Random Discussions On The Case

[tv]

So, the magnificent one did his best to act in the best interest of his client, suffered the slings and arrows and rebuke of the judge and went on to win the case. :)Why did the defense lie about Rosa Lopez?


Judge Lance Ito issued a written order sanctioning the defense for withholding from the prosecution information regarding interviews that Lopez gave defense investigator William Pavelic. Defense lawyers Johnnie Cochran and Carl Douglas each were fined $950, and Ito said he would instruct jurors that the defense violated the law if Lopez's taped testimony is played for the jury.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/ojsimpson/weekly/06.html

[Kate Sachel]

I was speaking of Kato and I was not aware that a bunch of men wearing suits awakened Park in the middle of the night.:) I never agreed to the statement and simply did not address it.

Now William, this contradicts your prior assertions that silence is agreement.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Why did the defense lie about Rosa Lopez?


Judge Lance Ito issued a written order sanctioning the defense for withholding from the prosecution information regarding interviews that Lopez gave defense investigator William Pavelic. Defense lawyers Johnnie Cochran and Carl Douglas each were fined $950, and Ito said he would instruct jurors that the defense violated the law if Lopez's taped testimony is played for the jury.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/ojsimpson/weekly/06.html

Yes, that is what I meant. Ito also said the magnificent one had a reckless disregard for the truth, as he did Vannatter. He went further and said the magnificent one made a false representation. However, this did not deter the magnificent one from magnificently representing his client. I think you have answered why the tape wasn't played in front of the jury, or maybe it was. They did not lie about Ms. Lopez. They misrepresented that there was no report or tape.

[tv]

Yes, that is what I meant. Ito also said the magnificent one had a reckless disregard for the truth, as he did Vannatter. He went further and said the magnificent one made a false representation. However, this did not deter the magnificent one from magnificently representing his client. I think you have answered why the tape wasn't played in front of the jury, or maybe it was. They did not lie about Ms. Lopez. They misrepresented that there was no report or tape.

They did lie about Rosa Lopez. They said she could support Simpson's alibil. This was not true.

[William Anthony]

Now William, this contradicts your prior assertions that silence is agreement.

Kate

Good Morning, Ms. kate,

I do not see it as a contradiction. I think the law is that silence can be viewed as consent. I simply did not address that portion of the post. I later said that the majority of opinions is that the prosecution witnesses made human errors and mistakes but the defense witnesses lied. So, I think that one could say from that I referenced the difference between how the witnesses are viewed by the majority. How's that for a non-responsive answer?:)

[martin II]

I don't really know why you're asking me this question. Park's testimony has been posted several times. Is there something that you're trying to get me to admit that will support your position?

It is a very simple question.I am asking the question because i would like to know if you agree or not.

Do you agree that Kato was in the south walkway when the lights came on.

[tv]

With all due respect, are you really speaking factually as to what Faye's thought process toward Nicole would have been? My mother was a drug addict who went back and forth from rehabilitation and I can assure you that the thought process you speak of is not what you find in every individual that encounters this scenario. Because my mother recognized her addiction, and wanted help, she was never angry with anyone in all of the interventions that I was a part of. In fact, she was grateful. She was grateful to be so loved by those of us who cared enough to hold such interventions.

There has been a lot of references to what rehabilitation centers allow regarding phone calls, visitors, etc. My own mother did not have restrictions on phone calls, nor on visitors. In fact, she had visiting hours daily that are set up much like visiting hours in a hospital.

Kate

Thank you, Kate. No one can speak about what was in someone else's mind. In fact, I read somewhere that Faye specifically asked Nicole to step in if her drug use got out of control again.

[William Anthony]

They did lie about Rosa Lopez. They said she could support Simpson's alibil. This was not true.

That my dear woman is a matter of opinion, or, if you will, credibility.

[William Anthony]

Thank you, Kate. No one can speak about what was in someone else's mind. In fact, I read somewhere that Faye specifically asked Nicole to step in if her drug use got out of control again.

What? Weren't you trying to read what was in Park's mind when he said "somebody's here"?:)

[tv]

Bill Pavalic was the experienced lapd detective that was against lapd bad behavior especially in the area of racial abuse. I think when the murders occured or near that time he was in the State Attorney Generals office outlinning a history of racial abuse against minorities by M Furhman.
He had also developed a case against D Gates. But he was especially after Furhman.

I never understood why he did what he did to C Dougless about the Lopex tape. She was attacked because she did not tell a regular reporter all of what she knew because she said he was not le.I never got the true understanding of her interview by Furhman and why he did not make a record of her comments. If he interviewed her why not make a written record and turn it in to the DA.

I have not understood why seasoned detectives would be investigating a major crime scene at Rockingham and not be compeled to keep a written log of all of their activities. A log would protect them from attacks by the defense
on what they did and would allow them to have a written memory of what they did during preperation for testimony and during their testimony.

On the other hand not keeping a log allows them to manipulate their testimony as required to support the prosecutions case. How can we give a guy a gun and send him into the community to enforce the law and not require accountability from him.
imo

Good old Bill Pavelic led Rosa Lopez through the entire interview and didn't provide her with an English interpreter which she requested. I think the only thing she told Fuhrman was that it was okay for him to enter the property.

[tv]

What? Weren't you trying to read what was in Park's mind when he said "somebody's here"?:)No, I was reading the testimony.

[tv]

That my dear woman is a matter of opinion, or, if you will, credibility.

If she'd been credible they would have used her. Not only did they not use her they lied about having a video.

[Kate Sachel]

Good Morning, Ms. kate,

I do not see it as a contradiction. I think the law is that silence can be viewed as consent. I simply did not address that portion of the post. I later said that the majority of opinions is that the prosecution witnesses made human errors and mistakes but the defense witnesses lied. So, I think that one could say from that I referenced the difference between how the witnesses are viewed by the majority. How's that for a non-responsive answer?:)

That made me laugh, thank you William. I couldn't resist mentioning it, given my recollection of being lit into by you for not speaking out against certain comments. When I posted that I simply chose not to address the comments, but that didn't mean that I agreed with them, I got lit into further.

I'm hungry, but cannot seem to decide what appeals to me. How's that for off-topic?

Kate

[tv]

It is a very simple question.I am asking the question because i would like to know if you agree or not.

Do you agree that Kato was in the south walkway when the lights came on.

I see no specific testimony about it and I don't read minds. If you have testimony regarding this please post it.

[William Anthony]

If she'd been credible they would have used her. Not only did they not use her they lied about having a video.

You do see where Ito said that the defense's failure to produce the report and tape could be used to judge the credibility of the witness, don't you? Their case was so strong without her they did not want to take that chance, imho.

[William Anthony]

That made me laugh, thank you William. I couldn't resist mentioning it, given my recollection of being lit into by you for not speaking out against certain comments. When I posted that I simply chose not to address the comments, but that didn't mean that I agreed with them, I got lit into further.

I'm hungry, but cannot seem to decide what appeals to me. How's that for off-topic?

Kate

My dear woman,

I vehemently deny that I ever lit into that woman. :). I have had a taste for pancakes for breakfast but that requires sugar free syrup, or artificially sweetened water, for me. :)

[Kate Sachel]

My dear woman,

I vehemently deny that I ever lit into that woman. :). I have had a taste for pancakes for breakfast but that requires sugar free syrup, or artificially sweetened water, for me. :)

You're certainly not going to make me go back and look through the transcripts in order to impeach you?

Sugar free syrup most definitely does not appeal to me, though the pancakes do. Especially if those pancakes are topped with strawberries.

Kate

[martin II]

Thank you, Kate. No one can speak about what was in someone else's mind. In fact, I read somewhere that Faye specifically asked Nicole to step in if her drug use got out of control again.


Daytop village, Rennasaunce and white Deer Run are programs that i have some knowledge of and all three are long term programs 18 months live in type. very strong and very controlling of clients activities.
No outside contact is allowed within the first 10 days
No incomming calls for 30 days or so
They break the client down to zero and strip them of all status they had before using various group sessions to build them up again.
Hard work is required daily and the goal is to create a sense of respnsibility.
Group sessions twice daily
Family meetings and family socials after a period of time.
Drug education and lifestyle chanmges are the focus

Their success rate is quite high.
Insurance and Medicaid is method of payment

There are more expensive and softer programs that give the client lots of freedom of actions and movement but they usually have return customers
because the falling rate is high.Some treat it as a detox rather than rehab.
I don't know which type Faye was in and who payed for it as she was broke.
So she may have had free phone rights.i don't know but a 30 day stay was only a detox not rehab. imo

[William Anthony]

You're certainly not going to make me go back and look through the transcripts in order to impeach you?

Sugar free syrup most definitely does not appeal to me, though the pancakes do. Especially if those pancakes are topped with strawberries.

Kate

No, it won't be necessary to review the transcripts, as I will defer to your recollection. :)

I see a bowl of corn flakes in my future.

[serpentsfall]

What does this mean to you.
I saw the AA go into the house and the lights came on.that was his thoughts to himself but immediately when he saw this he told St John 'SOMEONE IS HOME" he could not have been talking about anyone but the AA

This has always been the problem with park. He says one thing in one testimony and then after prompting by Clarke he he gets on the stand and testifies to something else to fit what she wants to correct what he said that was not help the prosecution. That may be why the jury did not believe him.

I think a lot of the problem was with Clark's habit of asking leading questions. Witnesses would often have to go back and finish or expound on their previous answer in an effort to put their current answer in context or to "correct" an implication in Clark's leading question.

[martin II]

I see no specific testimony about it and I don't read minds. If you have testimony regarding this please post it.

tv
I posted it and you indicated that you read it. give me a moment or two and i will post it again for you.

[martin II]

I think a lot of the problem was with Clark's habit of asking leading questions. Witnesses would often have to go back and finish or expound on their previous answer in an effort to put their current answer in context or to "correct" an implication in Clark's leading question.

I agree with your post.

[William Anthony]

I think a lot of the problem was with Clark's habit of asking leading questions. Witnesses would often have to go back and finish or expound on their previous answer in an effort to put their current answer in context or to "correct" an implication in Clark's leading question.

I agree for the most part. However, there was nothing leading in the portion of the testimony I posted where she asked, after you saw the person go into the entrance, what did you do.

[martin II]

Thank you, Kate. No one can speak about what was in someone else's mind. In fact, I read somewhere that Faye specifically asked Nicole to step in if her drug use got out of control again.

Well Nicole should have steped in at that moment because a freebaser is always out of control.No such thing as a in control freebaser.

[serpentsfall]

OJ Simpson could have thrown Kato out in the street anytime. I think the jacuzzi was merely an irritant to him not a deal breaker. :)

Like another stick on a proverbial camel's back that day? I haven't seen anybody addressing OJ refusing to admit being dumped by Paula that day in quite a while. Or reports of OJ's sour mood at the recital versus the happy face he put on for the photo op afterwards (I can't believe some people pan his acting abilitiy!) I think a lot of things were irritating OJ Simpson that day.

[Kate Sachel]

Well Nicole should have steped in at that moment because a freebaser is always out of control.No such thing as a in control freebaser.

Your constant references to Faye's drug abuse, in using that alone to tarnish her character is an insult. Being addicted to drugs does not automatically make someone a terrible person, or a less caring or loving individual. Did it make her paranoid? Perhaps. Can it cloud her recollection of events? Certainly. Does it automatically equate into making her a loser whose friendship with Nicole could not have been real? Absolutely not.

My mother continued to be loving, kind, compassionate and loyal all throughout her struggle. Did her addiction make her do things that were detrimental to her own health and the well being of her family? Yes it did, but she had an addiction that took control of her and nothing that she did was with malicious intent, there was nothing personal. She was simply ill.

Kate

[weezer]

With all due respect, are you really speaking factually as to what Faye's thought process toward Nicole would have been? My mother was a drug addict who went back and forth from rehabilitation and I can assure you that the thought process you speak of is not what you find in every individual that encounters this scenario. Because my mother recognized her addiction, and wanted help, she was never angry with anyone in all of the interventions that I was a part of. In fact, she was grateful. She was grateful to be so loved by those of us who cared enough to hold such interventions.

There has been a lot of references to what rehabilitation centers allow regarding phone calls, visitors, etc. My own mother did not have restrictions on phone calls, nor on visitors. In fact, she had visiting hours daily that are set up much like visiting hours in a hospital.

Kate

thanks for the insight, Kate.

[tv]

Your constant references to Faye's drug abuse, in using that alone to tarnish her character is an insult. Being addicted to drugs does not automatically make someone a terrible person, or a less caring or loving individual. Did it make her paranoid? Perhaps. Can it cloud her recollection of events? Certainly. Does it automatically equate into making her a loser whose friendship with Nicole could not have been real? Absolutely not.

My mother continued to be loving, kind, compassionate and loyal all throughout her struggle. Did her addiction make her do things that were detrimental to her own health and the well being of her family? Yes it did, but she had an addiction that took control of her and nothing that she did was with malicious intent, there was nothing personal. She was simply ill.

Kate

Thank you, Kate, you put into words what I've been trying to express for a long while. Not being able to make it sound coherent I just kept quiet. Everytime Faye's name comes up she's dismissed with the 'freebaser' comment. OJ Simpson was known to snort cocaine but we don't interject with that everytime his name is mentioned.

I'm sorry for your Mom's struggle. From all you've said about her she was a truly lovely, kind person.

[Kate Sachel]

Thank you, Kate, you put into words what I've been trying to express for a long while. Not being able to make it sound coherent I just kept quiet. Everytime Faye's name comes up she's dismissed with the 'freebaser' comment. OJ Simpson was known to snort cocaine but we don't interject with that everytime his name is mentioned.

I'm sorry for your Mom's struggle. From all you've said about her she was a truly lovely, kind person.

Thank you; she was undoubtedly not without her faults but she loved her family and her friends and tried with great determination to battle her demons.

Kate

[martin II]

TV here is Katos testimony.

I see no specific testimony about it and I don't read minds. If you have testimony regarding this please post it.
-------------------
Front porch Lights off when Kato passed going to the south walkway
Front porch Lights on when Kato returned from the south walkway.

Petrocelli: When you made that initial route, your testimony is you did not see any lights on in the inside, you did not see the coach lights on the Outside, and you did not see the knapsack behind the Bentley. Is that right?
Kaelin: As far as I remember, yes.


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. Return
--------------

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.]

[martin II]

It has been my experience that different drug programs have different rules for treatment. All do not operate the same.My personal experience involves a brother in law and a cousin.The brother in law had difficulty reaching his bottom and was involved in many short stays in what he called rehab.Since his stays were usualy of one month in duration he made several attempts to get clean. In and out with what i call quick fix programs.These were not rehab programs in the sense that they changed basic behavior but just short drying out periods because he was not ready to make the serious investment in learning how to be clean and stay clean.

He was in what some call a celebrity facility $30,000 $40,000 per one month stay where he was basically in control of his goings and commings.Telephone in his room and was even allowed to leave the facility for local shopping trips.
After several of these 'VISITS" he was finally ramanded to a long term no nonsense long term 18 months program.This was real rehab not detox.Some people may not know the differance and most of the 30 day 'EASY' programs are just that detox. Previously because he was a person of financial means he had been able to dictate what freedoms he had even though he was a patient. He got the shock of his life when he was given the rules of this long term program. No telephone, no tv,no visitors,no smoking and restricted interaction with other patients for the first 30 or 60 days depending his ability to adjust and his progress. He stayed the total 18 months came out more educated on his illness and with a new set of coping skills to protect himself. He finally realized that the revolving door type going in and out of various "easy" programs from time to times had been a mistake. That it only takes one program if one is willing to invest the capital required for serious recovery.

Addiction is a illness just like heart problems and should be looked at the same way we look at heart problems.A wealthy addict is no better than one living in a cardboard box on the street. Some times it may take the wealthy or more educated addict more time to realize this as they are use to having their way and have the highest rate of being in revolving door type programs
that do nothing but give a quick detox fix. Not real rehab.

As far as Faye was concerned she obviously had a more serious problem than she realized as her addiction had a long history and freebasing is not something that the user can easily control and it is much more costly than some other activities. I have sympathy for Faye as i would have for any person trapped in that type addition and she was lucky to have had Nicole and her ex to force her to put the brakes on. Even though it appears to have been a 'EASY' detox type program maby it was the start of a better way of living for her.imo
martin II

[martin II]

Like another stick on a proverbial camel's back that day? I haven't seen anybody addressing OJ refusing to admit being dumped by Paula that day in quite a while. Or reports of OJ's sour mood at the recital versus the happy face he put on for the photo op afterwards (I can't believe some people pan his acting abilitiy!) I think a lot of things were irritating OJ Simpson that day.

I think oj did respond to Paula Dumping him if that is what she did.

