Q. And he appeared where, in terms of your field of view?

You're looking straight ahead, in from the car?

A. Yes.

Q. And where did this person appear?

A. To my --

Q. So to your right, to your left?

A. To the left of me, on the edge of the driveway.

Q. Okay.

And can you describe to the jury this person whom you saw appear?

A. It was a blond-hair male, five-ten, 170 pounds.

Q. What did you then say to Dale St. John, without telling us what he
said?

A. I said to him that somebody's here.

Q. And did you say anything else?

A. Not that I remember.

Thank you for this, because it shows that there is no way to tell other than it was somewhere at or near ten fifty two when Park saw Kato and, if you subtract from that time, you have a time that is consistent with Kato's ten forty five estimate. The only way that the time fits what some poster's say is if the assumption is made that Park saw Kato later during the conversation with his boss, which this testimony does not support-only that it was somewhere within that conversation, be it close to the beginning, middle or end.

Park either slanted his testimony or he got confused as to why he said somebody's here. It is acknowledged that Kato did not see Park, who could have been in the car and by the time Park had seen Kato he was coming back from behind the quarters. Here is the 1995 testimony of why he said someone's here.

Q HOW LONG -- NOW, AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU SAW KATO KAELIN IN THE SIDE YARD, DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE?
A YES. I SAW A FIGURE COME DOWN -- WELL, NOT COME DOWN, BUT I SAW A FIGURE COME INTO THE ENTRANCEWAY OF THE HOUSE JUST ABOUT WHERE THE -- WHERE THE DRIVEWAY STARTS.

Q OKAY.
AND HOW -- IN RELATIONSHIP TO WHEN YOU SAW KATO KAELIN, WHEN DID YOU FIRST SEE THIS PERSON?
A IT WAS JUST -- IT WAS ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY. IT WAS SECONDS AFTER I SAW HIM.

Q AND THIS SIX-FOOT 200-POUND AFRICAN AMERICAN PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING, WAS THIS PERSON MOVING QUICKLY OR SLOWLY?
A NOT QUICKLY, NOT SLOWLY, A GOOD PACE WALK IT SEEMED TO BE.
Q AND MOVING IN WHAT DIRECTION, SIR?
A INTO THE HOUSE OR TOWARD THE HOUSE.

Q AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT PERSON, DID THAT PERSON WALK INTO THE ENTRANCE?
A YES.
Q AFTER THAT PERSON WALKED INTO THE ENTRANCE, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A I THEN PROCEEDED TO -- WELL, I WAS STILL TALKING TO DALE AT THE SAME TIME. I SAID "SOMEBODY'S HERE."
HE SAID, "FINE, FINISH THE JOB, TAKE HIM TO THE AIRPORT AND I WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW" OR WHATEVER. I HUNG UP THE PHONE AND I STILL WAITED ANOTHER -- IT WAS ABOUT ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS OR SO BEFORE I GOT OUT OF THE CAR, BUT I WAS STILL WAITING FOR SOME SOMEBODY TO COME OPEN THE GATE. I FIGURED SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO COME OPEN THE GATE FOR ME. THEY STILL DIDN'T.

Q HOW LONG AFTER YOU SAW THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING GO INTO THE HOUSE DID YOU CONTINUE TO TALK TO DALE ST. JOHN?
A OH, IT WAS JUST ANYWHERE BETWEEN TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS. IT WASN'T VERY LONG.
Q OKAY."

[bobaugust]

Thank you. So, there is no testimony that he saw Kato at approximately ten fifty four, correct?

Park testified he saw Kaelin and then almost simultaneously he saw Simpson. Park testified that happened in the last 30 seconds of a telephone call that ended at 10:55 and 12 seconds. In other words, at about 10:54.

[bobaugust]

There is no getting around tha fact that two duffle bags were placed on the porch . Park saw them when he drove to the door.

conclusion oj was in the house all the time.

Simpson could very well have put those two bags on the front porch before he went to Bundy.

[bobaugust]

i believe Kato came from his room directly to the garage and the south pathway.When Kato passed the front door the porch lights were not on.

When Kato got to the garage Oj came down stairs and deposited the two duffle bags on the porch that Park saw when he drove in to the door. Oj then walked to the bently area and brought the golf bag near the park benches at the porch this is when Park saw the AA enter the house. The fact that Kato said the golf bag was not at the bench when he was going to the garage area But were at the bench when he walked back from the garage means that oj moved the golf bag oJ entered the house and turned the porch lights on.The proof of this is that when Kato came back from the garage area and passed the fornt door he saw the porch lights on.

It was the porch lights that park saw come on not the interior lights.
The duffle bags were put on the porch when Kato had passed the front door
going to the garage. meaning oj came down stairs and placed them there.So he must have been in the house all the time.
-------------------------------------------------
Petrocelli: - when you went by the door the first time to investigate, did you go past the Bentley to get to the garage?
Kaelin: Yes, I walked by. {the Bentley, & The Bentley was in the driveway.}
Petrocelli: Did you see anything behind the Bentley?
Kaelin: I don't remember. l don't think so. I think it was -- there was nothing there.
Petrocelli: In other words, did you see this black knapsack that later on you saw?
Kaelin: At that time I believe I did not see it.
Petrocelli: And then you walked by the Bentley and you go investigate. Now, when you came back and walked back to the limousine -- to the area where the limousine was waiting outside, you then let the limousine in. So on your way back to letting the limousine in, did you notice if any of the downstairs interior lights had been turned on?
Kaelin: I thought the lights were on. I thought then lights were on.
Petrocelli: And did you also think that the downstairs coach lights on the outside of the entryway door were on?
Kaelin: I think so. I think they were on.

Your beliefs are completely contradicted by Allan Park’s testimony.

[bobaugust]

Thank you for this, because it shows that there is no way to tell other than it was somewhere at or near ten fifty two when Park saw Kato and, if you subtract from that time, you have a time that is consistent with Kato's ten forty five estimate. The only way that the time fits what some poster's say is if the assumption is made that Park saw Kato later during the conversation with his boss, which this testimony does not support-only that it was somewhere within that conversation, be it close to the beginning, middle or end.

You keep forgetting that Allan Park testified that he saw both Kaelin and Simpson almost simultaneously about 30 seconds before he ended his telephone call. The call ended at 10:55 and 12 seconds. Park saw both Kaelin and Simpson at about 10:54 and some seconds. Kaelin testified he left his room about two to three minutes after hearing the noises. That means the noises occurred at about 10:51, 10:52.

[William Anthony]

You keep forgetting that Allan Park testified that he saw both Kaelin and Simpson almost simultaneously about 30 seconds before he ended his telephone call. The call ended at 10:55 and 12 seconds. Park saw both Kaelin and Simpson at about 10:54 and some seconds. Kaelin testified he left his room about two to three minutes after hearing the noises. That means the noises occurred at about 10:51, 10:52.

You Keep forgetting that Park did not see kato when he left his room to go make the cursory check.

[martin II]

Simpson could very well have put those two bags on the front porch before he went to Bundy.

Post proof that he did.

[martin II]

Your beliefs are completely contradicted by Allan Park’s testimony.

Who believes Allen Parks, the confused one.

[martin II]

Simpson could very well have put those two bags on the front porch before he went to Bundy.

And park could have seen ten bags on the steps.
could have means nothing.

[William Anthony]

Park testified he saw Kaelin and then almost simultaneously he saw Simpson. Park testified that happened in the last 30 seconds of a telephone call that ended at 10:55 and 12 seconds. In other words, at about 10:54.