After attending a black tie jewish fundraiser as ojs woman on 6/11 Paula suggested that oj take her to his daughters recital on 6/12. Oj refused because he realized Paulas objective and because he and Nicole had some kind of agreement not to bring their lovers around the children. He did not want a situation to develop between Nicole and Paula at the recital.

Pauls was pissed because it was her belief that oj was making this decision to satisfy Nicole.She left a hot message for him and caught a plane to Vegas to be with M Bolton. When she learned that oj had been jailed she caught the first plane back to la and visited him in jail and did so for everyday or very frequently for the 9 months that he was jailed baking him cookies and doing other things to show that she cared for him.

Depending on how one views her actions one could say she dumped him or that she just had a moment of anger centered around his refusal to bring her to the recital.imo

At rockingham after the recital oj and Kato had some conversation and it was Katos testimony that oj was not angry,sour or in a bad mood.

[weezer]

I think oj did respond to Paula Dumping him if that is what she did.

After attending a black tie jewish fundraiser as ojs woman on 6/11 Paula suggested that oj take her to his daughters recital on 6/12. Oj refused because he realized Paulas objective and because he and Nicole had some kind of agreement not to bring their lovers around the children. He did not want a situation to develop between Nicole and Paula at the recital.

Pauls was pissed because it was her belief that oj was making this decision to satisfy Nicole.She left a hot message for him and caught a plane to Vegas to be with M Bolton. When she learned that oj had been jailed she caught the first plane back to la and visited him in jail and did so for everyday or very frequently for the 9 months that he was jailed baking him cookies and doing other things to show that she cared for him.

Depending on how one views her actions one could say she dumped him or that she just had a moment of anger centered around his refusal to bring her to the recital.imo

At rockingham after the recital oj and Kato had some conversation and it was Katos testimony that oj was not angry,sour or in a bad mood.

hmmm -- I thought orenthal said there was no message and no dumping.

[weezer]

I googled Paula's name and this is what popped up wiki:

Paula Barbieri
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This page has been deleted. The deletion log for the page is provided below for reference.

22:23, 23 October 2008 Alexf (talk | contribs) deleted "Paula Barbieri" ‎ (content was: '{{dated prod|concern = not notable as an actress per WP:BIO; her claim to notability is based on her relationship with Simpson and notability is not inherited. This could also be considered being known for a WP:ONEEVENT|single even...')

[William Anthony]

I googled Paula's name and this is what popped up wiki:

Paula Barbieri
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This page has been deleted. The deletion log for the page is provided below for reference.

22:23, 23 October 2008 Alexf (talk | contribs) deleted "Paula Barbieri" ‎ (content was: '{{dated prod|concern = not notable as an actress per WP:BIO; her claim to notability is based on her relationship with Simpson and notability is not inherited. This could also be considered being known for a WP:ONEEVENT|single even...')

http://www.adherents.com/people/pb/Paula_Barbieri.html

[weezer]

http://www.adherents.com/people/pb/Paula_Barbieri.html

oh my -- that book is 12+ years old so the article must be old. I do remember reading somewhere -- I think in 2008 maybe -- that she is married to Joe Francis of Girls Gone Wild fame.

[serpentsfall]

oh my -- that book is 12+ years old so the article must be old. I do remember reading somewhere -- I think in 2008 maybe -- that she is married to Joe Francis of Girls Gone Wild fame.

Married Michael Overstreet, a Bay County Circuit Judge in Panama City, Florida. They have one daughter.

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0053676/bio

[serpentsfall]

I think oj did respond to Paula Dumping him if that is what she did.

After attending a black tie jewish fundraiser as ojs woman on 6/11 Paula suggested that oj take her to his daughters recital on 6/12. Oj refused because he realized Paulas objective and because he and Nicole had some kind of agreement not to bring their lovers around the children. He did not want a situation to develop between Nicole and Paula at the recital.

Pauls was pissed because it was her belief that oj was making this decision to satisfy Nicole.She left a hot message for him and caught a plane to Vegas to be with M Bolton. When she learned that oj had been jailed she caught the first plane back to la and visited him in jail and did so for everyday or very frequently for the 9 months that he was jailed baking him cookies and doing other things to show that she cared for him.

Depending on how one views her actions one could say she dumped him or that she just had a moment of anger centered around his refusal to bring her to the recital.imo

At rockingham after the recital oj and Kato had some conversation and it was Katos testimony that oj was not angry,sour or in a bad mood.

I think he responded, too. With multiple unreturned phone calls to her. That OJ acted like it wasn't bothering him is, IMO, another example of acting on his part much like the display he put on following Sydney's recital.

[martin II]

http://www.whosdatedwho.com/celebrities/people/dating/paula-barbieri.htm

Paula pictures

[martin II]

I think he responded, too. With multiple unreturned phone calls to her. That OJ acted like it wasn't bothering him is, IMO, another example of acting on his part much like the display he put on following Sydney's recital.

Maby he knew all he had to do is masage her hurt feelings and do more explaining and she would be alright. I think a man has to support his woman and help her to get over her anger when she is pissed.A mistake would have been for him to ignore her anger and not try to contact her.

I was not at the recital so i would be overstepping my position to say he was acting when he interacted with his friends, his children and Nicoles parents.I think he did the right thing to pass on Nicoles Mothers invitation to attend the dinner. Plus he had just arrived from a flight from ny and was tired and Kato noticed that he seemed tired and suggested that he take a nap after the burgers.imo

[serpentsfall]

Maby he knew all he had to do is masage her hurt feelings and do more explaining and she would be alright. I think a man has to support his woman and help her to get over her anger when she is pissed.A mistake would have been for him to ignore her anger and not try to contact her.

I was not at the recital so i would be overstepping my position to say he was acting when he interacted with his friends, his children and Nicoles parents.I think he did the right thing to pass on Nicoles Mothers invitation to attend the dinner. Plus he had just arrived from a flight from ny and was tired and Kato noticed that he seemed tired and suggested that he take a nap after the burgers.imo

Yes, and some men simply can't accept "its over" from a woman. There was a lot of testimony that described how he appeared and acted at the recital. I don't always agree that a picture is worth a thousand words; and the OJ Simpson seen in the pictures/video doesn't correspond with multiple descriptions of how he was acting that day. Depressed people often look (and are) tired.

[serpentsfall]

http://www.whosdatedwho.com/celebrities/people/dating/paula-barbieri.htm

Paula pictures

I notice none of those pictures seem to look like the description of the one OJ kept by his bed!

[Kate Sachel]

Maby he knew all he had to do is masage her hurt feelings and do more explaining and she would be alright. I think a man has to support his woman and help her to get over her anger when she is pissed.A mistake would have been for him to ignore her anger and not try to contact her.

I was not at the recital so i would be overstepping my position to say he was acting when he interacted with his friends, his children and Nicoles parents.I think he did the right thing to pass on Nicoles Mothers invitation to attend the dinner. Plus he had just arrived from a flight from ny and was tired and Kato noticed that he seemed tired and suggested that he take a nap after the burgers.imo

Irregardless, he claims to have never received her message. If it wasn't a big deal why, by all accounts, does it appear that he lied about it?

I don't recall OJ passing on a dinner invitation, I recall OJ being told that he was unwelcome at the dinner.

Kate

[weezer]

oh my -- that book is 12+ years old so the article must be old. I do remember reading somewhere -- I think in 2008 maybe -- that she is married to Joe Francis of Girls Gone Wild fame.

LOL -- I was wondering what a young guy would want with an old broad!

[weezer]

I notice none of those pictures seem to look like the description of the one OJ kept by his bed!

it's probably still in the trunck of the Rolls! :eek:

[martin II]

Yes, and some men simply can't accept "its over" from a woman. There was a lot of testimony that described how he appeared and acted at the recital. I don't always agree that a picture is worth a thousand words; and the OJ Simpson seen in the pictures/video doesn't correspond with multiple descriptions of how he was acting that day. Depressed people often look (and are) tired.

Based on Paulas return to oj it may not have been over for her.But i was not at the recital and have no idea as to what oj may have been thinking.Cameras don't lie so how she looked in that picture is how she looked when the picture was taken.I have always thought she was a beautiful woman.
i don' t think how you thought he looked in a video = murder. But then you may be able to identify depression by looking at a picture.imo

[William Anthony]

oh my -- that book is 12+ years old so the article must be old. I do remember reading somewhere -- I think in 2008 maybe -- that she is married to Joe Francis of Girls Gone Wild fame.

You googled her name, so I thought you were interested in her.

[William Anthony]

LOL -- I was wondering what a young guy would want with an old broad!

It must concern you deeply for you to ask the question out loud of yourself.:)

[William Anthony]

Yes, and some men simply can't accept "its over" from a woman. There was a lot of testimony that described how he appeared and acted at the recital. I don't always agree that a picture is worth a thousand words; and the OJ Simpson seen in the pictures/video doesn't correspond with multiple descriptions of how he was acting that day. Depressed people often look (and are) tired.

And some tired people look depressed and some people that have red eyes from a cold look like they have smoked dope and some people who have had strokes or heart attacks have been mistaken for drunks.

[serpentsfall]

And some tired people look depressed and some people that have red eyes from a cold look like they have smoked dope and some people who have had strokes or heart attacks have been mistaken for drunks.

Exactly. So if Kato noticed OJ looked tired it is merely speculation to assume he was weary because he'd recently been traveling, as Martin suggested.

[William Anthony]

Exactly. So if Kato noticed OJ looked tired it is merely speculation to assume he was weary because he'd recently been traveling, as Martin suggested.

Yes, and it is speculation for you to think he looked depressed. Since Kato had personal knowledge of Simpson and his demeanor and appearance, I will defer to Kato's impression.

[weezer]

You googled her name, so I thought you were interested in her.

I was looking for her deposition and thought the thing from wiki was weird -- I'd never seen anything like that there.

[weezer]

It must concern you deeply for you to ask the question out loud of yourself.:)

nah -- I just thought it was weird that a young guy would be with an old broad.

[William Anthony]

I was looking for her deposition and thought the thing from wiki was weird -- I'd never seen anything like that there.

Did you find her deposition?

[William Anthony]

nah -- I just thought it was weird that a young guy would be with an old broad.

What pray tell is weird about that?

[weezer]

Did you find her deposition?

I quit looking. I know I have it on my computer at home so I will wait.

[martin II]

Exactly. So if Kato noticed OJ looked tired it is merely speculation to assume he was weary because he'd recently been traveling, as Martin suggested.

if I had been in NY working and playing golf daily,for a few days .Flew to la on 6/11 to attend that fund raiser, played golf on the morning of 6/12 and then attended the recital i think i would have been at less than normal strength.Or tired as Kato said. For a stranger to suggest that i should not be is pure runaway speculation. imo.

[weezer]

if I had been in NY working and playing golf daily,for a few days .Flew to la on 6/11 to attend that fund raiser, played golf on the morning of 6/12 and then attended the recital i think i would have been at less than normal strength.Or tired as Kato said. For a stranger to suggest that i should not be is pure runaway speculation. imo.

and yet, orenthal was still beating the bushes trying to find someone to hook up with after the diss from Nicole and the blow off by Paula. when that didn't happen, he was running around (like he always does), mopping up blood, chipping golf balls, going for burgers, looking for change, packing his bags, showering, napping. . . .

[martin II]

nah -- I just thought it was weird that a young guy would be with an old broad.

I guess you don't know about the Pumas.

[martin II]

nah -- I just thought it was weird that a young guy would be with an old broad.

What is the age or conditions that a lovely woman becomes a old broad?

[tv]

I guess you don't know about the Pumas.
The cougars, martin. :D

[William Anthony]

What is the age or conditions that a lovely woman becomes a old broad?

At the age when life becomes more of a burden than a joy and that is reflected in her demeanor, be it eight or eighty.

[martin II]

The cougars, martin. :D

tv

thanks
you are always on point and up to date.
i did not feel good about my word but i posted it anyway.
Do you know any old broads.Or any women that you would call a old broad?

[tv]

tv

thanks
you are always on point and up to date.
i did not feel good about my word but i posted it anyway.
Do you know any old broads.Or any women that you would call a old broad?

I got it from watching Dr. Phil. :) Aside from myself I don't think I know any old broads.

[William Anthony]

I got it from watching Dr. Phil. :) Aside from myself I don't think I know any old broads.

I have known some women that have gotten broad, as they, shall we say, matured.:)

[martin II]

I got it from watching Dr. Phil. :) Aside from myself I don't think I know any old broads.

I doubt you are but i would not refer to you or any woman in that manner.

[bobaugust]

Kato saw the limo when he exited his quarters but Park did not see him as he was on the phone with his mommy, as supported by the phone records.:) The only way your time fits is if you discredit Kato in an effort to make Ms. Shively's testimony fit. That is because one assumes that Simpson is the killer. However, the prosecution had to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence they presented. The prosecution had contact with the witnesses and would have been in a position to judge their credibility, imho. They chose Kato and Park and disregarded Ms. Shively. They did Martz the same way.:) Reasonable doubt.:)

Park testified he saw Kaelin come from around the NORTH side of the house shortly before 10:55. Park was on the telephone with his boss at the time. Park testified the flashlight attracted his attention. Park pointed out where he first saw Kaelin in the side yard to his left.

If as you want to believe Kaelin had already made his first trip to the south path and Park saw Kaelin for the first time that night when Kaelin returned from the south path not only would Kaelin have come from the garage area and down the driveway right in front of Park but Kaelin would have run right into Simpson. That never happened because what you suggest happened is wrong.

http://bobaugust.com/aerialxx.jpg
http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg

March 28. 1995 Allan Park

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.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Park testified he saw Kaelin come from around the NORTH side of the house shortly before 10:55. Park was on the telephone with his boss at the time. Park testified the flashlight attracted his attention. Park pointed out where he first saw Kaelin in the side yard to his left.

If as you want to believe Kaelin had already made his first trip to the south path and Park saw Kaelin for the first time that night when Kaelin returned from the south path not only would Kaelin have come from the garage area and down the driveway right in front of Park but Kaelin would have run right into Simpson. That never happened because what you suggest happened is wrong.

http://bobaugust.com/aerialxx.jpg
http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg

March 28. 1995 Allan Park

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.

bobaugust

Your words, "Park testified he saw Kaelin come from around the NORTH side of the house shortly before 10:55." Kato's words were the first time he saw the limo was at "ten fifty." Park's words, at the time he saw Kato he simultaneously saw a Black figure enter the doorway to the house. Park's words he never saw Simpson put the knapsack down. Kato's words he saw the knapsack when he returned from his first cursory search. Park's words after the Black figure went into the house, the lights came on downstairs. Kato's words no lights were on downstairs until after his first cursory search. Nothing can be clearer as to when Park first saw Kato, which was after his first cursory search. Ergo, Park did not see Kato when he exited his quarters or before he had finished his first cursory search. The evidence lends itself to the inference that Simpson was in the house brought down the knapsack placed it on the driveway while Kato was doing his first cursory search. As Simpson returned to the house, Park saw Kato and Simpson at nearly the same time, which allows the inference that Simpson could not have deposited the glove where MF claimed to have found it and Simpson was not the source of the thumps. Reasonable doubt.:)

[martin II]

Park testified he saw Kaelin come from around the NORTH side of the house shortly before 10:55. Park was on the telephone with his boss at the time. Park testified the flashlight attracted his attention. Park pointed out where he first saw Kaelin in the side yard to his left.

If as you want to believe Kaelin had already made his first trip to the south path and Park saw Kaelin for the first time that night when Kaelin returned from the south path not only would Kaelin have come from the garage area and down the driveway right in front of Park but Kaelin would have run right into Simpson. That never happened because what you suggest happened is wrong.

http://bobaugust.com/aerialxx.jpg
http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg

March 28. 1995 Allan Park

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.

bobaugust

not true

Kato and OJ missed each other by a minute or two.Kato walked past the door and oj came down from the house and returned back inside and Kato walked back past the door and opened the gate for Park,

[martin II]

Your words, "Park testified he saw Kaelin come from around the NORTH side of the house shortly before 10:55." Kato's words were the first time he saw the limo was at "ten fifty." Park's words, at the time he saw Kato he simultaneously saw a Black figure enter the doorway to the house. Park's words he never saw Simpson put the knapsack down. Kato's words he saw the knapsack when he returned from his first cursory search. Park's words after the Black figure went into the house, the lights came on downstairs. Kato's words no lights were on downstairs until after his first cursory search. Nothing can be clearer as to when Park first saw Kato, which was after his first cursory search. Ergo, Park did not see Kato when he exited his quarters or before he had finished his first cursory search. The evidence lends itself to the inference that Simpson was in the house brought down the knapsack placed it on the driveway while Kato was doing his first cursory search. As Simpson returned to the house, Park saw Kato and Simpson at nearly the same time, which allows the inference that Simpson could not have deposited the glove where MF claimed to have found it and Simpson was not the source of the thumps. Reasonable doubt.:)

It is plain as day.
The lights were not on when Kato walked past the door to do his first search.
OJ turned the lights on when he returned inside his house and Kato saw that they were now on when he walked back from his first search.