I am totally surprised, now. You want to credit Park's time estimates but discredit Kato's. :) However, and I do apologize to Ms. Tvdinner, as I can see why she stated that Park saw Kato at approximately ten fifty four. However, You are not allowing for the time it took the figure to walk into the house, as to what significance it has to do with the time of the thumps, which was the original topic of discussion but consider this.

"Q: SO AT APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU EXITED YOUR ROOM TO GO OUT TO THE PATHWAY?

A: SO IT WAS ABOUT TWO TO THREE MINUTES AFTER THAT TIME, 10:43, 10:44.

Q: OKAY. AND WHEN YOU WENT OUT TO THE PATHWAY, DID YOU -- WHERE YOU WENT OUT ON THE LAWN AREA?

A: YEAH, BUT I STAYED ON THIS PATH, (INDICATING).

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT DID YOU SEE WHEN YOU WERE ON THAT PATH?

A: ON THIS PATH?

Q: YES.

A: NOTHING. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING UNTIL I GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY.

Q: WHEN YOU GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY AREA WHERE THE PATH MEETS THE DRIVEWAY?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE?

A: I SAW A LIMOUSINE.

Q: WHERE WAS THAT LIMOUSINE?

A: IT WAS RIGHT BEHIND THE GATE ON ASHFORD, (INDICATING).

Q: WAS IT FACING INTO THAT ASHFORD GATE?

A: YES.

Q: COULD YOU SEE WHETHER ANYONE WAS INSIDE IT?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU GO TO OPEN THE GATE FOR THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER?

A: NO.

Q: YOU CAN TAKE YOUR SEAT.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE --

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MISS CLARK. DO WE NEED THE POSTER?

MS. CLARK: YES. WE ARE GOING TO USE IT AGAIN VERY SHORTLY.

THE COURT: OKAY.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, WHETHER OR NOT THE HEADLIGHTS OF THAT LIMOUSINE WERE ON?

A: I DON'T THINK THEY WERE ON.

Q: OKAY. SO WAS IT DARK IN THAT AREA?

A: YES.

Q: AND CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, WHETHER THE DRIVEWAY WAS DARK?

A: YES. THERE IS LITTLE LIGHTS BARELY THAT ARE VERY DIM. I THINK ONE OR TWO OF THOSE WERE ON BY THE DRIVEWAY, BUT DARK.

Q: WHERE ON THE DRIVEWAY ARE THOSE LIGHTS?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: CAN YOU SHOW US.

A: I THINK IF I REMEMBER THEY WERE LIKE HERE, (INDICATING), MAYBE ONE HERE, (INDICATING).

Q: OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT ONE MORE TIME SO COUNSEL CAN SEE YOU.

A: I THINK I REMEMBER THAT LIKE HERE, A LAMP LIGHT HERE, AND MAYBE THERE, (INDICATING).

MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS POINTED TO THE EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY, THAT WOULD BE THE LEFT BORDER OF THE DRIVEWAY JUST BELOW THE TREE OVER WHICH IS WRITTEN "GATE CONTROL BOX," AND THEN BELOW THAT TO THE LEFT OF THE OTHER TREE ON THAT SAME EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY, THE LEFT EDGE. GO AHEAD, YOU CAN SIT DOWN.

THE WITNESS: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND -- SO YOU INDICATED THOSE ARE DIM LIGHTS?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE DRIVEWAY WAS BASICALLY IN DARKNESS?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU INDICATED YOU DID NOT LET THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER IN?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: I THOUGHT EVERYTHING WAS TAKEN CARE OF. I DIDN'T THINK OF -- OF LETTING HIM IN BECAUSE HE COULD GET A BUZZ IN.

Q: WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS TAKEN CARE OF?

A: WELL, I -- I -- MY PHONE DOESN'T RING TO THE GATE, SO I THOUGHT, IF ANYTHING, THE LIMO GUY WOULD KNOW WHAT TO DO, WHAT WAS GOING ON. I DIDN'T KNOW. I THOUGHT HE WAS IN.

Q: DID YOU THINK THE DEFENDANT WAS GOING TO LET HIM IN?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. SHAPIRO: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD.

MS. CLARK: I'M ASKING FOR HIS STATE OF MIND, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, DID HE THINK THAT THIS DEFENDANT WAS GOING TO DO SOMETHING. THAT IS CALLING FOR SPECULATION. PROCEED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY YOU DID NOT LET THE LIMO DRIVER IN?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WHAT WERE YOU THINKING ABOUT? WHAT LED YOU NOT TO LET HIM IN?

A: BECAUSE I THOUGHT SOMEONE HAD TALKED TO HIM AND THAT IS WHY HE WAS OUT THERE. THERE WAS A REASON THAT HE WAS WAITING THERE. I DIDN'T -- YOU KNOW, I -- I DIDN'T KNOW WHY HE WASN'T IN, BUT I DIDN'T QUESTION IT.

Q: DID YOU EXPECT -- WHAT WERE YOU EXPECTING?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: GOES TO HIS SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT. OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: OH, THERE IS A PHONE, SO IF THERE WAS A LIMO DRIVER THE GATE WOULD OPEN UP, HE WOULD BE BUZZED IN.

Q: DID YOU THINK THE DEFENDANT WAS HOME?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. SHAPIRO: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ANSWER.

A: YES.

THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU THINK YOU SAW THE LIMO DRIVER -- EXCUSE ME -- THE LIMOUSINE PARKED AT THE ASHFORD GATE?

A: ABOUT 10:50.

Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU PASSED BY THE BACK OF THE HOUSE TO GO OUT ONTO THAT LAWN AREA AND TAKE THAT PATH DOWN TO THE DRIVEWAY, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER THERE WERE ANY LIGHTS ON IN THE HOUSE?

A: UMM, I THOUGHT THE LIGHTS WERE ON UPSTAIRS AND NOT DOWN, IF I REMEMBER.

Q: DID IT SEEM TO BE DARK DOWNSTAIRS?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU THOUGHT --

A: TO MY RECOLLECTION IT WAS DARK.

Q: YOU THOUGHT THERE WAS A LIGHT ON UPSTAIRS?

A: YES.

Q: LET ME BACK UP FOR A MINUTE. YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL AT APPROXIMATELY 10:40 TO 10:45. BEFORE HEARING THE THUMPS YOU WERE TALKING ON THE PHONE TO RACHEL?

A: YES.

Q: AFTER HEARING THE THUMPS, WERE YOU STILL TALKING ON THE PHONE TO RACHEL?

A: YES. "

[martin II]

Park saw Kato while on the phone with his boss at approximately 10:54. If you subtract one or two minutes from that you get 10:52 or 10:53. Sounds about right to me.

see my post at 2678

[William Anthony]

Kato testified that it was about two to three minutes after he heard the thumps at about ten forty three to ten forty four, which would mean, ten forty five to ten forty seven. However, going by the testimony, he could have heard the thumps at ten forty five, which would mean ten forty seven to ten forty eight. Where was Park that he did not see Kato exit his quarters?

Park was on the phone with his mother from 10:46:30 to 10:48:50 getting the number of Dale St. John.-Ms. Tvdinner

Hence, the story is completely plausible and consistent with the testimony-reasonable doubt.

[martin II]

You're getting closer to that cake. http://bestsmileys.com/eating1/7.gif :)

i hope you cook it before you read my post at 2678:cool:

[martin II]

You keep forgetting that Allan Park testified that he saw both Kaelin and Simpson almost simultaneously about 30 seconds before he ended his telephone call. The call ended at 10:55 and 12 seconds. Park saw both Kaelin and Simpson at about 10:54 and some seconds. Kaelin testified he left his room about two to three minutes after hearing the noises. That means the noises occurred at about 10:51, 10:52.