[martin II]

Rosa Lopez said she heard young boys giggling until the wee hours of the morning. If she was so truthful and made such a great witness why didn't Johnnie Cochran use her in the trial? Also, why did she pretend not to understand or speak English well which turned out to be a lie?

i think immigration threats by the prosecution, maby Darden,caused her friend to change her story and they both were run out of town on a stick.

[weezer]

I doubt you are but i would not refer to you or any woman in that manner.

Being an old broad, I get to use words you can't. Kinda like jesse jackson -- ;)

[weezer]

i think immigration threats by the prosecution, maby Darden,caused her friend to change her story and they both were run out of town on a stick.

she made her statements and even had them taped for prosperity where she made her outrageous claims of all she heard and saw. Doesn't sound like she afraid to me. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Being an old broad, I get to use words you can't. Kinda like jesse jackson -- ;)

Nah, more like Don Imus' and MF's comments about women.

[weezer]

Nah, more like Don Imus' and MF's comments about women.

ahh yes -- once again we dole out the double standard. I'm not going any further with this discussion so you can look elsewhere for your daily fix. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

ahh yes -- once again we dole out the double standard. I'm not going any further with this discussion so you can look elsewhere for your daily fix. :seeya:

Double standards? I thought the discussion was about your referring to mature women as old broads or negative comments about women. :seeya:, :seeya:

[weezer]

Double standards? I thought the discussion was about your referring to mature women as old broads or negative comments about women. :seeya:, :seeya:

nope. you were making negative comments about women: william's post: "I have known some women that have gotten broad, as they, shall we say, matured."

my referring to an 'old broad' is done all the time. when we pass each other on the street. it's like saying 'hello.' sound familiar?

[GreenIce]

William, you’re wrong. Park saw Kaelin with a flashlight coming around the NORTH side of Simpson’s house, which was to the left of the Ashford gate. Kaelin was coming from his room not the south path. Kaelin had to walk past the Ashford gate to get to the driveway that would take him to Simpson’s garage to get to the south path. When Kaelin reached the driveway to Park’s left Park saw Simpson at the front of the house walk into the light of the front entry way and open the front door and enter the house. Kaelin didn’t back out of anything. Kaelin walked past the front entrance of Simpson’s home, around the garage and down the south path. On this first trip Kaelin never got any further than the end of the garage before he turned around and walk back around the garage to the driveway and then to the Ashford gate. That’s when he opened the gate for Park.

http://bobaugust.com/aerialxx.jpg


bobaugust

Mr. August,

I am asking you this question because it seem to be right your bowling lane. The gates at Rockingham, how else could the be opened. I can only remember the witnesses saying that it was hydralic system. Was there a lock on the gate that a "regular" key could have been used to open it?

Did the DA's ever establish that Simpson could have only open the gate wide enough for him to slip through it?

You really have to stop referring to the estimated times Kaelin testified to since they were unsupported guesses and were not correct as to the actual time of day these events happened.

[martin II]

ahh yes -- once again we dole out the double standard. I'm not going any further with this discussion so you can look elsewhere for your daily fix. :seeya:

You started this conversation by calling PB a old broad,That may represent who you are and how you speak of other women but i consider it to be offensive. It seems that you make offensive comments and don't care who reads what you say even other women.

Exactly what has PB, a beautiful woman done to cause you to speak of her in such a way. How did J.Jacksons name get draged into your old broad broadside.imo

[martin II]

nope. you were making negative comments about women: william's post: "I have known some women that have gotten broad, as they, shall we say, matured."

my referring to an 'old broad' is done all the time. when we pass each other on the street. it's like saying 'hello.' sound familiar?

One can show some sophistication even when one is walking down the street
i think.
imo

[GreenIce]

Rosa Lopez said she heard young boys giggling until the wee hours of the morning. If she was so truthful and made such a great witness why didn't Johnnie Cochran use her in the trial? Also, why did she pretend not to understand or speak English well which turned out to be a lie?

TV,

Hank Goldberg wrote in his book that he knew Dennis Fung was going to be a horrible witness. There are people, no matter how much prep work they get, they still do not make good witnesses.

In regards to Lopez, I believe it would have been cruel for JC to put her on the stand after Darden got done with her. I don't blame Darden for what he did, it was his job but I must say, her being an uneducated domestic, testifying in her second language did not hinder Darden at all.

It is common belief that Spainish is Spainish---it isn't. The first interpeter was taken out because of what others interpeters said--she was not translating the questions correctly. I don't speak Spainish so I have no clue.

I don't know how old you are but do you remember Jimmy Carter when he went to Poland and have a speech? Well the guy that was translating his speech to his hosts made some very horrific blunders. It was funny to see the expressions on his hosts faces, but at that time you didn't know why they were making them. But when you heard how the translator messed up, it really wasn't so funny. Thankfully, the Poles didn't kill him!

Also, every lawyer has been trained on how to make a witness appear to be less then truthful, wanting their 15 minutes of fame--they want to send a message to the jury about this witness. Clark tried it with Kato by declaring him a hostile witness.

Have you ever testified in court? I still shake and it was a long time ago and only over how drunk a person was.

[GreenIce]

With all due respect, are you really speaking factually as to what Faye's thought process toward Nicole would have been? My mother was a drug addict who went back and forth from rehabilitation and I can assure you that the thought process you speak of is not what you find in every individual that encounters this scenario. Because my mother recognized her addiction, and wanted help, she was never angry with anyone in all of the interventions that I was a part of. In fact, she was grateful. She was grateful to be so loved by those of us who cared enough to hold such interventions.

There has been a lot of references to what rehabilitation centers allow regarding phone calls, visitors, etc. My own mother did not have restrictions on phone calls, nor on visitors. In fact, she had visiting hours daily that are set up much like visiting hours in a hospital.

Kate

Kate,

I think there is a huge difference between an addict who knows they need help and those who don't think they need any help. I am sure there are many addicts who never realized just how out of control they were until they were in rehab and were greatful to the people who forced them to deal with their problem.

I would assume that while addiction is addiction, the type of drug or drugs the person is addicted to plays a role in the person's recovery. If I remember correctly, it was cocaine and I think valuim with Faye. Does being a drug addict make Faye a bad person, no. I am sure you, like all of us who has had to deal with a loved one's addiction learns very quickly that no one plans or makes a career move to be an addict.

I have based my opinons on what CR has said about Faye, he saw her on Saturday and she was in horrific shape. When Clark finally got to talk to Faye, she was still in rough shape.

My understanding is that a lock down facility is much different then a facility like Betty Ford. Why are there lock down facilities? I am only basing my opinons on what I have read---not only in other's book, but also in her book.

One last thing, Sydney said her mother was fighting with her best friend. She also said her mother was crying. We don't know if Nicole was fighting and crying with her best friend. We have assumed that no matter who the "best friend" is, Nicole was both fighting and crying with this person.

I have been going over "American Tragedy". In that book it says Sydney heard her mother's best friend's voice. Does that mean Sydney is saying that Faye was at the condo that night? But how can that be if she was in a lock down facility? I don't think they are able to come and go.

I admire anyone who deals with their drug problem, especially those who have to go to rehab many times. It must be so horrible that something that looks so simple as "just say no" is an everyday battle. IMO.

[GreenIce]

They did lie about Rosa Lopez. They said she could support Simpson's alibil. This was not true.

TV,

Bill P, interviewed Lopez. He gave a written report to the defense. How he wrote his report it did appear to help Simpson in regards to the Bronco. However, when JC's team got the tape, it was then they realized that Bill felt it took 5 minutes to make a cup of tea in the microwave. There were errors or details in Bill's written report that were proven to be wrong when the actual tape was heard. However, again, IMO, it wasn't what she saw, it was what she heard.

Both sides played a lot of games with the evidence and discovery and how and when they turned it over. This is a common game played by DA's and Defense lawyers.

However, in this instance, there was a change in the defense. All the evidence and stuff was to be turned over to Johnnie Cochran's office. This could have been a simple oversight on Shapiro's team or it could have been done because Bill hated the two PI's who Cochran brought on board. It is not like this would be the only instance where teams who were supposed to be on the same side were more interested in a professional pis--ing contest then doing what was right for their client or for the victims.

No lawyer would knowingly put a witness on the stand if they knew there was a taped interview that did not support the written report.

However, what about the video tapes the DA's didn't hand over? Like the tape of Simpson saying good bye to the Brown family that night? If I remember correctly, it was the citzen who gave a copy of it to the defense, not the DA's.

How many times did Ito threaten the DA's with sanctions because they were playing the same game as the defense?

[GreenIce]

Like another stick on a proverbial camel's back that day? I haven't seen anybody addressing OJ refusing to admit being dumped by Paula that day in quite a while. Or reports of OJ's sour mood at the recital versus the happy face he put on for the photo op afterwards (I can't believe some people pan his acting abilitiy!) I think a lot of things were irritating OJ Simpson that day.

Serpentsfall,

The "Dear John" telephone message, regardless if he got it, really doesn't factor into the murders. First, there is no evidence that OJ loved Paula enough to kill for her. Second, according to Paula, why did she break up with him? Third, we have no idea of the history between Paula and OJ? Has she broken up with him before over the very exact same issues before? Paula was angry that Simpson would not take her Sydney's recital. I have never been in that situation but I do see both sides of this---and from Paula's side, I can see why this would deeply hurt her. Simpson really hurt her when he left her for Nicole---I think Paula wanted proof that this was not going to happen again and by going with Simpson to Sydney's recital would have sent a strong message to Nicole. IMO.

Simpson when talking to Kato told him that Paula might not be the one. Kato then gives him a telephone number to another girl. So in the course of the trial, Paula had to know that her message was no big deal to Simpson because he already had at least two other women who he was pursuing.

Simpson, like many famous men, are strongly allegic to fidelity. Not all, but I think that is very fair to say about Simpson. Why would Simpson lie about this, perhaps he did not want Paula involved? Just like in his interview, he never made any comments or give the impression that the police should look at some of Nicole's friends. He never told them about what Cora told him. He never mentioned the phone calls that Nicole was getting nor did he mention that Nicole has asked him to drive by the house for security reasons.

There is a video tape that contradicted Denise's and Candace Garvey's testimony on this. The tape did not show a brooding and angry Simpson.

One last thing, why do so many people think that divorce and break ups bring out the best in people?

[GreenIce]

Irregardless, he claims to have never received her message. If it wasn't a big deal why, by all accounts, does it appear that he lied about it?

I don't recall OJ passing on a dinner invitation, I recall OJ being told that he was unwelcome at the dinner.

Kate

Kate,

This whole dinner invitation makes no sense to me. Nicole's family had to know that Nicole and Simpson have ended their attempt to get back together. Why would any of them even tell him about their plans after the recital? Could an invitation been issued only as a gesture rather then an actual invitation? I think most people can tell when they are invited only as a gesture rather then acutal invitation.

Did anyone testify that Simpson asked to be invited?

[William Anthony]

nope. you were making negative comments about women: william's post: "I have known some women that have gotten broad, as they, shall we say, matured."

my referring to an 'old broad' is done all the time. when we pass each other on the street. it's like saying 'hello.' sound familiar?

To say that I have known women that have gained weight as they matured is not making a negative comment and I will add that there was a smiley at the end of my post. I have gained weight as I have matured. It is a rather common experience. To say someone is an old broad or a grumpy old man are negative comments, imho. I am aware of some comments Jesse Jackson made but not about women. I am aware of the negative comments made by Don Imus and MF about women, whether on the radio or in a screen play. I was simply comparing the comments but I think you were contrasting them.

[martin II]

Kate,

I think there is a huge difference between an addict who knows they need help and those who don't think they need any help. I am sure there are many addicts who never realized just how out of control they were until they were in rehab and were greatful to the people who forced them to deal with their problem.

I would assume that while addiction is addiction, the type of drug or drugs the person is addicted to plays a role in the person's recovery. If I remember correctly, it was cocaine and I think valuim with Faye. Does being a drug addict make Faye a bad person, no. I am sure you, like all of us who has had to deal with a loved one's addiction learns very quickly that no one plans or makes a career move to be an addict.

I have based my opinons on what CR has said about Faye, he saw her on Saturday and she was in horrific shape. When Clark finally got to talk to Faye, she was still in rough shape.

My understanding is that a lock down facility is much different then a facility like Betty Ford. Why are there lock down facilities? I am only basing my opinons on what I have read---not only in other's book, but also in her book.

One last thing, Sydney said her mother was fighting with her best friend. She also said her mother was crying. We don't know if Nicole was fighting and crying with her best friend. We have assumed that no matter who the "best friend" is, Nicole was both fighting and crying with this person.

I have been going over "American Tragedy". In that book it says Sydney heard her mother's best friend's voice. Does that mean Sydney is saying that Faye was at the condo that night? But how can that be if she was in a lock down facility? I don't think they are able to come and go.

I admire anyone who deals with their drug problem, especially those who have to go to rehab many times. It must be so horrible that something that looks so simple as "just say no" is an everyday battle. IMO.

A betty Ford facility is just as good as a lock down facility.It depends on whether the addict is ready to make a change. Betty Ford catered to people of finaicial means that saw themselves as different from a city or state run lockdown. They allowed liberal phone , visitation and group sessions because these people did not want to be treated harshly and they paid big money to have their way.

Other lockdown type programs teach every addict is the same money or not.
That the program is in control of your activities not the addict. This forces change in attitude.

During the first week that Faye was in the lockdown i believe she still had addict attitudes and acted in a manipulative way as most addicts would do at this early stage. i think she was not truthful about the time and length of her conversation with Nicole. She may not even have good memory of what was said.But for sure she was strongly anti oj and made these feelings known to Nicole.

It was not Faye that was a bad person it was her addicted ways that were bad.

I think JB was being polite to oj when she 'INVITED 'him to dinner knowing that there was some static between he and Nicole. No reason for her to take sides at that point.

I think oj had been to too many dinners to allow nicoles non invite to cause him to kill her. Hell it was only a short dinner with kids. On the other hand it was kind of immature on Nicoles part to deny the children the opportunity to enjoy their dad at the dinner on this special ocassion. The dinner was about and for the kids she made it about Nicole.

Again those Betty Ford type revolving door type programs are nothing but detox dry out for 30 days.Like propping the addict up so he /she can go home.It takes much longer to teach and learn how to get clean and stay clean. imo

[GreenIce]

A betty Ford facility is just as good as a lock down facility.It depends on whether the addict is ready to make a change. Betty Ford catered to people of finaicial means that saw themselves as different from a city or state run lockdown. They allowed liberal phone , visitation and group sessions because these people did not want to be treated harshly and they paid big money to have their way.

Other lockdown type programs teach every addict is the same money or not.
That the program is in control of your activities not the addict. This forces change in attitude.

During the first week that Faye was in the lockdown i believe she still had addict attitudes and acted in a manipulative way as most addicts would do at this early stage. i think she was not truthful about the time and length of her conversation with Nicole. She may not even have good memory of what was said.But for sure she was strongly anti oj and made these feelings known to Nicole.

It was not Faye that was a bad person it was her addicted ways that were bad.

I think JB was being polite to oj when she 'INVITED 'him to dinner knowing that there was some static between he and Nicole. No reason for her to take sides at that point.

I think oj had been to too many dinners to allow nicoles non invite to cause him to kill her. Hell it was only a short dinner with kids. On the other hand it was kind of immature on Nicoles part to deny the children the opportunity to enjoy their dad at the dinner on this special ocassion. The dinner was about and for the kids she made it about Nicole.

Again those Betty Ford type revolving door type programs are nothing but detox dry out for 30 days.Like propping the addict up so he /she can go home.It takes much longer to teach and learn how to get clean and stay clean. imo

Martin,

IMO, I think it is very possible that OJ and Nicole knew their limits when it came to being together in front of their children. It is very possible they were still so angry with each other they knew they could not pull off that night at dinner---not only would the kids be in a totally awkward situation but so would Rachel, Sydney's friend.

I would like to believe that OJ and Nicole, after all their years together, finally learned when it was not a good time for them to try to pull this off. Who testified that Simpson was never invited to dinner and that Nicole made a scene about this at the dance?

[GreenIce]

A betty Ford facility is just as good as a lock down facility.It depends on whether the addict is ready to make a change. Betty Ford catered to people of finaicial means that saw themselves as different from a city or state run lockdown. They allowed liberal phone , visitation and group sessions because these people did not want to be treated harshly and they paid big money to have their way.

Other lockdown type programs teach every addict is the same money or not.
That the program is in control of your activities not the addict. This forces change in attitude.

During the first week that Faye was in the lockdown i believe she still had addict attitudes and acted in a manipulative way as most addicts would do at this early stage. i think she was not truthful about the time and length of her conversation with Nicole. She may not even have good memory of what was said.But for sure she was strongly anti oj and made these feelings known to Nicole.

It was not Faye that was a bad person it was her addicted ways that were bad.

I think JB was being polite to oj when she 'INVITED 'him to dinner knowing that there was some static between he and Nicole. No reason for her to take sides at that point.

I think oj had been to too many dinners to allow nicoles non invite to cause him to kill her. Hell it was only a short dinner with kids. On the other hand it was kind of immature on Nicoles part to deny the children the opportunity to enjoy their dad at the dinner on this special ocassion. The dinner was about and for the kids she made it about Nicole.

Again those Betty Ford type revolving door type programs are nothing but detox dry out for 30 days.Like propping the addict up so he /she can go home.It takes much longer to teach and learn how to get clean and stay clean. imo

Martin,

I agree with you about Faye, I do not believe she is being truthful about the phone calls she made that night. Again, we have assumed that in only one phone conversation Nicole was both fighting and crying. But there is no proof of this.

IMO, if Faye had nothing to hide then she would have given permission or do what ever she could to get the phone records released from the rehab center. I don't buy the reasons they are not releasing them. When using a public phone, no one has any reasonable right to expect privacy. I still haven't figured out how Faye knew Ron was coming over before Nicole knew but such is the Simpson case!

[martin II]

Kate,

This whole dinner invitation makes no sense to me. Nicole's family had to know that Nicole and Simpson have ended their attempt to get back together. Why would any of them even tell him about their plans after the recital? Could an invitation been issued only as a gesture rather then an actual invitation? I think most people can tell when they are invited only as a gesture rather then acutal invitation.

Did anyone testify that Simpson asked to be invited?

OJ went to the recital sat a few seats from nicole. At intermission he left to purchase some flowers for his daughter,When he returned intermission was over so he stood in the back until it was over. After the recital he interacted with friends and nicoles mother and father in a civil manner.When nicole took the kids away he went home. Some oj haters have tried to turn this into some brooding or boiling anger that caused him to decide to commit murder because nicole didn't invite him to a dinner. This is nonsense.

He didn't have to be invited by nicole in order to have dinner at that resturant. He didn't care and he went home.

[martin II]

Park testified he saw Kaelin come from around the NORTH side of the house shortly before 10:55. Park was on the telephone with his boss at the time. Park testified the flashlight attracted his attention. Park pointed out where he first saw Kaelin in the side yard to his left.

If as you want to believe Kaelin had already made his first trip to the south path and Park saw Kaelin for the first time that night when Kaelin returned from the south path not only would Kaelin have come from the garage area and down the driveway right in front of Park but Kaelin would have run right into Simpson. That never happened because what you suggest happened is wrong.

http://bobaugust.com/aerialxx.jpg
http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg

March 28. 1995 Allan Park

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.

bobaugust

william
I think Clarke had gotten Park to commit to saying he saw the AA and the lights came on and he immediately said someone home before she knew Kato would testify that he was in the south walkway when the lights came on.

I think when Kato left his room he had one focus. To get a peek in the south walkway to see what may be there. I think he walked directly from his room at 10:48-9 around to the south walkway area without stopping.i have never though he stood standing at ashford just looking in space.

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree with you about Faye, I do not believe she is being truthful about the phone calls she made that night. Again, we have assumed that in only one phone conversation Nicole was both fighting and crying. But there is no proof of this.

IMO, if Faye had nothing to hide then she would have given permission or do what ever she could to get the phone records released from the rehab center. I don't buy the reasons they are not releasing them. When using a public phone, no one has any reasonable right to expect privacy. I still haven't figured out how Faye knew Ron was coming over before Nicole knew but such is the Simpson case!


That is strange. faye testified that nicole told her that Ron was comming over that night. If this is true then nicole knew.

With oj, JB, nicole calling the resturant and then JB, Dr Anelli sp the Father of Sydney friend all of these people was on nicoles phone at about the same time so how did faye talk to her for 30 minutes at about this same time period.

[bobaugust]

Your words, "Park testified he saw Kaelin come from around the NORTH side of the house shortly before 10:55." Kato's words were the first time he saw the limo was at "ten fifty." Park's words, at the time he saw Kato he simultaneously saw a Black figure enter the doorway to the house. Park's words he never saw Simpson put the knapsack down. Kato's words he saw the knapsack when he returned from his first cursory search. Park's words after the Black figure went into the house, the lights came on downstairs. Kato's words no lights were on downstairs until after his first cursory search. Nothing can be clearer as to when Park first saw Kato, which was after his first cursory search. Ergo, Park did not see Kato when he exited his quarters or before he had finished his first cursory search. The evidence lends itself to the inference that Simpson was in the house brought down the knapsack placed it on the driveway while Kato was doing his first cursory search. As Simpson returned to the house, Park saw Kato and Simpson at nearly the same time, which allows the inference that Simpson could not have deposited the glove where MF claimed to have found it and Simpson was not the source of the thumps. Reasonable doubt.:)

Kato’s time estimate that it was 10:50 when he saw the limo was nothing but a guess, not a real time. The only real times we know in this case are the times that are supported by the times on telephone records.

You still can’t seem to grasp the simple fact that the path that Kaelin took from his room to get to the front of the house was on the NORTH side of the house. It was to Park’s left as he sat in the parked limo. The entrance to the south path was on the SOUTH side of the house. The fact is that Park testified he saw Kaelin on the path on the north side of the house shortly before 10:55. At that time Kaelin was on his way to the front of the house on his way to the south path to investigate the noises after leaving his room two to three minutes after hearting the noises. Kaelin was NOT returning from the south path when Park first saw him. If Kaelin had been returning from the south path he would not have been on the north path. Period!

As to Kaelin not seeing lights on downstairs he may very well have not looked at the windows that Park saw illuminate when Simpson turned the lights on. If you look at the diagram of where Kaelin stopped when he got to the driveway, if he was looking at the limo and not the house he wouldn’t have seen the lights go on or notice the illuminated curtains. Kaelin was never asked about lights being on downstairs when he returned from the south path and let Park on to the estate.

This is very clear on the colored diagram.
http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg

As to Kaelin not seeing the small knapsack until he returned from the south path the second time he went there doesn’t mean the knapsack wasn’t previously there. Kaelin may have just not been aware of it the first time. Kaelin’s concern the first time was there may have been an intruder on the property, and he was nervous and scared.

What Kaelin did or did not recall does not change the simple fact that Allan Park saw both Kaelin and Simpson for the first time that night shortly before 10:55 a few minutes after the noises occurred. There were only three people on the estate at that time. The only logical conclusion is that it took both Simpson and Kaelin the same amount of time to make there way around to the front of the house each going their own way. Kaelin went down the north path and Simpson went down the south path. Look at the diagram.

The fact is that Simpson’s blood and fiber evidence later found on that glove points only to Simpson as handling it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

I am asking you this question because it seem to be right your bowling lane. The gates at Rockingham, how else could the be opened. I can only remember the witnesses saying that it was hydralic system. Was there a lock on the gate that a "regular" key could have been used to open it?

Did the DA's ever establish that Simpson could have only open the gate wide enough for him to slip through it?

You really have to stop referring to the estimated times Kaelin testified to since they were unsupported guesses and were not correct as to the actual time of day these events happened.

GreenIce, Here is some testimony that explains how the gates work.

Simpson Deposition September 23, 1996

Q: When you went out towards the Rockingham gate, how did you cause the gate to open?
A: Push the button.
Q: Right on the inside of the gate?
A: Yes.
Q: Which side?
A: Left side.
Q: And the gate swings inward?
A: Yes.
Q: And then you go out the left side. Right?
A: I don't know. Left side or the right side.
Q: The box is on the left side, the gate starts to open, and then you exit. Correct?
A: Correct.
Q: And you walked out to your car?
A: Yes.
Q: The Bronco.
A: Uh-huh.
Q: You have to answer audibly.
A: Yes.


Q: Okay. And you closed the door?
A: Yes.
Q: And how did you get back into the property?
A: I think--I'm not sure. I'm not sure of this, but I think the gate had closed, and I used my key to open it, the gate.
Q: There is a key on the outside of the gate?
A: Yes.
Q: When you key it, the gate automatically opens again?
A: Yes.
Q: When that gate automatically opens at Rockingham, then when you press the button on the inside, let's say, does it then close after a certain amount of time?
A: Yes.
Q: What is that interval of time?
A: I don't know.
Q: Roughly.
A: 30, 40 seconds.
Q: It opens, it stays open for 30, 40 seconds and then closes?
A: Yes.


Q: The--Do you ever keep that gate on manual when you leave the
property?
A: It's not been my habit to, no.
Q: Have you ever done that?
A: I might have in my life, yes, but I don't recall when, other
than when we shot the video.
Q: Was the gate used to your knowledge in a manual mode on June 12?
A: I don't believe so. no.
Q: Are you sure about that?
A: I'm pretty sure about that, yes.
Q: You recall all of your trips out the Rockingham gate and in the
Rockingham gate, and do you think any of them occurred when the gate
was on manual mode?
A: No.

Q: And is the same true of Ashford?
A: No.
Q: How does Ashford work? Or how did it work?
A: How does it work. You can push it open if it's off the hinges, or you can push a button to open it to go out. There is no key you use to come in.
Q: When you are on the outside-excuse me. When you want to go out of the Ashford entrance, there is a place where you can press the button to open up the gate?
A: Yes.
Q: And is that on the left side also?
MR. BAKER: As you are going out?
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Yes, as you're going out.
A: Yes.
Q: When you press that button, does the gate then--is the hinge on the left side, or is the hinge on the right side?
A: No. It opens both ways
Q: Oh, there's two--okay. Does it swing inside?
A: Yes.
Q: And does it also then automatically close?
A: No.
Q: It stays open?
A: Yes.
Q: How does one close it? Manually?
A: Yeah, or with--if you got a thing from the car.
Q: Oh, like a remote control?
A: Yes.


Q: Does the outside of the Ashford gate, like the Rockingham gate, have a place for a key so that you can make the doors open?
A: No.
Q: So if you don't have one of those remote control gizmos, you're out of luck?
A Yes.
Q: You can't manually open them can you, by pushing them.
A: No.


February 15, 1996 Kato Kaelin describing how to open the Ashford Gate.

Q: How would you get in through that gate?
A: Michelle was the maid that used to work there.
Q: Yeah
A: She showed me a thing on the gate where you can--it's like--I don't know if it's a nut. There is a certain thing on the bottom of the gate you can manually push a little bit, and you can push the gate open and get in and then close the gate back and then go back and reset it.
Q: Is it something that you do at the bottom of the gate?
A: Bottom of the gate.
Q: At the center or at one of the hinges?
A: It's at a hinge. That's the word I'm looking for.
Q: On the left hinge?
A: I'd use the left hinge of the gate
Q: Is it something that was obvious to you?
A: No.
Q: Would it be obvious to anybody, you think?
A: No, No. She had to point it out. I never knew it existed.
MR. PHILLIP BAKER: Speculation. Belatedly.
BY MR. PETROCELLI:
Q: Mr. -- Excuse me. Michelle pointed it out to you?
A: Yes. She said. "You know, there's a thing you can do here if you ever want to get in. It's right here. You just move it and get the gate and then get out that way."
Q: And that's how you were told to get in?
A: Yeah. As long as I just locked it back up.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

william
I think Clarke had gotten Park to commit to saying he saw the AA and the lights came on and he immediately said someone home before she knew Kato would testify that he was in the south walkway when the lights came on.

I think when Kato left his room he had one focus. To get a peek in the south walkway to see what may be there. I think he walked directly from his room at 10:48-9 around to the south walkway area without stopping.i have never though he stood standing at ashford just looking in space.

Some make a lot of assumptions and ignore the testimony which is their privilege. However, I look to the testimony to see if there is reasonable doubt, since this particular jury is so highly condemned by some. I will address another assumption that is not supported by the testimony in a subsequent post.

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

This whole dinner invitation makes no sense to me. Nicole's family had to know that Nicole and Simpson have ended their attempt to get back together. Why would any of them even tell him about their plans after the recital? Could an invitation been issued only as a gesture rather then an actual invitation? I think most people can tell when they are invited only as a gesture rather then acutal invitation.

Did anyone testify that Simpson asked to be invited?

I think we have learned by now the odd dynamic with the Brown family and OJ Simpson. It has been said that the Brown family had never been supportive of Nicole's choices to leave OJ; I assume the reason to be that they all depended on him financially and did not want to lose their lifestyle they had been accustomed to for so many years.

In video after the recital we see OJ embracing Nicole's family while Nicole herself does not interact with him. I believe that it was only Nicole that did not want him present at dinner, while the Brown's clearly wanted to remain cordial at the very least.

Kate

[tv]

OJ went to the recital sat a few seats from nicole. At intermission he left to purchase some flowers for his daughter,When he returned intermission was over so he stood in the back until it was over. After the recital he interacted with friends and nicoles mother and father in a civil manner.When nicole took the kids away he went home. Some oj haters have tried to turn this into some brooding or boiling anger that caused him to decide to commit murder because nicole didn't invite him to a dinner. This is nonsense.

He didn't have to be invited by nicole in order to have dinner at that resturant. He didn't care and he went home.

IMO, he wanted to kill Nicole long before the night of the recital. IMO it had been brewing for a long time. IMO, one of the reasons he did it that night was because he thought he could use his trip to Chicago as an alibi. IMO, he may have thought he'd be in the sky or in Chicago when her body was found. Just for the record, martin, I don't hate anyone.

[William Anthony]

Kato’s time estimate that it was 10:50 when he saw the limo was nothing but a guess, not a real time. The only real times we know in this case are the times that are supported by the times on telephone records.

You still can’t seem to grasp the simple fact that the path that Kaelin took from his room to get to the front of the house was on the NORTH side of the house. It was to Park’s left as he sat in the parked limo. The entrance to the south path was on the SOUTH side of the house. The fact is that Park testified he saw Kaelin on the path on the north side of the house shortly before 10:55. At that time Kaelin was on his way to the front of the house on his way to the south path to investigate the noises after leaving his room two to three minutes after hearting the noises. Kaelin was NOT returning from the south path when Park first saw him. If Kaelin had been returning from the south path he would not have been on the north path. Period!

As to Kaelin not seeing lights on downstairs he may very well have not looked at the windows that Park saw illuminate when Simpson turned the lights on. If you look at the diagram of where Kaelin stopped when he got to the driveway, if he was looking at the limo and not the house he wouldn’t have seen the lights go on or notice the illuminated curtains. Kaelin was never asked about lights being on downstairs when he returned from the south path and let Park on to the estate.

This is very clear on the colored diagram.
http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg

As to Kaelin not seeing the small knapsack until he returned from the south path the second time he went there doesn’t mean the knapsack wasn’t previously there. Kaelin may have just not been aware of it the first time. Kaelin’s concern the first time was there may have been an intruder on the property, and he was nervous and scared.

What Kaelin did or did not recall does not change the simple fact that Allan Park saw both Kaelin and Simpson for the first time that night shortly before 10:55 a few minutes after the noises occurred. There were only three people on the estate at that time. The only logical conclusion is that it took both Simpson and Kaelin the same amount of time to make there way around to the front of the house each going their own way. Kaelin went down the north path and Simpson went down the south path. Look at the diagram.

The fact is that Simpson’s blood and fiber evidence later found on that glove points only to Simpson as handling it.

bobaugust

The time on the phone records support that Park saw Kato after Kato had finished his first cursory search, after waiting two to three minuted after hearing the thumps at ten forty five. You have assumed that Park saw Kato coming from behind Simpson's house but that is not Park's testimony. Park testified as to where he saw Kato.

Martin brings up another excellent point. When would Park have seen Kato standing? The answer is that a reasonable inference can be drawn that it was when Kato was thinking about whether or not to buzz the limo in. When was that? Kato supplies the answer, which is after his first cursory search.

"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. "

Reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

The fact is that Simpson’s blood and fiber evidence later found on that glove points only to Simpson as handling it.

Another assumption that is unsupported by the evidence, unless one ignores it. Are we to ignore the unidentified Caucasian hair?
There is no evidence that places Simpson in the location that the Rockingham glove was allegedly found but there is testimony/evidence that places MF there. Reasonable doubt.

[Kate Sachel]

OJ went to the recital sat a few seats from nicole. At intermission he left to purchase some flowers for his daughter,When he returned intermission was over so he stood in the back until it was over. After the recital he interacted with friends and nicoles mother and father in a civil manner.When nicole took the kids away he went home. Some oj haters have tried to turn this into some brooding or boiling anger that caused him to decide to commit murder because nicole didn't invite him to a dinner. This is nonsense.