We will never know what Park saw and when he saw it. it is all guess work with him.he transposed so much.

[martin II]

Serpentsfall,

Sydney and Justin saw the best professionals on dealing with the death of their mother. What are the chances that it was a professional who advised both the Browns and Simpson not to discuss or question the kids about it? They should wait for the kids to come to them with their questions and they better be prepared to deal with those questions right there and then.

Also, if Sydney and Justin believe their father is innocent--then why would they ask him what happened at Bundy that night?

i remember some haters outside rockingham with posters calling oj a murderer and sydney cane out and took them down.

[William Anthony]

Park, March 28th

A: HE WAS JUST STANDING THERE, FROM WHAT I OBSERVED.

Q: OKAY. COULD YOU TELL WHERE HE WAS LOOKING OR WHAT HE WAS DOING?

A: HE LOOKED AT ME AND THEN HE JUST -- HE STARTED TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, IN THE AREA OF THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY.

Q: NOW, WHEN HE WAS LOOKING AT YOU, WHERE WERE YOU?

A: I WAS INSIDE THE CAR ON THE PHONE.

Q: TALKING TO YOUR BOSS?

A: YES.

Q: HOW LONG -- NOW, AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU SAW KATO KAELIN IN THE SIDE YARD, DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE?

A: YES. I SAW A FIGURE COME DOWN -- WELL, NOT COME DOWN, BUT I SAW A FIGURE COME INTO THE ENTRANCEWAY OF THE HOUSE JUST ABOUT WHERE THE -- WHERE THE DRIVEWAY STARTS.

Kato, March 22nd

"Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU GOT BACK TO THE CAR AFTER GOING OUT THE SECOND TIME TO THE SOUTH PATHWAY, YOU SAID YOU WENT BACK TOWARD THE LIMO?

A: SAY THAT -- THE QUESTION AGAIN.

Q: AFTER YOU LET THE LIMO DRIVER INTO THE PROPERTY, YOU HAD CONVERSATION WITH HIM, YOU INDICATED YOU WENT BACK AROUND THE GARAGE TO THE SOUTH PATHWAY AGAIN?" (this contradicts Park's testimony)

"A: YES.

Q: AND YOU STOPPED THREE FEET BEFORE THE SECOND GATE?

A: ABOUT, YES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: THEN YOU SAID YOU WALKED BACK OUT AROUND THE GARAGE, YOU SAW THAT DARK KNAPSACK, THEN WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: UMM, WELL, THERE IS THREE OF US OUTSIDE NOW SO I --

Q: YOU SAW THE DEFENDANT?

A: OKAY. WELL, THREE OF US, YES; O.J., MYSELF AND THE DRIVER.

Q: WHERE WAS HE?

A: JUST LIKE OUTSIDE ON THE DRIVEWAY.

Q: OKAY.

A: AND I THINK THE DOOR WAS OPENED. I DON'T -- THE FRONT DOOR I THOUGHT WAS OPENED. I DON'T --

Q: OKAY. DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT WHEN YOU SAW HIM THERE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SAY?

A: WELL, I WAS TELLING HIM ABOUT THIS NOISE I HEARD. I SAID, "O.J., I HEARD THIS NOISE AND I THOUGHT IT WAS AN EARTHQUAKE AND I THOUGHT MAYBE SOMEONE IS BACK THERE" AND I TOLD HIM I WAS GOING TO INVESTIGATE IT AND I HAD A LOUSY FLASHLIGHT.

Q: OKAY. AND THEN WHAT?

A: AND SO I ASKED THE LIMO DRIVER, I SAID, "DO YOU HAVE A BETTER FLASHLIGHT?" AND HE CHECKED AND HE LOOKED AROUND AND HE DIDN'T. AND THEN I SAID, "O.J., DO WE HAVE A BETTER FLASHLIGHT?" AND, UMM, WHEN I TOLD HIM ABOUT THE NOISE, HE WAS GOING TO TAKE ONE WAY, I WAS GOING TO GO ANOTHER WAY, BUT THAT IS WHEN I SAID, "WE HAVE THIS LOUSY FLASHLIGHT, WE NEED ANOTHER ONE" AND SO HE WAS GOING TO GO INSIDE AND CHECK.

Q: AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: OKAY. SO HE WENT INSIDE THE HOUSE, I FOLLOWED BEHIND, AND WE GOT TOWARDS THE KITCHEN AREA AND I WAS KIND OF IN THE FRONT DOOR ENTRANCE BEHIND HIM, BUT NOT YET IN THE KITCHEN, AND IT WAS -- I DIDN'T LOOK, BUT HE SAID, "IS IT THAT LATE?" HE SAID WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME AND WE DIDN'T GET THE FLASHLIGHT SO HE HAD TO CATCH THE FLIGHT.

Q: OKAY. NOW, AT SOME POINT AFTER YOU CAME BACK FROM YOUR SECOND TRIP TO THE SOUTH PATHWAY, AFTER THAT POINT, DID YOU HELP TO LOAD BAGS INTO THE CAR?

A: YEAH. I PUT THE GOLF BAG IN ALREADY AND I WAS GOING TO GO GET THE KNAPSACK TO PUT IN. "

It would appear that Park never observed Kato make any trip or at least wasn't questioned about it, IIRC.

[martin II]

I am totally surprised, now. You want to credit Park's time estimates but discredit Kato's. :) However, and I do apologize to Ms. Tvdinner, as I can see why she stated that Park saw Kato at approximately ten fifty four. However, You are not allowing for the time it took the figure to walk into the house, as to what significance it has to do with the time of the thumps, which was the original topic of discussion but consider this.

"Q: SO AT APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU EXITED YOUR ROOM TO GO OUT TO THE PATHWAY?

A: SO IT WAS ABOUT TWO TO THREE MINUTES AFTER THAT TIME, 10:43, 10:44.

Q: OKAY. AND WHEN YOU WENT OUT TO THE PATHWAY, DID YOU -- WHERE YOU WENT OUT ON THE LAWN AREA?

A: YEAH, BUT I STAYED ON THIS PATH, (INDICATING).

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT DID YOU SEE WHEN YOU WERE ON THAT PATH?

A: ON THIS PATH?

Q: YES.

A: NOTHING. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING UNTIL I GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY.

Q: WHEN YOU GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY AREA WHERE THE PATH MEETS THE DRIVEWAY?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE?

A: I SAW A LIMOUSINE.

Q: WHERE WAS THAT LIMOUSINE?

A: IT WAS RIGHT BEHIND THE GATE ON ASHFORD, (INDICATING).

Q: WAS IT FACING INTO THAT ASHFORD GATE?

A: YES.

Q: COULD YOU SEE WHETHER ANYONE WAS INSIDE IT?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU GO TO OPEN THE GATE FOR THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER?

A: NO.

Q: YOU CAN TAKE YOUR SEAT.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE --

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MISS CLARK. DO WE NEED THE POSTER?

MS. CLARK: YES. WE ARE GOING TO USE IT AGAIN VERY SHORTLY.

THE COURT: OKAY.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, WHETHER OR NOT THE HEADLIGHTS OF THAT LIMOUSINE WERE ON?

A: I DON'T THINK THEY WERE ON.

Q: OKAY. SO WAS IT DARK IN THAT AREA?

A: YES.

Q: AND CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, WHETHER THE DRIVEWAY WAS DARK?

A: YES. THERE IS LITTLE LIGHTS BARELY THAT ARE VERY DIM. I THINK ONE OR TWO OF THOSE WERE ON BY THE DRIVEWAY, BUT DARK.

Q: WHERE ON THE DRIVEWAY ARE THOSE LIGHTS?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: CAN YOU SHOW US.

A: I THINK IF I REMEMBER THEY WERE LIKE HERE, (INDICATING), MAYBE ONE HERE, (INDICATING).

Q: OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT ONE MORE TIME SO COUNSEL CAN SEE YOU.

A: I THINK I REMEMBER THAT LIKE HERE, A LAMP LIGHT HERE, AND MAYBE THERE, (INDICATING).

MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS POINTED TO THE EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY, THAT WOULD BE THE LEFT BORDER OF THE DRIVEWAY JUST BELOW THE TREE OVER WHICH IS WRITTEN "GATE CONTROL BOX," AND THEN BELOW THAT TO THE LEFT OF THE OTHER TREE ON THAT SAME EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY, THE LEFT EDGE. GO AHEAD, YOU CAN SIT DOWN.

THE WITNESS: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND -- SO YOU INDICATED THOSE ARE DIM LIGHTS?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE DRIVEWAY WAS BASICALLY IN DARKNESS?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU INDICATED YOU DID NOT LET THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER IN?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: I THOUGHT EVERYTHING WAS TAKEN CARE OF. I DIDN'T THINK OF -- OF LETTING HIM IN BECAUSE HE COULD GET A BUZZ IN.

Q: WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS TAKEN CARE OF?

A: WELL, I -- I -- MY PHONE DOESN'T RING TO THE GATE, SO I THOUGHT, IF ANYTHING, THE LIMO GUY WOULD KNOW WHAT TO DO, WHAT WAS GOING ON. I DIDN'T KNOW. I THOUGHT HE WAS IN.

Q: DID YOU THINK THE DEFENDANT WAS GOING TO LET HIM IN?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. SHAPIRO: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD.

MS. CLARK: I'M ASKING FOR HIS STATE OF MIND, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, DID HE THINK THAT THIS DEFENDANT WAS GOING TO DO SOMETHING. THAT IS CALLING FOR SPECULATION. PROCEED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY YOU DID NOT LET THE LIMO DRIVER IN?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WHAT WERE YOU THINKING ABOUT? WHAT LED YOU NOT TO LET HIM IN?

A: BECAUSE I THOUGHT SOMEONE HAD TALKED TO HIM AND THAT IS WHY HE WAS OUT THERE. THERE WAS A REASON THAT HE WAS WAITING THERE. I DIDN'T -- YOU KNOW, I -- I DIDN'T KNOW WHY HE WASN'T IN, BUT I DIDN'T QUESTION IT.

Q: DID YOU EXPECT -- WHAT WERE YOU EXPECTING?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: GOES TO HIS SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT. OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: OH, THERE IS A PHONE, SO IF THERE WAS A LIMO DRIVER THE GATE WOULD OPEN UP, HE WOULD BE BUZZED IN.

Q: DID YOU THINK THE DEFENDANT WAS HOME?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. SHAPIRO: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ANSWER.

A: YES.

THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU THINK YOU SAW THE LIMO DRIVER -- EXCUSE ME -- THE LIMOUSINE PARKED AT THE ASHFORD GATE?

A: ABOUT 10:50.

Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU PASSED BY THE BACK OF THE HOUSE TO GO OUT ONTO THAT LAWN AREA AND TAKE THAT PATH DOWN TO THE DRIVEWAY, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER THERE WERE ANY LIGHTS ON IN THE HOUSE?

A: UMM, I THOUGHT THE LIGHTS WERE ON UPSTAIRS AND NOT DOWN, IF I REMEMBER.

Q: DID IT SEEM TO BE DARK DOWNSTAIRS?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU THOUGHT --

A: TO MY RECOLLECTION IT WAS DARK.

Q: YOU THOUGHT THERE WAS A LIGHT ON UPSTAIRS?

A: YES.

Q: LET ME BACK UP FOR A MINUTE. YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL AT APPROXIMATELY 10:40 TO 10:45. BEFORE HEARING THE THUMPS YOU WERE TALKING ON THE PHONE TO RACHEL?

A: YES.

Q: AFTER HEARING THE THUMPS, WERE YOU STILL TALKING ON THE PHONE TO RACHEL?

A: YES. "


The defense allowed Clarke to set her own bear trap and then stepped out of her path .

Katos 10;40 10:45 sounded good to Clarke at the time.She did not know Bill Pavalic was in the neighborhood talking to Heidstra. I bet when Clarke found out about Heidstra she reached for the pepto bismal

[martin II]

Serpentsfall,

Sydney and Justin saw the best professionals on dealing with the death of their mother. What are the chances that it was a professional who advised both the Browns and Simpson not to discuss or question the kids about it? They should wait for the kids to come to them with their questions and they better be prepared to deal with those questions right there and then.

Also, if Sydney and Justin believe their father is innocent--then why would they ask him what happened at Bundy that night?

GreenIce

Thanks for that contribution. i had totally forgot about the professional help his kids got.

[William Anthony]

The defense allowed Clarke to set her own bear trap and then stepped out of her path .

Katos 10;40 10:45 sounded good to Clarke at the time.She did not know Bill Pavalic was in the neighborhood talking to Heidstra. I bet when Clarke found out about Heidstra she reached for the pepto bismal

Yes, Ms. Clark did not have the benefit of calling the witnesses she called liars, save MF, although she may have wanted to when they destroyed her time line (reasonable doubt).

[martin II]

Yes, Ms. Clark did not have the benefit of calling the witnesses she called liars, save MF, although she may have wanted to when they destroyed her time line (reasonable doubt).

when kato did not change his testimony she declared him a hostile witness and then attacked him.kato sat there batting his eyes and looking from side to side.

[William Anthony]

when kato did not change his testimony she declared him a hostile witness and then attacked him.kato sat there batting his eyes and looking from side to side.

I had forgotten about Ms. Clark wanting to call Kato hostile and I will check. Doing some further checking, I did find that Park said Kato asked him for a flashlight.

March 28th

"A: YES. IT WAS -- MR. SIMPSON WAS WALKING BY ONE OF THE TIMES, I ASKED HIM WHERE HE WOULD LIKE THOSE BAGS, IN THE TRUNK OR INSIDE THE CAR? HE ASKED ME TO PUT THEM INSIDE THE CAR.

Q: AND DID YOU DO THAT, SIR?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU EVER RESUME YOUR CONVERSATION WITH KATO ABOUT THE NOISES, THE EARTHQUAKE?

A: YES. HE CAME BACK AND ASKED ME IF I -- IF I HAD A FLASHLIGHT, WHICH I WENT TO THE CAR TO CHECK AND AS I WAS CHECKING I REMEMBER HIM SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE THOUGHT -- HE THOUGHT -- WE HAD AN EARTHQUAKE, HE TALKED ABOUT A PICTURE MOVING ON HIS WALL, THAT HE HEARD SOME THUMPS AND THAT HE WANTED A FLASHLIGHT SO HE CAN -- TO GO CHECK IT OUT. AND AS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT, I THINK HE WAS -- SOMEWHERE HE WAS REFERRING TO THE EARTHQUAKE, MR. SIMPSON OVERHEARD US, FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, AND HE SAID -- AS A QUESTION HE SAID, "OH, WE HAD AN EARTHQUAKE?" AS HE WAS WALKING BACK INTO THE HOUSE. "

[bobaugust]

You Keep forgetting that Park did not see kato when he left his room to go make the cursory check.