He didn't have to be invited by nicole in order to have dinner at that resturant. He didn't care and he went home.

Whether or not OJ murdered Nicole I don't believe that he was didn't care about dinner and simply went home with no issues. Ron Fischman, who was a staunch OJ advocate and who tried to run over the young man serving him with a subpoena for deposition, stated in his deposition that OJ was frustrated and confused and felt that Nicole was rejecting him.

I don't recall reading anywhere that any individual has posted that OJ decided to commit murder because Nicole did not invite him to dinner. Could you kindly point out where someone has posted this?

Kate

[William Anthony]

IMO, he wanted to kill Nicole long before the night of the recital. IMO it had been brewing for a long time. IMO, one of the reasons he did it that night was because he thought he could use his trip to Chicago as an alibi. IMO, he may have thought he'd be in the sky or in Chicago when her body was found. Just for the record, martin, I don't hate anyone.

I don't think it matters so much as the time the bodies were found as it does the time of death. I don't think it is feasible that one would eat before going to commit a brutal and savage premeditated murder and run the possibility of leaving another type of DNA at the scene or to leave such a narrow time line to commit murder, not allowing for a traffic accident or any other possible uncontrollable event while trying to catch a flight. If I had wanted to commit murder. I would not have done so while my house guest was on my property and might see me return, nor would I, knowing what time the regular limo driver arrives, allow myself such a limited time to return and run the possibility of being seen. If it does not fit...:)

[Kate Sachel]

I don't think it matters so much as the time the bodies were found as it does the time of death. I don't think it is feasible that one would eat before going to commit a brutal and savage premeditated murder and run the possibility of leaving another type of DNA at the scene or to leave such a narrow time line to commit murder, not allowing for a traffic accident or any other possible uncontrollable event while trying to catch a flight. If I had wanted to commit murder. I would not have done so while my house guest was on my property and might see me return, nor would I, knowing what time the regular limo driver arrives, allow myself such a limited time to return and run the possibility of being seen. If it does not fit...:)

I don't think that OJ anticipated the arrival of Ron, and may have assumed that he would home much faster than he ended up being.

Cornflakes again this morning?

Kate

[martin II]

IMO, he wanted to kill Nicole long before the night of the recital. IMO it had been brewing for a long time. IMO, one of the reasons he did it that night was because he thought he could use his trip to Chicago as an alibi. IMO, he may have thought he'd be in the sky or in Chicago when her body was found. Just for the record, martin, I don't hate anyone.

I don't believe you are a hater of oj or anyone else. your post do not indicate this to me.

Some believe oj was so smart that he planned and executed a murder.But over look something very simple. Why would he plan to commit a murder at the same time he knew the limo was to pick him up.Oj would have no way of knowing that some friend would not come to Nicoles at 10:30--10:40 and find the bodies. He had no guarantees that some neighbor would not be walking a dog or comming home and see him.Lots of people walked dogs near Bundy. He had no guarantees that the kids were in fact in bed.For all he knew the kids could have come to the door with nicole.Nicole was seeing other men. What guarantee did he have that a boyfriend was not in her house
or that Nicole had called a friend to sit with her.

There were other ways he could have killed her without all the blood. Plus he had made up is mind that it was Paula he was concentrating on and he had other women options so he could have just left Nicole to herself.I don't think he would have risked everything he had just to get rid of Nicole.imo

[William Anthony]

I don't think that OJ anticipated the arrival of Ron, and may have assumed that he would home much faster than he ended up being.

Cornflakes again this morning?

Kate

You are very perceptive as I am eating a bowl now before taking my sugar medicine. :)

I was thinking more of other types of disasters, such as a traffic accident, fire or any other such event that may have delayed his return. I don't think whoever the murderer(s) is or are expected Mr. RG's arrival.

[serpentsfall]

The time on the phone records support that Park saw Kato after Kato had finished his first cursory search, after waiting two to three minuted after hearing the thumps at ten forty five. You have assumed that Park saw Kato coming from behind Simpson's house but that is not Park's testimony. Park testified as to where he saw Kato.

Martin brings up another excellent point. When would Park have seen Kato standing? The answer is that a reasonable inference can be drawn that it was when Kato was thinking about whether or not to buzz the limo in. When was that? Kato supplies the answer, which is after his first cursory search.

"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. "

Reasonable doubt.

William, how do you define "first cursory search"? In my mind, Kato was in the act of performing his "first cursory search" when walking from his room, behind the house (past the family room, living room and front office) and towards (but not to) the Ashford end of the driveway where Park says he saw him.

[Kate Sachel]

You are very perceptive as I am eating a bowl now before taking my sugar medicine. :)

I was thinking more of other types of disasters, such as a traffic accident, fire or any other such event that may have delayed his return. I don't think whoever the murderer(s) is or are expected Mr. RG's arrival.

I have never murdered someone so I can't speak with certainty on the thought process that goes into the planning of such an act, but perhaps he just didn't think of those things.

I had oatmeal with plenty of brown sugar and milk.

Kate

[martin II]

I don't think it matters so much as the time the bodies were found as it does the time of death. I don't think it is feasible that one would eat before going to commit a brutal and savage premeditated murder and run the possibility of leaving another type of DNA at the scene or to leave such a narrow time line to commit murder, not allowing for a traffic accident or any other possible uncontrollable event while trying to catch a flight. If I had wanted to commit murder. I would not have done so while my house guest was on my property and might see me return, nor would I, knowing what time the regular limo driver arrives, allow myself such a limited time to return and run the possibility of being seen. If it does not fit...:)

I still don't think we know the time of death because Vanhatter did not call the coroner in a timely manner. The prosecution tried to guage the time by when various people heard a dog barking and those times ranged from 10:10 to long after and that is no proof.

[tv]

I don't think it matters so much as the time the bodies were found as it does the time of death. I don't think it is feasible that one would eat before going to commit a brutal and savage premeditated murder and run the possibility of leaving another type of DNA at the scene or to leave such a narrow time line to commit murder, not allowing for a traffic accident or any other possible uncontrollable event while trying to catch a flight. If I had wanted to commit murder. I would not have done so while my house guest was on my property and might see me return, nor would I, knowing what time the regular limo driver arrives, allow myself such a limited time to return and run the possibility of being seen. If it does not fit...:)


I never said he was the sharpest knife in the drawer. What makes you think a murderer thinks rationally? The act itself was irrational so what would make you think he was rational in other areas of his life? Don't you watch forensic programs on tv? Murderers are always doing stupid things.

[William Anthony]

William, how do you define "first cursory search"? In my mind, Kato was in the act of performing his "first cursory search" when walking from his room, behind the house (past the family room, living room and front office) and towards (but not to) the Ashford end of the driveway where Park says he saw him.

I have not disputed the route Kato said he took in order to perform the first cursory search. The cursory search took place as he ventured slightly into the area where the glove was found. It was after he finished the first cursory search that he would have walked back up the driveway and was seen at that time by Park where Park said he saw Kato, as Kato was thinking whether or not to buzz Park into the estate. Kato testified that he saw lights downstairs and the knapsack. A reasonable inference can be drawn that from those circumstances Kato thought Simpson was out and about and would have hesitated expecting the gate to open to allow entry of the limo.

[William Anthony]

I have never murdered someone so I can't speak with certainty on the thought process that goes into the planning of such an act, but perhaps he just didn't think of those things.

I had oatmeal with plenty of brown sugar and milk.

Kate

Nor have I, yet. :) I just think that a person who plans to kill someone and does not plan on getting caught has some degree or should have of foresight.

I like oatmeal with butter, equal and milk and love Cream of Rice. :)

[tv]

I don't believe you are a hater of oj or anyone else. your post do not indicate this to me.

Some believe oj was so smart that he planned and executed a murder.But over look something very simple. Why would he plan to commit a murder at the same time he knew the limo was to pick him up.Oj would have no way of knowing that some friend would not come to Nicoles at 10:30--10:40 and find the bodies. He had no guarantees that some neighbor would not be walking a dog or comming home and see him.Lots of people walked dogs near Bundy. He had no guarantees that the kids were in fact in bed.For all he knew the kids could have come to the door with nicole.Nicole was seeing other men. What guarantee did he have that a boyfriend was not in her house
or that Nicole had called a friend to sit with her.

There were other ways he could have killed her without all the blood. Plus he had made up is mind that it was Paula he was concentrating on and he had other women options so he could have just left Nicole to herself.I don't think he would have risked everything he had just to get rid of Nicole.imo

The killer did run across a friend at Nicole's. The killer did take the chance of waking the kids. The killer did take a chance with the dog. What makes you think OJ Simpson wouldn't have taken those chances but someone else did?

[serpentsfall]

I still don't think we know the time of death because Vanhatter did not call the coroner in a timely manner.

We don't know the time of death because the murderer failed to call authorities immediately to report the murder. Some people are so rude.

[William Anthony]

I still don't think we know the time of death because Vanhatter did not call the coroner in a timely manner. The prosecution tried to guage the time by when various people heard a dog barking and those times ranged from 10:10 to long after and that is no proof.

I agree. I was just saying that I do not place emphasis on when the bodies were found so much as I do the time frame in which they could have been killed.

[William Anthony]

I never said he was the sharpest knife in the drawer. What makes you think a murderer thinks rationally? The act itself was irrational so what would make you think he was rational in other areas of his life? Don't you watch forensic programs on tv? Murderers are always doing stupid things.

I like the sharpest knife in the drawer thing.:) I went by your post indicating that he thought about murdering on that particular day at that time. I simply think the most irrational of persons who wanted to get away with murder would not have placed themselves in such a precarious position.

[martin II]

William, how do you define "first cursory search"? In my mind, Kato was in the act of performing his "first cursory search" when walking from his room, behind the house (past the family room, living room and front office) and towards (but not to) the Ashford end of the driveway where Park says he saw him.

I dissagree
The actions you mention were when Kato was going to the place to be searched.The garage and south walkway area. It was only when he reached the south walkway that he started looking to see, searching, if anything of interest was there. Kato was in the south walkway when oj came down and went back into the house and turned the porch lights on. Park saw the AA enter the front door,saw the lights come on and told Dale SOMEONE HOME.The someone he was talking about was the AA. Kato was in the south walkway at that time searching and oj had gone back into the house.imo

[William Anthony]

We don't know the time of death because the murderer failed to call authorities immediately to report the murder. Some people are so rude.

I didn't see Martin's post as rude, just factual.

[tv]

I didn't see Martin's post as rude, just factual.

The murderer, not martin. It's a joke, William. :rolleyes:

[tv]

I like the sharpest knife in the drawer thing.:) I went by your post indicating that he thought about murdering on that particular day at that time. I simply think the most irrational of persons who wanted to get away with murder would not have placed themselves in such a precarious position.
Now I know you don't watch forensic shows.

[William Anthony]

The murderer, not martin. It's a joke, William. :rolleyes:

Thank you as I did miss that. Like I said I like my wine dry. :) I must be slipping. Good one Serpentsfall, and I do apologize for not getting it. Someone asked me, if I heard the joke about the dirty window. When I said, no, they said it's okay you probably couldn't see through it anyway. :)

[William Anthony]

Now I know you don't watch forensic shows.

Not a student of the crafts.:)

[tv]

Not a student of the crafts.:)
Oh, you mean the science of forensics?

[weezer]

I never said he was the sharpest knife in the drawer. What makes you think a murderer thinks rationally? The act itself was irrational so what would make you think he was rational in other areas of his life? Don't you watch forensic programs on tv? Murderers are always doing stupid things.

I have to say that I've never heard anyone say orenthal was smart. In fact, I would go so far as to say that his latest caper in Vegas kind of proves the point. :tongue:

[martin II]

We don't know the time of death because the murderer failed to call authorities immediately to report the murder. Some people are so rude.

That would not be the murderers responsibility but you do remember some reporter calling le asking if two people had been murdered in the area and this was before the bodies were found.So someone did know something.

[William Anthony]

Oh, you mean the science of forensics?

I think it has been established that forensics is not a science, with the exception of DNA, or should I say that forensics is a junk science :), but I do not want to offend anyone's delicate sensibilities.:)

[martin II]

Now I know you don't watch forensic shows.

oj had been smart enough to manage a football career, NBC and Hertz contracts for years and built a net worth of about $10,000,000 yet to some he was a dummy.

[tv]

oj had been smart enough to manage a football career, NBC and Hertz contracts for years and built a net worth of about $10,000,000 yet to some he was a dummy.I never said he was a dummy but he did ruin all that success by slashing two human beings to death. Not a good career move for him.

[serpentsfall]

I have not disputed the route Kato said he took in order to perform the first cursory search. The cursory search took place as he ventured slightly into the area where the glove was found. It was after he finished the first cursory search that he would have walked back up the driveway and was seen at that time by Park where Park said he saw Kato, as Kato was thinking whether or not to buzz Park into the estate. Kato testified that he saw lights downstairs and the knapsack. A reasonable inference can be drawn that from those circumstances Kato thought Simpson was out and about and would have hesitated expecting the gate to open to allow entry of the limo.

So you don't consider Kato's walk behind and beside the house to be part of or a continuation of his search? What do you think he was searching for? I think he didn't know what he was searching for, because he didn't know what caused the "thump". Therefore it would make sense to me for him to want to check more than the dark area of the walkway behind his room to see if any other areas seemed to have been affected or to see if anyone else was on the grounds. After he noticed Park and assumed someone in the house would buzz him in, he returned back the way he came. I can see how you might consider that the end of one search and beginning of another, but the way I read the testimony, that's not the point at which Kato says he noticed lights on in the house or saw any knapsack. A more reasonable inference, I think, would be if he'd seen Simpson out front at that point he'd have walked directly up to him to tell him why he was walking around the grounds with a penlight.

[tv]

I think it has been established that forensics is not a science, with the exception of DNA, or should I say that forensics is a junk science :), but I do not want to offend anyone's delicate sensibilities.:)I think Dr. Henry Lee, Dr. Michael Baden, Dr. Werner Spitz, Dr. G etc. would beg to differ.

[serpentsfall]

Not a student of the crafts.:)

So much for the receptive mind and open heart, eh? :wink:

[tv]

I have to say that I've never heard anyone say orenthal was smart. In fact, I would go so far as to say that his latest caper in Vegas kind of proves the point. :tongue:
Oh yeah, that was real rational.

[serpentsfall]

oj had been smart enough to manage a football career, NBC and Hertz contracts for years and built a net worth of about $10,000,000 yet to some he was a dummy.

That's the point. He not only could but did have it all and look where he is now. You're quick to point out Simpson's positives, but do you really think he has no responsibility for the negatives? Do you really think 100% of the explanation for why he is where he is today is because he was the victim of racism?

[William Anthony]

So you don't consider Kato's walk behind and beside the house to be part of or a continuation of his search? What do you think he was searching for? I think he didn't know what he was searching for, because he didn't know what caused the "thump". Therefore it would make sense to me for him to want to check more than the dark area of the walkway behind his room to see if any other areas seemed to have been affected or to see if anyone else was on the grounds. After he noticed Park and assumed someone in the house would buzz him in, he returned back the way he came. I can see how you might consider that the end of one search and beginning of another, but the way I read the testimony, that's not the point at which Kato says he noticed lights on in the house or saw any knapsack. A more reasonable inference, I think, would be if he'd seen Simpson out front at that point he'd have walked directly up to him to tell him why he was walking around the grounds with a penlight.

That's right I do not consider Kato's walk behind the house a part of the search. I have no idea what he was searching for. The testimony is what it is and Kato clearly states he saw the lights on downstairs and the knapsack after he returned from his cursory search of the area behind his quarters. Kato was wondering if he should let the limo in and after he did that he performed his second cursory search of the area behind his quarters. Although there is not testimony as to what Kato was searching for, there is testimony as to his concern.

"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. "

One can assume he was looking for a prowler but the testimony is what it is.:) His cursory search/check was the noise.

[William Anthony]

I think Dr. Henry Lee, Dr. Michael Baden, Dr. Werner Spitz, Dr. G etc. would beg to differ.

I would expect no less from them and, if I were in their shoes, I would defend my craft, also.

[William Anthony]

So much for the receptive mind and open heart, eh? :wink:

As I have said before, when I was associated with the Innocence Institute, I did not place faith their calling forensics junk science. However, based on recent revelations, I have formed a different opinion. I keep my mind and heart open and receptive to the idea that I can be duped. :)

[William Anthony]

That's the point. He not only could but did have it all and look where he is now. You're quick to point out Simpson's positives, but do you really think he has no responsibility for the negatives? Do you really think 100% of the explanation for why he is where he is today is because he was the victim of racism?

What percentage would you allow for racism?

[tv]

As I have said before, when I was associated with the Innocence Institute, I did not place faith their calling forensics junk science. However, based on recent revelations, I have formed a different opinion. I keep my mind and heart open and receptive to the idea that I can be duped. :)I think you worry too much about being duped. It almost borders on paranoia. :)

[William Anthony]

I think you worry too much about being duped. It almost borders on paranoia. :)

Was it not you who warned me to be vigilant?:)

[weezer]

As I have said before, when I was associated with the Innocence Institute, I did not place faith their calling forensics junk science. However, based on recent revelations, I have formed a different opinion. I keep my mind and heart open and receptive to the idea that I can be duped. :)

uh-oh! looks like the guys are going to get their daily fix now! :(

[tv]

Was it not you who warned me to be vigilant?:)
Did I? Maybe I did. I think that I should have said be cautious instead of vigilant. Just remember not everyone has a hidden agenda.

[tv]

uh-oh! looks like the guys are going to get their daily fix now! :(
At least we'll be getting it over with early. A couple of old broads like us can't deal with these things too close to lunch. :D

[William Anthony]

Did I? Maybe I did. I think that I should said be cautious instead of vigilant. Just remember not everyone has a hidden agenda. ;)

Being duped is not always a result of a hidden agenda. It is often the result of misinformed but well intention people. It was once thought that the earth was flat and those people had been duped. However, those with open and receptive minds and hearts soon came to the discovery that the earth was round, so to speak.

[William Anthony]

At least we'll be getting it over with early. A couple of old broads like us can't deal with these things too close to lunch. :D

A couple of wise mature and broad minded females can deal with anything at any time. :)

[tv]

Being duped is not always a result of a hidden agenda. It is often the result of misinformed but well intention people. It was once thought that the earth was flat and those people had been duped. However, those with open and receptive minds and hearts soon came to the discovery that the earth was round, so to speak.

How does misinformation lead to duping? Duping is a deliberate act. Perhaps those that think they are being duped should stop and realize that the 'misinformed but well intentioned' might actually be very well informed and in a postition to shed light on a dark subject unless, of course, that subject belongs in the dark. But I digress. :)

[tv]

A couple of wise mature and broad minded females can deal with anything at any time. :)
You know, I think you're right! Know anyone like that? :beer:

[serpentsfall]

One can assume he was looking for a prowler but the testimony is what it is.:) His cursory search/check was the noise.

Unless he can hear with his eyes, he was looking for the source of the noise, not the noise. The noise was gone and I don't recall Kato using the word "cursory" to describe his search. I find it interesting where you choose to clip the testimony to support your claim. The testimony has to be taken in its entirety to understand the sequence of Kato's actions. Clark didn't necessarily ask her questions in a "describe for the jury, in sequence, everything you did that night" style.

[William Anthony]

How does misinformation lead to duping? Duping is a deliberate act. Perhaps those that think they are being duped should stop and realize that the 'misinformed but well intentioned' might actually be very well informed and in a postition to shed light on a dark subject unless, of course, that subject belongs in the dark. But I digress. :)

Let's say that I firmly believe something and tell you and you believe me but I am wrong, then I have intentionally duped you and you have been duped. I was not speaking to those who are able to shed light on subjects, because being informed and learning new things is always wise and a sign of an open and receptive heart and mind.:)

[William Anthony]

You know, I think you're right! Know anyone like that? :beer:

Oh but of course I do. :)

[William Anthony]

Unless he can hear with his eyes, he was looking for the source of the noise, not the noise. The noise was gone and I don't recall Kato using the word "cursory" to describe his search. I find it interesting where you choose to clip the testimony to support your claim. The testimony has to be taken in its entirety to understand the sequence of Kato's actions. Clark didn't necessarily ask her questions in a "describe for the jury, in sequence, everything you did that night" style.

He described what his search consisted of and, if he was looking for the source of the noise, his search was anything but thorough, as he readily admitted he could not SEE the area near the air conditioner. I find it interesting that you admit the testimony supports my claim but want to continue to take umbrage with it. :) Kato clearly explained the sequence of his actions in his testimony. He did his first cursory search, went to buzz the limo in, and did a second cursory search, and I could go on from there but the relevant sequence of his actions is what I addressed as it relates to our discussion. If you object to cursory, then I can say less than thorough. :)

[tv]

Let's say that I firmly believe something and tell you and you believe me but I am wrong, then I have intentionally duped you and you have been duped. I was not speaking to those who are able to shed light on subjects, because being informed and learning new things is always wise and a sign of an open and receptive heart and mind.:)If you firmly believe something that turns out to be wrong you haven't duped anyone. Dupe = deceive, delude, trick. Deliberately evasive might fall into that definition -- not sure.

[serpentsfall]

He described what his search consisted of and, if he was looking for the source of the noise, his search was anything but thorough, as he readily admitted he could not SEE the area near the air conditioner. I find it interesting that you admit the testimony supports my claim but want to continue to take umbrage with it. :) Kato clearly explained the sequence of his actions in his testimony. He did his first cursory search, went to buzz the limo in, and did a second cursory search, and I could go on from there but the relevant sequence of his actions is what I addressed as it relates to our discussion. If you object to cursory, then I can say less than thorough. :)

Shoot, I'd call it a scaredy-cat, hope-I-don't-find-anything seach!

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

I think there is a huge difference between an addict who knows they need help and those who don't think they need any help. I am sure there are many addicts who never realized just how out of control they were until they were in rehab and were greatful to the people who forced them to deal with their problem.

I would assume that while addiction is addiction, the type of drug or drugs the person is addicted to plays a role in the person's recovery. If I remember correctly, it was cocaine and I think valuim with Faye. Does being a drug addict make Faye a bad person, no. I am sure you, like all of us who has had to deal with a loved one's addiction learns very quickly that no one plans or makes a career move to be an addict.

I have based my opinons on what CR has said about Faye, he saw her on Saturday and she was in horrific shape. When Clark finally got to talk to Faye, she was still in rough shape.

My understanding is that a lock down facility is much different then a facility like Betty Ford. Why are there lock down facilities? I am only basing my opinons on what I have read---not only in other's book, but also in her book.

One last thing, Sydney said her mother was fighting with her best friend. She also said her mother was crying. We don't know if Nicole was fighting and crying with her best friend. We have assumed that no matter who the "best friend" is, Nicole was both fighting and crying with this person.

I have been going over "American Tragedy". In that book it says Sydney heard her mother's best friend's voice. Does that mean Sydney is saying that Faye was at the condo that night? But how can that be if she was in a lock down facility? I don't think they are able to come and go.

I admire anyone who deals with their drug problem, especially those who have to go to rehab many times. It must be so horrible that something that looks so simple as "just say no" is an everyday battle. IMO.

I apologize, I missed this post.

Is "CR" Christian Reichardt? What do you mean when you say "she was in horrific shape"? Do you mean as a result of having done drugs?

Kate

[William Anthony]

Shoot, I'd call it a scaredy-cat, hope-I-don't-find-anything seach!

I can use those terms.:)

[William Anthony]

If you firmly believe something that turns out to be wrong you haven't duped anyone. Dupe = deceive, delude, trick. Deliberately evasive might fall into that definition -- not sure.

Alrighty then.:)

[martin II]

The killer did run across a friend at Nicole's. The killer did take the chance of waking the kids. The killer did take a chance with the dog. What makes you think OJ Simpson wouldn't have taken those chances but someone else did?

It may be that two killers were used to be able to control the situation whether there would one or two people at Bundy.

WE don't know what time the dog started barking so the only thing the dog tells us is that he lived at Nicoles and at some time he barked for some reason. I think professional killers would not have been known by any neighbor and would have planned a perfect getaway as they obviously did as professionals.
Remember there was no investigation of the white van a neighbor saw in front of Nicioles house.No mention of the several swipe marks on the tiles at Bundy with a cloth that wagner says were the killers wiping away their footprints.IMO

[tv]

Alrighty then. I meant unintentionally in my first post but we won't haggle over that. If you are reading duped to require intent, then I can say I was wrong. I have not tried to be evasive and perhaps, I used the wrong word, smile. I wouldn't lead a friend astray intentionally or call someone a friend in order to dupe them, smile.

Did I say you were being evasive? Why in the world would you think I was referring to you? :) I would never assume anyone had ulterior motives or ill intentions without a good reason to back it up.

[martin II]

We don't know the time of death because the murderer failed to call authorities immediately to report the murder. Some people are so rude.

I am not sure your post was an attempt to call me rude or not.If it was then
something is wrong because Vanhatter did not call the coronor in a timely manner. You may or may not know that fact but i have seen nothing in your post that cause me to be concerned and then be rude.imo

[tv]

It may be that two killers were used to be able to control the situation whether there would one or two people at Bundy.

WE don't know what time the dog started barking so the only thing the dog tells us is that he lived at Nicoles and at some time he barked for some reason. I think professional killers would not have been known by any neighbor and would have planned a perfect getaway as they obviously did as professionals.
Remember there was no investigation of the white van a neighbor saw in front of Nicioles house.No mention of the several swipe marks on the tiles at Bundy with a cloth that wagner says were the killers wiping away their footprints.IMO

Is there evidence 'they' controlled the dog or the kids? Did Wagner do any testing on the tiles at Bundy?

[William Anthony]

Did I say you were being evasive? Why in the world would you think I was referring to you? :) I would never assume anyone had ulterior motives or ill intentions without a good reason to back it up.

Ah, I see I was not quick enough with my deletion.:) I realized that, after I had posted it, it might be taken wrongly. I think your assumption or lack thereof is well taken. I was referring to my recent non-responsive answer to Kate. :)

[serpentsfall]

I am not sure your post was an attempt to call me rude or not.If it was then
something is wrong because Vanhatter did not call the coronor in a timely manner. You may or may not know that fact but i have seen nothing in your post that cause me to be concerned and then be rude.imo

Of course I wasn't referring to you as rude (assuming you've never murdered anyone). I was saying it is rude (and inconsiderate) of a murderer to not notify authorities immediately so the time of death can be easily pinpointed. Think how much speculation we could all save ourselves if Nicole & Ron's murderer had simply taken a few minutes to immediately call LE and report their crime!

[tv]

Ah, I see I was not quick enough with my deletion.:) I realized that, after I had posted it, it might be taken wrongly. I think your assumption or lack thereof is well taken. I was referring to my recent non-responsive answer to Kate. :)Gotcha. :)

[martin II]

Unless he can hear with his eyes, he was looking for the source of the noise, not the noise. The noise was gone and I don't recall Kato using the word "cursory" to describe his search. I find it interesting where you choose to clip the testimony to support your claim. The testimony has to be taken in its entirety to understand the sequence of Kato's actions. Clark didn't necessarily ask her questions in a "describe for the jury, in sequence, everything you did that night" style.

Kato left his room at 10:48-9 walked across the back yard around the Ashford walkway, south down the Rockingham walkway pass the garage and into the south walkway looking for anything that may have caused the noise he heard. at 10:45.

When he passed the front door on this first trip the coach lights were not on.
Oj came out of his house dropped the dufle bags moved the golf bag and was seen by Park when he went back into his house and turned the coach lights on and Park saw the lights come on and immediately told Dale someone is home. Kato turned around and walked out of the south walkway and pass the front door and this time he saw that the lights were now on. when he got back out on the rockingham diveway he realized that the limo was still outside the gate, Park then saw him stranding looking and Kato walked to the
Asford gate hit the buzzer button and the gate opened for the limo. Park drove the limo even with the front door, stepped out and saw the two duffle bags sitting on the front porch that oj had brought down a few moments ago.

All of this is in trial testimony.
imo

[William Anthony]

Gotcha. :)

Doc is going to have to be faster on the draw.:)

[weezer]

I guess everything is open to interpretation -- even wrong interpretation.

[martin II]

Is there evidence 'they' controlled the dog or the kids? Did Wagner do any testing on the tiles at Bundy?

I know of no evidence that the killers had to control anyone other than Niciole and Ron.I don't think wagner did any testing on the actuial tiles he as many other did used the pictures of the tiles and walkway to make opinions.
But if one reads his work and looks at the pictures there does appear to be smears on the front tiles at Bundy.

[William Anthony]

I guess everything is open to interpretation -- even wrong interpretation.

Spoken like someone with loads of experience, lighthearted banter, lighthearted banter.:)

[martin II]

Of course I wasn't referring to you as rude (assuming you've never murdered anyone). I was saying it is rude (and inconsiderate) of a murderer to not notify authorities immediately so the time of death can be easily pinpointed. Think how much speculation we could all save ourselves if Nicole & Ron's murderer had simply taken a few minutes to immediately call LE and report their crime!

Here is a question that may interest you.

Considering a person, Nicole had her neck cut as it was and shown in the pictures and there was a large pool of blood running down the tiles next to her body. How long do you believe it would take for the blood to say congeal
enough so that a footprint could be made and remain in the blood on the tile.

Initially the viscosity of the blood would be thin and runing sort of like water
but the viscosity would change as the blood was exposed to the air.

[martin II]

Shoot, I'd call it a scaredy-cat, hope-I-don't-find-anything seach!

i was surprised that Kato did not flee straight down rockingham on foot when he heard that noise.

[martin II]

Gotcha. :)

tv

you asked for testimony on the issue of Kato and the lights. i posted it to you.when you have time you can answer my original question.

[William Anthony]

i was surprised that Kato did not flee straight down rockingham on foot when he heard that noise.

I have to give him credit. I would have had more than a flashlight when I went out.

[martin II]

Is there evidence 'they' controlled the dog or the kids? Did Wagner do any testing on the tiles at Bundy?

Wagner did testing on tiles in his own lab and he did test on the plant where the left glove and hat were placed. Actually wagner did more testing than anyone to prove his claims.

[martin II]

I have to give him credit. I would have had more than a flashlight when I went out.

he felt safe as long as oj and park was there when they left he ran to his quarters,locked his door and talk to his girl until 1pm.

[fgump2]

I don't think it matters so much as the time the bodies were found as it does the time of death. I don't think it is feasible that one would eat before going to commit a brutal and savage premeditated murder and run the possibility of leaving another type of DNA at the scene or to leave such a narrow time line to commit murder, not allowing for a traffic accident or any other possible uncontrollable event while trying to catch a flight. If I had wanted to commit murder. I would not have done so while my house guest was on my property and might see me return, nor would I, knowing what time the regular limo driver arrives, allow myself such a limited time to return and run the possibility of being seen. If it does not fit...:)

**********************************************
Can you show me a respected criminologist who said (or wrote) that people aren't likely to commit a murder within an hour or two after eating? I doubt it. I have never heard of anyone scratching their forehead or blowing their nose within an hour or two before (or after) committing a murder, but that doesn't mean it has never happened.
I think there is an outside possibility that OJS meant to slash Nicole's tires, and lost his head because he saw Ron and the candles through the window.

Murders are usually (I think) quite angry when the murder, otherwise they wouldn't kill in the first place. The fact that the killer kept slashing at Nicole well after she was dead shows a lot of anger. Two different profilers said that the killing scene indicates that the killer knew her, and had a romantic relationship with her. John Douglas said that killers in this type of murder have an irrational feeling that they won't be caught. In any case, I think that most people don't think clearly when they are angry (I know I don't), so we should expect a lot of poor planning in murders. Johnnie Cochran said the killer left two gloves there. Does that show clear thinking?

[William Anthony]

he felt safe as long as oj and park was there when they left he ran to his quarters,locked his door and talk to his girl until 1pm.

true dat. Wasn't he hesitant to go set the alarm?:)

[martin II]

**********************************************
Can you show me a respected criminologist who said (or wrote) that people aren't likely to commit a murder within an hour or two after eating? I doubt it. I have never heard of anyone scratching their forehead or blowing their nose within an hour or two before (or after) committing a murder, but that doesn't mean it has never happened.
I think there is an outside possibility that OJS meant to slash Nicole's tires, and lost his head because he saw Ron and the candles through the window. There was not one inch of evidence that ron was in nicoles house on 6./12
or that oj was near any of her windows.

Murders are usually (I think) quite angry when the murder, otherwise they wouldn't kill in the first place.contract killers are professionals they have no emotional attatchment to the victim The fact that the killer kept slashing at Nicole well after she was dead There is no evidence that the killer knew when nicole diedshows a lot of anger. Two different profilers said that the killing scene indicates that the killer knew her, and had a romantic relationship with her. John Douglas said that killers in this type of murder have an irrational feeling that they won't be caught.i think all killers believe they will not be caught In any case, I think that most people don't think clearly when they are angry (I know I don't), so we should expect a lot of poor planning in murders. Johnnie Cochran said the killer left two gloves there. i never read that statement by cochran can you give a link to that comment by himDoes that show clear thinking?

I am interested in a link .
martinii

[William Anthony]

**********************************************
Can you show me a respected criminologist who said (or wrote) that people aren't likely to commit a murder within an hour or two after eating? I doubt it. I have never heard of anyone scratching their forehead or blowing their nose within an hour or two before (or after) committing a murder, but that doesn't mean it has never happened.
I think there is an outside possibility that OJS meant to slash Nicole's tires, and lost his head because he saw Ron and the candles through the window.