Allan Park saw Kaelin come around the house with a flashlight to check out the noises on his first trip to the south path.

[bobaugust]

I am totally surprised, now. You want to credit Park's time estimates but discredit Kato's. :) However, and I do apologize to Ms. Tvdinner, as I can see why she stated that Park saw Kato at approximately ten fifty four. However, You are not allowing for the time it took the figure to walk into the house, as to what significance it has to do with the time of the thumps, which was the original topic of discussion but consider this.



Kato Kaelin was only guessing at the times he estimated. He never looked at a clock or a watch. Allan Park’s times are supported by his telephone records. The reason that Park was on the telephone with his boss was because no one was answering the gate intercom and he saw no sign of anyone on the estate. When Park saw Kaelin come from around the house, Kaelin was the first person Park saw from the time he arrived about a half an hour earlier. That’s why Park immediately said “somebody’s here.” Then he and Dale wrapped up and ended their conversation since the problem of no one being there was over. Park’s telephone records document that event.

The only way to know when the noises actually happened is by using the time Park saw Kaelin and work backwards. Kaelin testified he left his room about two to three minutes after hearing the noises and walked around the house with a flash light. Kaelin testified that when he got to the driveway he saw the limousine but he didn’t open the gate. He continued on to the south path.

Working backwards from the end of the telephone call based on what Kaelin said he did gives us a pretty good estimate as to when the noises occurred. And that was some time around 10:51, 10:52.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Allan Park saw Kaelin come around the house with a flashlight to check out the noises on his first trip to the south path.

You don't seem to understand. There is no testimony that says Park saw Kato leave his quarters or how long it took Kato to arrive at the point where Park saw him and, from the testimony, Kato saw the limo and was standing looking at it. Therefore, there is no way to say when Kato left his room except for two to three minutes after hearing the thumps, which would explain why Park did not see him until he arrived from behind the house, because Park was on the phone either paging his boss or talking to his mother, all of which is consistent with the ten forty five time line for the thumps. Could you be right as to the time? Could Park be mistaken as to the thirty second estimate? Could Kato be right as to his times? The point being is that no one can be sure. Therefore, there is reasonable doubt, imho.

[William Anthony]

Kato Kaelin was only guessing at the times he estimated. He never looked at a clock or a watch. Allan Park’s times are supported by his telephone records. The reason that Park was on the telephone with his boss was because no one was answering the gate intercom and he saw no sign of anyone on the estate. When Park saw Kaelin come from around the house, Kaelin was the first person Park saw from the time he arrived about a half an hour earlier. That’s why Park immediately said “somebody’s here.” Then he and Dale wrapped up and ended their conversation since the problem of no one being there was over. Park’s telephone records document that event.

The only way to know when the noises actually happened is by using the time Park saw Kaelin and work backwards. Kaelin testified he left his room about two to three minutes after hearing the noises and walked around the house with a flash light. Kaelin testified that when he got to the driveway he saw the limousine but he didn’t open the gate. He continued on to the south path.

Working backwards from the end of the telephone call based on what Kaelin said he did gives us a pretty good estimate as to when the noises occurred. And that was some time around 10:51, 10:52.

bobaugust

See response to above post.:)

[William Anthony]

when kato did not change his testimony she declared him a hostile witness and then attacked him.kato sat there batting his eyes and looking from side to side.

I did check and yes she was allowed to call him hostile but the gist of her questions seem to be to want Kato to say that Simpson was upset, which failed, imho. Ms. Clark did not dispute the ten forty five time of the thumps in her hostile questioning.

[William Anthony]

Kato-March 22nd,

"Q: LET ME BACK UP FOR A MINUTE. YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HEARD THE THUMPS ON THE WALL AT APPROXIMATELY 10:40 TO 10:45. BEFORE HEARING THE THUMPS YOU WERE TALKING ON THE PHONE TO RACHEL?

A: YES.

Q: AFTER HEARING THE THUMPS, WERE YOU STILL TALKING ON THE PHONE TO RACHEL?

A: YES.

Q: WERE YOU LISTENING TO HEAR FOOTSTEPS AT EITHER TIME?

A: I DID NOT.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER YOU ARE ABLE TO HEAR FOOTSTEPS FROM INSIDE YOUR ROOM IF SOMEONE IS WALKING ON THE SOUTH PATHWAY?

A: I DON'T. I DON'T THINK SO.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, DO WE NEED 66 ANY MORE?

MS. CLARK: WE DO. RIGHT NOW.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: YOU SAW THE LIMOUSINE PARKED AT THE ASHFORD GATE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: YOU DID NOT LET THE LIMO DRIVER IN. WHERE DID YOU GO? WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: I CHECKED ON THE NOISE.

Q: WHERE -- CAN YOU SHOW US ON THIS PEOPLE'S 66 --

A: COME DOWN?

Q: -- WHAT YOU DID?

A: OKAY. SO I HAD THE FLASHLIGHT AND THE LIMO WAS HERE, (INDICATING), SO I START WALKING THIS WAY, (INDICATING), AND I HAD THE LIGHT ON AND I WENT -- THERE IS A GATE HERE, (INDICATING), THAT IS -- I COULD PICK UP THE GATE. YOU CAN PICK IT UP, IT IS NOT WORKING, SO I LEANED IT AGAINST THE TREE AND I WENT DOWN JUST A BIT -- THE PEN LIGHT -- THE LIGHT WAS PRETTY DIM. I LOOKED A LITTLE BIT AND THEN I CAME BACK.

MS. CLARK: OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS INDICATED HE WALKED SOUTH ON THE DRIVEWAY OVER TO THE GARAGE AREA, MADE A LEFT AT THE CORNER OF THE GARAGE AND WALKED IN ON THAT SOUTH PATHWAY A SHORT DISTANCE.

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. AS FAR AS YOU GOT ON THAT SOUTH PATHWAY, SIR, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THE AREA -- THE GROUND AREA AROUND THE AIR CONDITIONER IN YOUR ROOM?

A: NO.

Q: AND WHY DID YOU STOP ON THE PATHWAY WHERE YOU DID?

A: I JUST DID. I COULDN'T SEE. I WAS -- I JUST STOPPED.

Q: WHY?

A: YOU KNOW, I WAS SCARED, BUT -- THAT IS IT.

Q: YOU WERE SCARED?

A: SCARED, YEAH.

Q: OKAY. AND SO YOU BACKED OUT AGAIN?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHERE DID YOU GO THEN?

A: I WENT BACK OUT.

Q: OKAY.

A: AND THE LIMO WAS STILL THERE AND I THOUGHT MAYBE I SHOULD LET THIS GUY IN, SO I WENT TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX, THERE IS A BUTTON, PRESSED AND IT OPENS UP.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU WALKED DOWN THE DRIVEWAY AROUND THE GARAGE TO THE SOUTH PATHWAY, CAME BACK OUT, WALKED BACK UP THE DRIVEWAY AND THE LIMO DRIVER -- THE LIMOUSINE WAS STILL OUTSIDE THE ASHFORD GATE?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU SAID YOU WENT TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX, YOU POINTED TO AN AREA ON PEOPLE'S 66. IS THAT WHERE IT IS INDICATED BY THAT TREE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN DID THE GATE OPEN?

A: YES, IT DID.

Q: AND WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: OKAY. THE GATE OPENED AND HE DROVE IN AND THERE WAS A DOG AND I TOLD HIM TO WATCH IT, AND CHACHI, THE DOG, WENT HERE, (INDICATING), AND THE LIMO DRIVER PARKED HERE, (INDICATING). "

If we credit Park's testimony about seeing Kato and the Black male figure at the same time, then we have Kato returning from his cursory search of the sound of the thumps, which is consistent with Kato's testimony of hearing the thumps at ten forty five.

[tv]

Supporters of OJ Simpson being innocent of the murders have to discredit Allan Park's testimony because he's the one person who, without question, can destroy OJ Simpson's alibi. His testimony is supported by the phone records and prove Simpson's collection of alibis to be big fat lies.

[William Anthony]

Supporter of the OJ Simpson being innocent of the murders have to discredit Allan Park's testimony because he's the one person who, without question, can destroy OJ Simpson's alibi. His testimony is supported by the phone records and prove Simpson's collection of alibis to be big fat lies.

Good morning, Ms. Tvdinner,

I am not a supporter of Simpson being innocent but when we look at the testimonies of Park and Kato, it becomes clear that Park did not see Kato until after Kato had performed his cursory search. IIRC, MF and Kato had similar flashlights (size wise). It is unclear as to what exactly Kato did in regard to a search but it is clear that he did not see the glove that MF alleged to have found in the same area that Kato searched twice.

Famous Quote by Sir Walter Scott
"Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!"
Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.

[William Anthony]

MF-March 9th

"Q: AND DID YOU HAVE A FLASHLIGHT WITH YOU THAT NIGHT, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT KIND OF FLASHLIGHT WAS THAT?

A: I HAD A SMALL FLASHLIGHT THAT I HELD ON MY BELT.

Q: OKAY. SIZE OF A PEN?

A: YES. I BELIEVE TWO DOUBLE A BATTERIES AND ADJUSTABLE HEAD SO YOU COULD MAKE IT A WIDE BEAM OR A VERY NARROW BEAM. "

[tv]

Good morning, Ms. Tvdinner,

I am not a supporter of Simpson being innocent but when we look at the testimonies of Park and Kato, it becomes clear that Park did not see Kato until after Kato had performed his cursory search. IIRC, MF and Kato had similar flashlights (size wise). It is unclear as to what exactly Kato did in regard to a search but it is clear that he did not see the glove that MF alleged to have found in the same area that Kato searched twice.

Famous Quote by Sir Walter Scott
"Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!"
Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.


You may believe what you want. The phone records support Allan Park's testimony. OJ Simpson had reason to lie and he did.

[William Anthony]

You may believe what you want. The phone records support Allan Park's testimony. OJ Simpson had reason to lie and he did.

We seemed to have now moved to a different discussion in that my discussion was in regard to the time established by Kato's testimony and that of Ms. Shively's testimony and my belief that there was reasonable doubt. However, if you are of the opinion that Simpson made some human mistakes and errors in his testimony, then you may be right. I will add not in Simpson's defense but, as a matter of fact, that Simpson was not charged and convicted of perjury.

I guess the time for us to exchange pleasantries has passed, correct?

[tv]

We seemed to have now moved to a different discussion in that my discussion was in regard to the time established by Kato's testimony and that of Ms. Shively's testimony and my belief that there was reasonable doubt. However, if you are of the opinion that Simpson made some human mistakes and errors in his testimony, then you may be right. I will add not in Simpson's defense but, as a matter of fact, that Simpson was not charged and convicted of perjury.

I guess the time for us to exchange pleasantries has passed, correct?

Good morning, William. I'm being as pleasant to you as I always am and don't know why you think any different. I try not to become irritated because the NGs even discount electronic phone records. Allan Park had no motivation to lie unlike OJ Simpson who was being accused of killing two people. Allan Park wasn't tried and convicted for perjury either.

[William Anthony]

Good morning, William. I'm being as pleasant to you as I always am and don't know why you think any different. I try not to become irritated because the NGs even discount electronic phone records. Allan Park had no motivation to lie unlike OJ Simpson who was being accused of killing two people. Allan Park wasn't tried and convicted for perjury either.

Thank you. I am not discounting the phone records but I am placing them in context with the testimonies. I have not called Park a liar, as I realize that he may have made human errors and mistakes just as did Simpson.

[tv]

Thank you. I am not discounting the phone records but I am placing them in context with the testimonies. I have not called Park a liar, as I realize that he may have made human errors and mistakes just as did Simpson.

I guess we're in a stalemate on this subject. I find his testimony very credible and think that it nails OJ Simpson for the double murders. I do wonder, William, what is convincing evidence for you? I am starting to think that the prisons would be empty if you were the only person with the responsibility of judging guilt or innocence. I hope you realize that there are individuals who should be in jail with the key thrown away?

[William Anthony]

I guess we're in a stalemate on this subject. I find his testimony very credible and think that it nails OJ Simpson for the double murders. I do wonder, William, what is convincing evidence for you? I am starting to think that the prisons would be empty if you were the only person with the responsibility of judging guilt or innocence. I hope you realize that there are individuals who should be in jail with the key thrown away?

If there are people, who are in jail because of convincing evidence, then, yes, they should be free, as the standard is higher than that for incarceration-beyond a reasonable doubt. :) Yes, I do believe that is a very high standard to meet. I don't see how Parks testimony rises to that level, as he couldn't say what Simpson was doing at anytime prior to ten fifty five on the night of the murders.

[tv]

If there are people, who are in jail because of convincing evidence, then, yes, they should be free, as the standard is higher than that for incarceration-beyond a reasonable doubt. :) Yes, I do believe that is a very high standard to meet. I don't see how Parks testimony rises to that level, as he couldn't say what Simpson was doing at anytime prior to ten fifty five on the night of the murders.

You didn't really answer my question.

[William Anthony]

You didn't really answer my question.

I do apologize, because I thought it was a statement but, if the question is do I realize that there are some people that should be thrown in prison and the key thrown away, then the answer is yes, I realize that, if they are shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and have exhausted all their appeals and that is what the sentence requires.

[tv]

i hope you cook it before you read my post at 2678:cool:
martin, I can see by your post #2678 that you can't really decide what you believe about the times. Whatever suits OJ Simpson's alibi are the times you'll go with is my guess.

[martin II]

Why oj had what he had during the bronco chase. Paula Barberi deopsition.

Q. And when I say 'a lot of cash,' Mr. Simpson usually had in excess of $5,000 in cash on him at any given time, did he not?

"A. I never counted the money, but it was always a big sort of rubber band around a lot of bills.

"Q. When you saw those bills, those bills were basically $100 bills, were they not?

"A. I don't recall right now. Big bills.

"Q. All right. When you would -- strike that.

Both of you traveled a fair amount, did you not?

"A. Yes."

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. I have a stipulation from Mr. Baker on the fact that all these questions were leading and the -- it appears at page 308 in the deposition transcript.

I solicited a stipulation from Mr. Baker on leading grounds. He told me I had a standing objection. That's at page 310 of the transcript which you have in front of you, at line 10. And just so I don't say anything out loud, I would direct the Court's attention to page 367, lines 13 through 19, indicating this witness's status.

(Pause for the Court to review transcript.)

THE COURT: I'll permit it.

MR. P. BAKER: Page 310, line 5. (Reading:)

"And Mr. Simpson had a grip bag that he took with him on most occasions when he traveled, did he not?

"A. Yes."