Murders are usually (I think) quite angry when the murder, otherwise they wouldn't kill in the first place. The fact that the killer kept slashing at Nicole well after she was dead shows a lot of anger. Two different profilers said that the killing scene indicates that the killer knew her, and had a romantic relationship with her. John Douglas said that killers in this type of murder have an irrational feeling that they won't be caught. In any case, I think that most people don't think clearly when they are angry (I know I don't), so we should expect a lot of poor planning in murders. Johnnie Cochran said the killer left two gloves there. Does that show clear thinking?

I was responding to a post that indicated Simpson had planned to murder Ms. NBS on that night and chose that time frame to commit the murder. Scratching your head or blowing your nose and then going to commit murder would not leave DNA at the crime scene, unless you were at the crime scene when you engaged in those activities. :) However, if the belief is that the two murders were done by Simpson and those were his first two murders and that he intended to cut Ms. NBS's throat, then there would be a quite bloody crime scene and one might regurgitate food and other bodily fluids at such an unaccustomed sight.

There are several outside possibilities but I limit my responses as best I can to the evidence as my concern is reasonable doubt based on the presentation of the evidence and the statements of counsels. There are times that I do branch off into other discussions. I just do not think that one would eat before going to cut someone's throat and allow himself such a narrow time line to avoid being detected. It just does not fit for me.

As with anything else, an expert is not qualified to speak on everything and sometimes a person is left to his own common sense. I think that is the issue for me as it relates to eating.

[tv]

tv

you asked for testimony on the issue of Kato and the lights. i posted it to you.when you have time you can answer my original question.Why do you want me to tell you where Kato was when the lights came on? I think you've got your own theory.

[martin II]

true dat. Wasn't he hesitant to go set the alarm?:)

yep he was

[tv]

Doc is going to have to be faster on the draw.:)Sorry, didn't mean to cause you any editing problems.

[martin II]

Why do you want me to tell you where Kato was when the lights came on? I think you've got your own theory.

i told you where Katos was when the lights came on. I asked you if you agreed with the testimony..
why do i get the feeling you may be playing dodge ball.:cool:

[William Anthony]

**********************************************


John Douglas said that killers in this type of murder have an irrational feeling that they won't be caught.

This killer must have been very rational as no one has been caught, tried and convicted of murdering the two victims.

[tv]

This killer must have been very rational as no one has been caught, tried and convicted of murdering the two victims.Caught and tried, not convicted.

[tv]

i told you where Katos was when the lights came on. I asked you if you agreed with the testimony..
why do i get the feeling you may be playing dodge ball.:cool:I'm not playing dodge ball. I've asked you many things that you've ignored. Was Kato even questioned about when the lights came on? I'll go back and look.

[William Anthony]

Sorry, didn't mean to cause you any editing problems.

Apology accepted.:)

[William Anthony]

I'm not playing dodge ball. I've asked you many things that you've ignored. Was Kato even questioned about when the lights came on? I'll go back and look.

Alrighty then, were was Kato when he testified he first saw the downstairs lights, smile?

[William Anthony]

Caught and tried, not convicted.

Then no one has been convicted of the murders and the one that was arrested, accused and tried was found not guilty.

[Kate Sachel]

I was responding to a post that indicated Simpson had planned to murder Ms. NBS on that night and chose that time frame to commit the murder. Scratching your head or blowing your nose and then going to commit murder would not leave DNA at the crime scene, unless you were at the crime scene when you engaged in those activities. :) However, if the belief is that the two murders were done by Simpson and those were his first two murders and that he intended to cut Ms. NBS's throat, then there would be a quite bloody crime scene and one might regurgitate food and other bodily fluids at such an unaccustomed sight.

There are several outside possibilities but I limit my responses as best I can to the evidence as my concern is reasonable doubt based on the presentation of the evidence and the statements of counsels. There are times that I do branch off into other discussions. I just do not think that one would eat before going to cut someone's throat and allow himself such a narrow time line to avoid being detected. It just does not fit for me.

As with anything else, an expert is not qualified to speak on everything and sometimes a person is left to his own common sense. I think that is the issue for me as it relates to eating.

There are so many scenarios that could be considered. For example, perhaps he gave himself plenty of time in the premeditated stages but once he got there second guessed and sat for awhile, unaware of how much time was passing. From there perhaps he decided he was just going to scare her instead and perhaps in that moment she angered him with words or action and he raged and killed her. That are so many "perhaps" that can be considered.

Sometimes things simply don't make sense to us because the actions taken are not those that we ourselves would take.

But I think the thing that strikes me most about OJ Simpson and what had dictated his actions for such a long period in his life is that I don't believe, prior to the murders, that OJ Simpson has ever had to accept any type of responsibility for any actions that he has ever taken. I don't think that his conduct was ever questioned by anyone, including law enforcement with the exception of 1989, and I wholly believe that he wholly believed that he was untouchable. Untouchable enough to commit murder and get away with it. Sadly, in my opinion, it turns out that he was right.

Kate

[martin II]

I'm not playing dodge ball. I've asked you many things that you've ignored. Was Kato even questioned about when the lights came on? I'll go back and look.

yes he was
he was questioned about walking past the door when the lights were not on and when he walked back past the door and the lights were on.
he said no they were not on
then when he walkes back he said the lights were on.

[martin II]

William

there are two ways to look at this case,Consider personal opinions about oj life and interject ones personal opinions and say he killed her.

The other way is to have a trial and consider the evidence and ask the jury to decide what is truth and what is not.
After the second one is completed the first does not matter.

[fgump2]

I thought you had put your faith in profilers and tossed the physcos.
************************************************** ********I will try to describe why I put a lot of faith in profilers in some cases, and little faith in psychologists in other cases.
In the case of me believing the profilers belief that the excessive slashing of Nicole shows that the killer probably a former lover; the reasons are basically statistical. This type of killing is quite rare, but by combining the records in different countries over a period of decades, the profilers believe that if a killer kills a woman in this manner (and I mean excessive slashing, not just killing by cutting her throat), this means that the killer is almost always a former lover. The sources I looked at didn’t give any statistics, but know that at least two profilers have come to this conclusion, and I don’t know of any that have disagreed with it. The thinking behind it is simple, and I have no reason to question it. John Douglas is the profiler that I have read the most, but I disagreed with some of his ideas.
On the other hand, I distrust the conclusion of L. Walker that OJS wasn’t the type to kill Nicole. I don’t know of the thinking behind it, and I doubt that there is any body of evidence to support her conclusions. Maybe if I read the basis on which she came to her conclusions, I would feel differently.

I distrust psychologist’s ability to predict the future, because I think the record isn’t good. I certain situations the record of profilers isn’t good either.

I give a forensic psychiatrist some credibility to judge people’s sense of right and wrong because this is a lot about what forensic psychiatry is all about. I intuitively think this is possible, because we all engage in the sort of judgment, and I think a forensic psychologist can do it better than me. I have formed intuitive judgments about people’s sense of right and wrong, and usually been proven at least partly correct, but I am not about to pass myself as an expert. Since I have some limited skills here, I find it easy to think that a forensic psychiatrist would probably be better.

I don’t know of Saul Faerstein broke any ethical rules by going public with his opinions of OJS, but if he did, then it was probably against the rules to release Mark Fuhrman’s psychological evaluation also.

I don’t know enough about Faerstein’s work on Rep Cunningham to know if it was good or not.

In general I take psychologists with a grain of salt, because we are all students of human nature, and nobody know it all. I can believe that in some narrow technical fields, there are people who know it all, but when it comes to the human mind, nobody comes close to knowing it all.

[William Anthony]

There are so many scenarios that could be considered. For example, perhaps he gave himself plenty of time in the premeditated stages but once he got there second guessed and sat for awhile, unaware of how much time was passing. From there perhaps he decided he was just going to scare her instead and perhaps in that moment she angered him with words or action and he raged and killed her. That are so many "perhaps" that can be considered.

Sometimes things simply don't make sense to us because the actions taken are not those that we ourselves would take.

But I think the thing that strikes me most about OJ Simpson and what had dictated his actions for such a long period in his life is that I don't believe, prior to the murders, that OJ Simpson has ever had to accept any type of responsibility for any actions that he has ever taken. I don't think that his conduct was ever questioned by anyone, including law enforcement with the exception of 1989, and I wholly believe that he wholly believed that he was untouchable. Untouchable enough to commit murder and get away with it. Sadly, in my opinion, it turns out that he was right.

Kate

I happen to know that we don't disagree, even though we do. :) We both believe there was reasonable doubt based on the presentation of the evidence and the performance of the parties. Yes, there are several scenarios to consider, some point to his guilt and others pointing to someone else as the guilty party.

[Kate Sachel]

William

there are two ways to look at this case,Consider personal opinions about oj life and interject ones personal opinions and say he killed her.

The other way is to have a trial and consider the evidence and ask the jury to decide what is truth and what is not.
After the second one is completed the first does not matter.

If it doesn't matter, why do you post here? Why spend so much time trying to prove to us OJ's innocence if you feel that the trial accomplished that and, therefore, nothing else matters?

Regardless, I happen to think that you are wrong martin. And I guarantee you that any family member who has lost a loved one to a murder and has felt that justice was not served also think you are wrong.

The not guilty trial verdict of an accused does not speak to their innocence. In fact, several jurors from the criminal trial that you hold in such high regard have stated that they believe that he "more than likely" committed the crimes, but that when held up to the higher standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" they were not able to convict.

Two people lost their lives to a brutal murder on June 12, 1994 and that matters martin. Their lives mattered. The justice system in this country matters to most Americans, and when a case comes about in which people believe that justice was not served, that matters to those people.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I happen to know that we don't disagree, even though we do. :) We both believe there was reasonable doubt based on the presentation of the evidence and the performance of the parties. Yes, there are several scenarios to consider, some point to his guilt and others pointing to someone else as the guilty party.

I personally don't feel that anything else points to someone else as the guilty party. But, as you know, I do believe there was reasonable doubt.

Kate

[serpentsfall]

true dat. Wasn't he hesitant to go set the alarm?:)

With Kato's fear in mind, if the noise he heard wasn't OJ coming over the fence and hitting the back of his room, what do you sleuths attribute the incident to? If not OJ, what do you think likely caused the noise and the picture to shift?

[bobaugust]

The time on the phone records support that Park saw Kato after Kato had finished his first cursory search, after waiting two to three minuted after hearing the thumps at ten forty five. You have assumed that Park saw Kato coming from behind Simpson's house but that is not Park's testimony. Park testified as to where he saw Kato.

Martin brings up another excellent point. When would Park have seen Kato standing? The answer is that a reasonable inference can be drawn that it was when Kato was thinking about whether or not to buzz the limo in. When was that? Kato supplies the answer, which is after his first cursory search.

"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. "

Reasonable doubt.

William, can you or Martin not understand that Park testified he first saw Kaelin when Kaelin was coming down the NORTH path. Once again if Kaelin had been returning from the SOUTH path as you and Martin suggest Kaelin would not be anywhere near the north path, he would have come down the driveway directly in front of Park. That’s not what Park testified to. Martin and yours suggestion that Park first saw Kaelin when Kaelin was returning from the south path is wrong. Martin’s so called point about Kaelin stopping at the control box has absolutely nothing to do with when Park first saw Kaelin come down the north path shortly before 10:55.

Look at the colored diagram, please and you will see that what Kaelin and Park testified to is very clear.
http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg


Kaelin clearly described the route he took after leaving his room to make his first investigation.

March 23, 1995 Kato Kaelin

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.

Q OKAY.
NOW, WHEN YOU WENT TO THE DRIVEWAY, YOU SAID YOU TOOK A PATHWAY AND THAT PATHWAY LED YOU THROUGH WHAT?
A YOU GO BY THE POOL AND WHEN YOU GO BY THE POOL YOU GO TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, THE SIDE THAT WOULD FACE ASHFORD, AND THEN YOU GO AND YOU HIT THE DRIVEWAY.

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.


Park clearly described where Kaelin was when he first saw him.

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.

bobaugust

[martin II]

With Kato's fear in mind, if the noise he heard wasn't OJ coming over the fence and hitting the back of his room, what do you sleuths attribute the incident to? If not OJ, what do you think likely caused the noise and the picture to shift?

There has never been any proof that oj was in the south walkway on 6/12
As a metter of fact there is no proof that anyone was in that walkway except MF on 6/12. OJ was in his house according to court testimony so he could not have dropped any glove there. Obviously someone else put that glove there and made the noise if noise was made.

[martin II]

The verdict in the OJ simpsons case was not the first or last that some in the public dissagreed with. They have been wrong on majority ideas before.The majority of Amercans though it was a grand idea for us to start a war with iraq then. The majority know know it was a tragic error.

Those that have a different idea about the simpson verdict should or must get over what they think as it does not matter in the great scheme of things.

Regardless of what some may think imo

Good people loose their lives every day 4 lost their lives last week where i am, almost 5,000 lost their lives in iraq.

[Kate Sachel]

The verdict in the OJ simpsons case was not the first or last that some in the public dissagreed with. They have been wrong on majority ideas before.The majority of Amercans though it was a grand idea for us to start a war with iraq then. The majority know know it was a tragic error.

Those that have a different idea about the simpson verdict should or must get over what they think as it does not matter in the great scheme of things.

Regardless of what some may think imo

Perhaps the same should be said that fall into your category martin. Perhaps those that have a strong belief in OJ's innocence should get over trying to convince others that they are wrong if, in the great scheme of things, it does not matter.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

So that this is clear to you, I will post all of the relevant portion of Park's testimony from that which you posted above.

"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: 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.

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: CAN YOU SHOW US ON THIS DIAGRAM WHERE YOU FIRST SAW THAT PERSON?

A: UMM, JUST IF YOU GO WHERE THE CIRCLE IS, GO STRAIGHT BACK -- NO, THE OTHER WAY, A LITTLE BIT FARTHER. IT WAS ABOUT THERE, (INDICATING), AROUND THAT AREA.

Q: OKAY. ROUGHLY THAT AREA?

A: YEAH.

Q: OKAY. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE PERSON THAT YOU SAW -- WAS THAT THE FIRST POINT AT WHICH YOU SAW THE PERSON?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT HE LOOKED LIKE, WHAT THAT PERSON LOOKED LIKE.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: SIX FOOT, 200 POUNDS.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SIX FOOT, 200 POUNDS?

A: ALL DARK CLOTHING.

Q: AND COULD YOU TELL ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT THIS PERSON?

A: NO.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THE PERSON WAS CAUCASIAN OR AFRICAN AMERICAN?

A: BLACK.

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: DID YOU FORM AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER THIS WAS A MALE OR FEMALE?

A: NO.

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. "

It becomes obvious that Park didn't see Kato come from behind the house but saw him on or near the grass. However, let me stop there.

[martin II]

I post her for the same reason i think most do. For fun because i like to discuss the different testimony. Because there were some interesting arguments made. Because i learn much about the law and because i can.

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

Continuation of Park's testimony

"Q: COULD YOU TELL, WHEN YOU SAW THAT SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON WALK INTO THE ENTRANCE, COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THAT PERSON WAS COMING FROM THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY OR FROM THE AREA OF THE GARAGE FROM THE SOUTH PATHWAY?

A: NO, I COULDN'T.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THAT PERSON HAD ANYTHING IN HIS HAND -- IN THEIR HANDS?

A: NO.

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: AND WAS THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PERSON ENTERED THE HOUSE?

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY.

Q: HOW LONG AFTER THAT PERSON ENTERED THE HOUSE, THE FRONT ENTRANCE, DID THE LIGHTS GO ON DOWNSTAIRS?

A: JUST SECONDS."

Seconds after Paks saw a Black someone go into the house downstairs lights came on.

Kato's testimony March 22nd

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.

[martin II]

With Kato's fear in mind, if the noise he heard wasn't OJ coming over the fence and hitting the back of his room, what do you sleuths attribute the incident to? If not OJ, what do you think likely caused the noise and the picture to shift?

PS

There were many people that had access to the glove at bundy that could have brough the glove to rockingham, the killers could have placed the glove in ojs walkway,but based on testimony it was not oj.

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust, continuation

kato's testimony-continuation

"A: WELL, I WANTED TO STILL KNOW WHAT WAS BACK THERE. I WAS GOING TO INVESTIGATE MORE, BUT I STOPPED THERE AND I WAS KIND OF LIKE WITH THIS LOUSY FLASHLIGHT, AND IN MY MIND I WAS GOING TO SEE IF I HAD A BETTER FLASHLIGHT AND I WAS GOING TO GO UP TO THE DRIVER TO TALK TO HIM.