MR. P. BAKER: Now, page 311 line -- 311, line 3. (Reading:)

In the black bag that Mr. Simpson had, he almost always had his passport in there, did he not?

"A. Yes.

"Q. It was customary for him to have his passport wherever he went?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Now, did you usually carry a passport?

"A. I usually always do, except today.

"Q. All right. And we talked about Mr. Simpson's golf a little bit. He was an avid golfer, was he not?

"A. Yeah.

"Q. That look is exactly the same look I get from my wife, by the way.

"In any event, he would usually get up, if you were there, if you knew, early in the morning to go play golf, would he not?

"A. Before the sun came up.

"Q. And that was usually Saturday and Sunday at the very minimum, was it not?

"A. Every day.

"Q. Okay. All right. And were you ever aware of Mr. Simpson planning to use a disguise when he would take his children different places?

"A. I believe I testified already in the Grand Jury to the Knotts Berry Farm, if I remember correctly, that at the video shoot, the video makeup girl there was helping him with something that he was doing with his children. I can't be specific.

"Q. Did O.J. ever indicate to you that he would wear those disguises so he wouldn't have to give autographs and he could spend some time with his children?"

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

(Reading continued:)

"A. Something about getting a tired hand.

"Q. Tired hand?

"A. A cast or something."

MR. P. BAKER: Page 314, line 17. (Reading:)

"Q. Okay. In terms of your relationship with Mr. Simpson resuming in May of 1994, that was after Mother's Day, was it not?

"A. Yes, I was looking on my calendar. Is that what I pointed out to be the 10th?

"Q. The 10th was -- Mother's Day, it appears to be on your

[tv]

I do apologize, because I thought it was a statement but, if the question is do I realize that there are some people that should be thrown in prison and the key thrown away, then the answer is yes, I realize that, if they are shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and have exhausted all their appeals and that is what the sentence requires.

William, it makes no difference to Allan Park's testimony what Simpson was doing before 10:55. Park wasn't testifying to all the elements of the timeline and the crime; he was only adding the part that he had knowledge about. We know that an important part of his testimony is that OJ Simpson was entering his house about that time.

[William Anthony]

William, it makes no difference to Allan Park's testimony what Simpson was doing before 10:55. Park wasn't testifying to all the elements of the timeline and the crime; he was only adding the part that he had knowledge about. We know that an important part of his testimony is that OJ Simpson was entering his house about that time.

I don't place the importance that you do on that, because, just as he did not see Kato exit his quarters and do his cursory search, he may not have seen Simpson exit his home and he really could not say how Simpson, if it was Simpson he saw, was clothed.

[martin II]

i read dale st johns testimony.

questions were limited to what usually happened when he picked oj up and his dog.
nothing about his conversation with Park Or being on the phone with Park when he saw Kato or oj.
odd i think.

[martin II]

I don't place the importance that you do on that, because, just as he did not see Kato exit his quarters and do his cursory search, he may not have seen Simpson exit his home and he really could not say how Simpson, if it was Simpson he saw, was clothed.

Park certainly did not see oj when he came down and put the two duffle bags on the porch and he did not see oj move the golf bags over to the park benches before he walked back into the house.He saw the porch lights oj turned on but thought they were the internal house lights.
Kato said when he first saw saw the limo he did not se park. I was wondering if Park was standing behind the limo taking another drag on that cigarette.

[William Anthony]

i read dale st johns testimony.

questions were limited to what usually happened when he picked oj up and his dog.
nothing about his conversation with Park Or being on the phone with Park when he saw Kato or oj.
odd i think.

This is the most relevant part of St. John's testimony to me,

"Q. Okay.

By the way, you obviously didn't pick Mr. Simpson up on the 12th, that was a fellow that was working for you; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. You have no idea what Mr. Simpson was doing when he was buzzed that night, you don't know whether he was in the shower or what --

A. No."

[William Anthony]

Park certainly did not see oj when he came down and put the two duffle bags on the porch and he did not see oj move the golf bags over to the park benches before he walked back into the house.He saw the porch lights oj turned on but thought they were the internal house lights.
Kato said when he first saw saw the limo he did not se park. I was wondering if Park was standing behind the limo taking another drag on that cigarette.

He could have been writing down his boss' phone number and didn't see Kato, which would have made the time between ten forty six and ten forty eight, IIRC.

[martin II]

martin, I can see by your post #2678 that you can't really decide what you believe about the times. Whatever suits OJ Simpson's alibi are the times you'll go with is my guess.

I made the post as food for thought for you.

I believe Kato was on the phone and heard the noise at 10:40 to 10:45 because of his many mistakes on what he saw that night i believe again Park was wrong about when he saw Kato or Kato was on the phone a few more minutes and it took him a few minutes more to get out of his room.

But if Oj was at Bundy at 10:45 6 minutes to drive to Rockingham would be 10:51 get out the car walk around the salangers property jump the fence he wouldbe face to face with Kato standing in the walkway with that small light at the second fence.

[martin II]

He could have been writing down his boss' phone number and didn't see Kato, which would have made the time between ten forty six and ten forty eight, IIRC.

When Park turned to open his limo door and pick up his phone he was not looking at the front door.This is when oj came out,dropped the trwo bags at the door moved the golf bag to the park bench and was seen by park as oj walked back into the house and turned the porch lights on. Park then said SOMEBODY HOME. oJ was home all the time.

[William Anthony]

When Park turned to open his limo door and pick up his phone he was not looking at the front door.This is when oj came out,dropped the trwo bags at the door moved the golf bag to the park bench and was seen by park as oj walked back into the house and turned the porch lights on. Park then said SOMEBODY HOME. oJ was home all the time.

A plausible and logical explanation, imho.

[martin II]

This is the most relevant part of St. John's testimony to me,

"Q. Okay.

By the way, you obviously didn't pick Mr. Simpson up on the 12th, that was a fellow that was working for you; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. You have no idea what Mr. Simpson was doing when he was buzzed that night, you don't know whether he was in the shower or what --

A. No."


When i travel i do just about what oj said he did. The toilet and the shower would be the last task. I think he did not hear the gate phone when he was in the shower, He was comming down stairs with the two duffle bags when park buzzed one of those times. He dropped the bags moved the golf bag went back in the house turned the lights on and answered the phone.

[William Anthony]

When i travel i do just about what oj said he did. The toilet and the shower would be the last task. I think he did not hear the gate phone when he was in the shower, He was comming down stairs with the two duffle bags when park buzzed one of those times. He dropped the bags moved the golf bag went back in the house turned the lights on and answered the phone.

See response to post above. :)

[martin II]

I was looking for ST Johns testimony to confirm what Park said he told him.
Did he tell St John i see a blond white man to my left. i see a AA entering the house. Somebody home. Or was Park kinda talking to himself.

found nothing

[William Anthony]

I was looking for ST Johns testimony to confirm what Park said he told him.
Did he tell St John i see a blond white man to my left. i see a AA entering the house. Somebody home. Or was Park kinda talking to himself.

found nothing

From my understanding, he said somebody home when he saw a figure of a Black person go into the house.

[martin II]

Good morning, Ms. Tvdinner,

I am not a supporter of Simpson being innocent but when we look at the testimonies of Park and Kato, it becomes clear that Park did not see Kato until after Kato had performed his cursory search. IIRC, MF and Kato had similar flashlights (size wise). It is unclear as to what exactly Kato did in regard to a search but it is clear that he did not see the glove that MF alleged to have found in the same area that Kato searched twice.

Famous Quote by Sir Walter Scott
"Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!"
Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.

OJ did not jump the fence drop the glove run out of the walkway and take the time it would take to place the two gates back in their place.I believe whoever planted the glove walked to the gate, tossed the glove to where it was found and walked back out.

[martin II]

From my understanding, he said somebody home when he saw a figure of a Black person go into the house.

correct i was looking to see if St John had memory of Park saying this.But there was none.I think Park was prompted to say he saw kato while on the phone.

[William Anthony]

OJ did not jump the fence drop the glove run out of the walkway and take the time it would take to place the two gates back in their place.I believe whoever planted the glove walked to the gate, tossed the glove to where it was found and walked back out.

That person then went and got LE to see what he had done, which is what I believe, based on the evidence, but I could be wrong, which only means reasonable doubt to me.

[martin II]

here is another time line analysis.


OJ Simpson was home at 10:50

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a composite scenario based on the testimony relating to the events at 360 north Rockingham, on the night of June twelfth, 1994, as provided on Timeline Analysis page. The narrator has taken the liberty of injecting possible explainations for observed, or experienced, events. This is a practice commonly associated with either opening, or closing, arguements; and we anticipate no intellectually honest objections to be raised.

Around 10:40 PM, while talking to his girlfriend Rachel Farrara, Brian Kato Kaelin hears a noise, the description of which is evolving. Originally, a loud noise and "earthquake" like shaking, by the time of the Criminal Trial, it became three rapid thumps --- in the location of the airconditioner protruding through the rear wall of his room; now, the noise is a sliding series of thumps originating behind his headboard, sliding in the direction of the picture. Regardless of it's type, the vibration causes a picture, over his bed, to move. He asks Rachel, "Did we just have an earthquake?" To which he received a negative response.

{For the remainder of the evening, and into the next morning, this event remained foremost in the mind of Kato Kaelin. This was demonstrated by the fact that he could not refrain from mentioning it to any and all who would listen.}



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prosecution Theory of Noise doesn't work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At approximately the same time, 10:39 -- the White Stretch Limousine driven by Allan Park has lightly impacted, and remained in contact with, the Ashford gate. This is realized when Park goes to press the communication button -- which will cause a phone inside Rockingham to ring eight times. Getting no response, he returns to the car and drives back onto Rockingham, makes a left and pulls parallel to the Rockingham Gate. He views the property through the driver's side window. His focus: can he negociate the turn pass the Bentley parked in a niche in the driveway? He decides he can't. In his testimony, he will state that there were two dark cars parked there.
In the shower, Simpson hears the distinctive ring of the phone -- indicating the Limousine has arrived. Assuming that it is his regular driver, he completes his shower, gets partially dressed, puts on a dark robe, and does his last minute packing.

Backing up, past Ashford, Park drives back to the Ashford Gate. [Time: 10:43] Once again, he rings the communication button as if it were a buzzer -- expecting each press of the button to cause a distinct ringing inside -- still no response from the house. [Time: 10:47]

Increasingly nervous, and somewhat agitated, certainly scared, Kaelin decides to investigate the "earthquake". Continuing his conversation with Farrara, he comes back to the earthquake several times before finally taking a penlite flashlight and going to investigate. [Time: 10:48]

At 10:48:40, Allan Park calls his mother -- he needs his boss' home number. At 10:49:07, Park calls Dale St. John at home -- no answer. He again tries the Ashford Gate buzzer.

Simpson is now gathering the final items for his trip; and again, believing it's his regular driver, ignors the phone. In the house, at approximately 10:50, OJ Simpson has just finished showering. He had called his daughter, Sydney, prior to going to McDonald's; he had also made several other calls at that time. At 10:03 -- using his cellphone -- he had tried to reach Paula... probably to square things for not taking her to Sydney's recital. The facts being, he didn't want to chance a scene between Nicole and Paula. Especially not one that would cast a cloud on Sydney's Day.

please click on link for the balance of timeline


http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1472/theory02.html

[martin II]

From my understanding, he said somebody home when he saw a figure of a Black person go into the house.

That is the problem. There is no confirmation of Park telling ST John that he saw the white guy during his conversation with him. We only have Parks word
in his testimony after much prompting by Clarke and maby even his lawyer mother. That is one side of the story with no confirmation.i wonder why Park just did not get out of the limo and say HI to kato.

The question ramains Thw two Duffle bags had to have been brought down by to the front porch while Park was jumping in and out of his limo buzzing.
Oj had to be the one that moved the Golf bag to the bench before he went back inside.

Kato and Oj must have been seconds from bumping into each other but in the pitch black it was not that easy to see.But we are to believe Park could see everything in the same pitch black.

[martin II]

That person then went and got LE to see what he had done, which is what I believe, based on the evidence, but I could be wrong, which only means reasonable doubt to me.

If Kato did hear the knocks at 10:40 10:45 then there was a lot of blood planting and manipulating of evidence going on in the lapd lab and the DAS office.

[martin II]

Park said when the AA went inside the down stairs lights came on.
Kato said when he returned from the garage area the porch coach lights had been turned on. he said nothing about the interior lights having been turned on.

Did park transpose coach lights to interior lights? he did this with the picture of the two cars.

[William Anthony]

That is the problem. There is no confirmation of Park telling ST John that he saw the white guy during his conversation with him. We only have Parks word
in his testimony after much prompting by Clarke and maby even his lawyer mother. That is one side of the story with no confirmation.i wonder why Park just did not get out of the limo and say HI to kato.

The question ramains Thw two Duffle bags had to have been brought down by to the front porch while Park was jumping in and out of his limo buzzing.
Oj had to be the one that moved the Golf bag to the bench before he went back inside.

Kato and Oj must have been seconds from bumping into each other but in the pitch black it was not that easy to see.But we are to believe Park could see everything in the same pitch black.

Kato was probably so afraid he did not know if he had been bumped or not.:)

[William Anthony]

If Kato did hear the knocks at 10:40 10:45 then there was a lot of blood planting and manipulating of evidence going on in the lapd lab and the DAS office.

We know that there is a lot of disagreement as to the the prosecution's theory of the murders and posters are left to create their own, which to means there was reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case.

[martin II]

Kato was probably so afraid he did not know if he had been bumped or not.:)

That noise that some say he did not hear was on his mind above all else. it took his girl until 1 Am to calm him down

[William Anthony]

That noise that some say he did not hear was on his mind above all else. it took his girl until 1 Am to calm him down

She should have told him it was an earthquake.:)

[martin II]

We know that there is a lot of disagreement as to the the prosecution's theory of the murders and posters are left to create their own, which to means there was reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case.

There are few cases where those that dissagree with the verdict so strongly that they attack le, the lab, the DAs for loosing the case and the dream team, defense lawyers, the jury, defendant and witnesses for winning.Everyone is responsible for the win when in fact it was reasonable doubt that won the case.Hats off to the CJS.

[martin II]

She should have told him it was an earthquake.:)

I never thought about that.He would have just relaxed and enjoyed his conversation and Park would not have had to lie about seeing him.imo

[William Anthony]

I never thought about that.He would have just relaxed and enjoyed his conversation and Park would not have had to lie about seeing him.imo

I wonder how he felt when a bunch of men in suits woke him up in the middle of the night, asking him questions.

[William Anthony]

There are few cases where those that dissagree with the verdict so strongly that they attack le, the lab, the DAs for loosing the case and the dream team, defense lawyers, the jury, defendant and witnesses for winning.Everyone is responsible for the win when in fact it was reasonable doubt that won the case.Hats off to the CJS.

The case certainly prove the fallacy of the adage, everyone loves a winner.