Q: SO DID YOU TURN BACK AT THAT POINT?

A: I DID.

Q: WHERE DID YOU GO?

A: BACK TO THE FRONT. BACK, TURNED AROUND TO THE FRONT OF THE DRIVEWAY.

Q: AND YOU WENT WHERE?

A: I WENT TO THE LIMO, (INDICATING).

Q: OKAY. NOW, ON YOUR WAY BACK TO THE LIMO, DID ANYTHING DRAW YOUR ATTENTION?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT?

A: I SAW THAT THERE WAS LIKE A KNAPSACK THAT WAS IN THE DRIVEWAY WHERE THE ROLLS ROYCE WAS PARKED.

Q: CAN YOU SHOW US WHERE YOU SAW THAT?

A: WELL, THIS IS -- THE SPOT OF THE ROLLS ROYCE, (INDICATING).

MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS INDICATED THE SOUTHERN MOST PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY THAT LEADS OUT TO ROCKINGHAM WHERE THERE IS AN INDENTATION.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: THAT IS WHERE THE ROLLS ROYCE WOULD BE PARKED?

A: YEAH. IT WOULD BE PARKED RIGHT HERE, (INDICATING).

Q: AND WHERE DID YOU SEE THIS SMALL -- THIS KNAPSACK?

A: IT WAS ON THE RIGHT BACK TAILLIGHT ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT WHERE THE GRASS KIND OF WOULD START UP.

MS. CLARK: I DON'T THINK THE JURY IS ABLE TO SEE.

Q: COULD YOU INDICATE AGAIN WHERE YOU SAW THAT KNAPSACK?

A: IT WAS KIND OF LIKE RIGHT HERE ON THE GRASS AND CEMENT -- AND THE DRIVEWAY, (INDICATING). "

It becomes obvious that Park saw Kato on his return from his first cursory search when as Park testified he saw Kato standing, because Simpson could have only put the knapsack there in between the time Kato was doing his first cursory search. Park then see's Kato and the Black figure.

[William Anthony]

I personally don't feel that anything else points to someone else as the guilty party. But, as you know, I do believe there was reasonable doubt.

Kate

That is where we agree in that there was reasonable doubt. I have given all the reasons why the evidence suggests there could have been someone other than Simpson who committed the murders. I understand if you disagree with that.

[serpentsfall]

There has never been any proof that oj was in the south walkway on 6/12
As a metter of fact there is no proof that anyone was in that walkway except MF on 6/12. OJ was in his house according to court testimony so he could not have dropped any glove there. Obviously someone else put that glove there and made the noise if noise was made.

Well, then who or what WAS on that path that night that caused the noise Kato heard? If OJ was in the house, who was the AA Park saw going in the front door?

[William Anthony]

With Kato's fear in mind, if the noise he heard wasn't OJ coming over the fence and hitting the back of his room, what do you sleuths attribute the incident to? If not OJ, what do you think likely caused the noise and the picture to shift?

I do not have to play sleuth as I believe there was reasonable doubt, which ends the story for me and I am willing to wait until LE arrests someone else to see how that trial ends, if there is one. It could have been a mountain lion or the ghost that resided in the machine or those impish magical socks :) and I am not sure what the noise was but I am sure the prosecution failed to provide evidence that anyone was back there before MF on that night.

[serpentsfall]

PS

There were many people that had access to the glove at bundy that could have brough the glove to rockingham, the killers could have placed the glove in ojs walkway,but based on testimony it was not oj.

So you think some killer-who-wasn't-OJ drove to Simpson's house, while he was home, and hid the glove on that back walk? Why? To frame OJ? Why not throw it over the front gate onto the driveway where it would be sure to be found?

And do you think it was the killer planting the glove who made the noise that Kato heard?

[martin II]

With Kato's fear in mind, if the noise he heard wasn't OJ coming over the fence and hitting the back of his room, what do you sleuths attribute the incident to? If not OJ, what do you think likely caused the noise and the picture to shift?


I hope i answered your question.
i have one for you.

Park said he saw kato and then oj.

Park said the 200lb aa walked into the front door and the porch lights came on.

Kato said when he walked past the door the porch lights were not on.


Kato said when he walked back past the front door the lights were on.

If you believe the testimonies do you believe park could have seen kato before Kato made his first search at the garage?

[serpentsfall]

I do not have to play sleuth as I believe there was reasonable doubt, which ends the story for me and I am willing to wait until LE arrests someone else to see how that trial ends, if there is one. It could have been a mountain lion or the ghost that resided in the machine or those impish magical socks :) and I am not sure what the noise was but I am sure the prosecution failed to provide evidence that anyone was back there before MF on that night.

So I guess the only question that remains is who from the OJ-trial-and-resulting-books-group will be the first has-been "celebrity"to compete on Dancing With The Stars. Too bad Cochran is dead; I think he'd be great at the waltz!

[serpentsfall]

I hope i answered your question.
i have one for you.

Park said he saw kato and then oj.

Park said the 200lb aa walked into the front door and the porch lights came on.

Kato said when he walked past the door the porch lights were not on.


Kato said when he walked back past the front door the lights were on.

If you believe the testimonies do you believe park could have seen kato before Kato made his first search at the garage?

Maybe I'm distracted by work, but I'm not seeing Kato passing by the front door as many times as you seem to suggest. He first noticed lights on in the house as he was reversing course on the north path (after noticing Park for the first time) to go back the way he came (from behind the house). Kato seems to me to initially have spent most of his initial search in the back and north yards - away from the front door where the AA/Simpson was coming and going - until later when he came back and finally let Park in.

[martin II]

So you think some killer-who-wasn't-OJ drove to Simpson's house, while he was home, and hid the glove on that back walk? Why? To frame OJ? Why not throw it over the front gate onto the driveway where it would be sure to be found?

And do you think it was the killer planting the glove who made the noise that Kato heard?

As another poster posted the glove most likely would have been placed at another place until kato told furhman about the noise.

If the killers wanted to implicate oj the glove would have been planted on his property. someone planted the glove back there but they did not jump the fence to do it.

I don't think it would have been smart to just toss the glove in plain to the driveway in plain sight as oj may have seen it.

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust, Correction

It appears from Kato's testimony that he saw the knapsack after his second cursory trip, before letting the limo in. I will review the testimony as I think this is important.:)

[William Anthony]

So I guess the only question that remains is who from the OJ-trial-and-resulting-books-group will be the first has-been "celebrity"to compete on Dancing With The Stars. Too bad Cochran is dead; I think he'd be great at the waltz!

I too am Sad that the magnificent one is dead and I think whoever his partner would have been they would have won as they danced to the tune of "These Boots are Made for Walking and One Day They are going to Walk all over you."

[martin II]

Maybe I'm distracted by work, but I'm not seeing Kato passing by the front door as many times as you seem to suggest. He first noticed lights on in the house as he was reversing course on the north path (after noticing Park for the first time) to go back the way he came (from behind the house). Kato seems to me to initially have spent most of his initial search in the back and north yards - away from the front door where the AA/Simpson was coming and going - until later when he came back and finally let Park in.

no not right
kato did no search in the back north yard. you may be confused about locations.
Kato only passed the door twice once going to the south walkway and once comming back from that walkway.


kato walked from his room asround by the north side of the house and south pass the front door LIGHTS out. he continued to the south walkway the garage area.where he searched first.

oj came down with two bags moved the golf bag and went back into the house and tuned the lights on. By then Kato was leaving the south walkway
headed back pass the front door and this time he sees the lights on.

Now. Park said he saw kato on the north walk Ashford and saw a aa walk into the house.saw the lights go on and said someone home.at the same time.

From Katos testimony he was in the south walkway searching when oj turned the lights on.So park did not see Kato at the north side of the house when the lights came.As Kato was in the south walkway searching whenn oj turned the klights on.
i hope this is more clear.

[martin II]

I too am Sad that the magnificent one is dead and I think whoever his partner would have been they would have won as they danced to the tune of "These Boots are Made for Walking and One Day They are going to Walk all over you."

i like that

[martin II]

Maybe I'm distracted by work, but I'm not seeing Kato passing by the front door as many times as you seem to suggest. He first noticed lights on in the house as he was reversing course on the north path (after noticing Park for the first time) to go back the way he came (from behind the house). Kato seems to me to initially have spent most of his initial search in the back and north yards - away from the front door where the AA/Simpson was coming and going - until later when he came back and finally let Park in.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg

This is the rockingham layout in case you may need it

[William Anthony]

no not right
kato did no search in the back north yard. you may be confused about locations.
Kato only passed the door twice once going to the south walkway and once comming back from that walkway.


kato walked from his room asround by the north side of the house and south pass the front door LIGHTS out. he continued to the south walkway the garage area.where he searched first.

oj came down with two bags moved the golf bag and went back into the house and tuned the lights on. By then Kato was leaving the south walkway
headed back pass the front door and this time he sees the lights on.

Now. Park said he saw kato on the north walk Ashford and saw a aa walk into the house.saw the lights go on and said someone home.at the same time.

From Katos testimony he was in the south walkway searching when oj turned the lights on.So park did not see Kato at the north side of the house when the lights came.As Kato was in the south walkway searching whenn oj turned the klights on.
i hope this is more clear.

I am trying to make it clearer so that we can put this issue to rest.

[martin II]

I am trying to make it clearer so that we can put this issue to rest.

I think it is quite clear already

i am waiting on tv she may be busy.

[William Anthony]

I think it is quite clear already

i am waiting on tv she may be busy.

I have reread the testimony and nothing changes the fact that Kato had done his first cursory search when he decided to let Park in and that is when Park saw him and who he believed to be Simpson and within two minutes of the lights coming on downstairs and after Park talked to Simpson Kato let him in. The time is consistent with the ten forty five sound of the thumps. We must allow time for Kato's knees to stop shaking, smile.

[martin II]

I have reread the testimony and nothing changes the fact that Kato had done his first cursory search when he decided to let Park in and that is when Park saw him and who he believed to be Simpson and within two minutes of the lights coming on downstairs and after Park talked to Simpson Kato let him in. The time is consistent with the ten forty five sound of the thumps. We must allow time for Kato's knees to stop shaking, smile.

i can find no reason why kato would walk from the back yard, arrive at the north Ashford walkway and stop and take in the view looking at Park. the limo would mean nothing to him not with his one subject focus on the south wealkway, i think he walked straight pass Park in the dark and ended up in the south walkway. When he came out to the grass part of the yard he may have stood and wondered why park was still not in and having a little hiss fit
jumping in and out of the limo on and off the phone and punching the buzzer.Park saw him then.

[martin II]

William, can you or Martin not understand that Park testified he first saw Kaelin when Kaelin was coming down the NORTH path. Once again if Kaelin had been returning from the SOUTH path as you and Martin suggest Kaelin would not be anywhere near the north path, he would have come down the driveway directly in front of Park. That’s not what Park testified to. Martin and yours suggestion that Park first saw Kaelin when Kaelin was returning from the south path is wrong. Martin’s so called point about Kaelin stopping at the control box has absolutely nothing to do with when Park first saw Kaelin come down the north path shortly before 10:55.

Look at the colored diagram, please and you will see that what Kaelin and Park testified to is very clear.
http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg


Kaelin clearly described the route he took after leaving his room to make his first investigation.

March 23, 1995 Kato Kaelin

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.

Q OKAY.
NOW, WHEN YOU WENT TO THE DRIVEWAY, YOU SAID YOU TOOK A PATHWAY AND THAT PATHWAY LED YOU THROUGH WHAT?
A YOU GO BY THE POOL AND WHEN YOU GO BY THE POOL YOU GO TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, THE SIDE THAT WOULD FACE ASHFORD, AND THEN YOU GO AND YOU HIT THE DRIVEWAY.

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.


Park clearly described where Kaelin was when he first saw him.

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.

bobaugust

Bob

how did Park see Kato when the lights came on when Kato was in the south walkway when the lights came on and Park was outside the Ashford gate?

[William Anthony]

Bob

how did Park see Kato when the lights came on when Kato was in the south walkway when the lights came on and Park was outside the Ashford gate?

kato's testimony-March 22nd

"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. "

Park's testimony-March 28th

"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: AFTER YOU HUNG UP WITH DALE ST. JOHN YOU SAID YOU SAT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS OR SO?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO OBJECT, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHY WAS THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE AND WE COVERED THIS.

MS. CLARK: THAT WAS FOUNDATIONAL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

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: OKAY. HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU HAVE TO RING THE BUZZER THIS TIME BEFORE IT WAS ANSWERED?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION, HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU HAVE TO RING THE BUZZER.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: CAN YOU REPEAT IT?

Q: BY MS. CLARK: HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU HAVE TO RING THE BUZZER THIS TIME BEFORE IT WAS ANSWERED?

A: OH, IT WAS JUST -- HE ANSWERED IT PRETTY MUCH IMMEDIATELY.

Q: AS SOON AS YOU RANG?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN HE SAID TO YOU --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHEN YOU HEARD THE VOICE SAY TO YOU, "I'M SORRY, I OVERSLEPT," DID YOU RECOGNIZE THAT VOICE?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THIS HAS BEEN COVERED.

THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE ALSO, THAT LAST STATEMENT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHOSE VOICE WAS IT?

A: MR. SIMPSON'S.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU SAY HE SAID TO YOU?

A: THAT HE OVERSLEPT --

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR. WE ALL HEARD IT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: HE OVERSLEPT, HE JUST GOT OUT OF THE SHOWER AND HE WOULD BE DOWN IN A MINUTE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, HAD YOU EVER HEARD MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE BEFORE?

A: YES.

Q: HOW HAD YOU HEARD IT BEFORE?

A: ON T.V. COMMENTARY, SPORTS.

Q: IS THAT HOW YOU RECOGNIZED IT?

A: YES.

Q: COULD YOU TELL, WHEN YOU SAW THAT SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON WALK INTO THE ENTRANCE, COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THAT PERSON WAS COMING FROM THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY OR FROM THE AREA OF THE GARAGE FROM THE SOUTH PATHWAY?

A: NO, I COULDN'T.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THAT PERSON HAD ANYTHING IN HIS HAND -- IN THEIR HANDS?

A: NO.

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: AND WAS THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PERSON ENTERED THE HOUSE?

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY.

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 HEIGHTS CAME FROM, NO.

Q: AFTER THAT SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE, DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHERE MR. KAELIN WAS?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBERED, HE WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK.

Q: DID HE ACKNOWLEDGE YOU IN ANY WAY AFTER THAT PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, HE KIND OF GAVE ME A HAND GESTURE TO LET ME KNOW HE WAS THERE.

Q: AND THAT WAS AFTER THE SIX-FOOT PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE?

A: I'M PRETTY SURE, YES.

Q: THAT PERSON THAT YOU SAW GO INTO THE HOUSE, DID HE LOOK LIKE SOMEONE YOU RECOGNIZED?

A: NO.

Q: DID HE LOOK LIKE MR. SIMPSON?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I COULDN'T TELL WHO IT WAS.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID IT APPEAR TO BE THE SAME SIZE AS MR. SIMPSON?

A: YES.

Q: SAME HEIGHT AND WEIGHT?

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: AROUND THERE.

Q: WAS MR. KAELIN EVER ON THE DRIVEWAY AT THE SAME TIME AS THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON THAT WENT INTO THE HOUSE?

A: NOT THAT I REMEMBER, NO.

Q: AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON -- STRIKE THAT. HOW LONG AFTER YOU SAW THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON GO INTO THE HOUSE DID YOU SPEAK TO MR. SIMPSON ON THE INTERCOM?

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK THIS HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. I'M SORRY, I'M GOING TO OVERRULE THAT. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: IT HAD --

THE COURT: DIFFERENT QUESTION ON LIGHTS.

THE WITNESS: IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN ANYWHERE BETWEEN THIRTY SECONDS TO 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. "

This is when Park saw Kato standing, contemplating whether or not to open the gate and waving to park. Kato did not wave at Park when he went by the first time to do his cursory search. Therefore, Park did not see him at that time as Park was on the phone talking to his mother. Kato testified it was after he finished his first cursory search that he went to open the gate. Anyone who continues to argue this after this is just be stubborn, imho.

[fgump2]

I am interested in a link .
martinii
***************************************
I wrote carelessly First of all I meant that the killer (OJS) would have seen the candles inside the house, and Ron outside. I didn't mean that either Ron or the killer got inside.

Secondly Bailey, not Cochran, was the lawyer who said that Mark Fuhrman picked the right hand glove up and moved it to Rockingham (OJS's house). I don't know if Cochran explicitly endorsed this view.

Another indication of irrational or foolislh thinking on the part of the killer was the unwise choices of gloves and shoes. A careful criminal would not want to have shoes that would leave unusual footprints, or unusual gloves (which can be dropped).

One thing I wondered about the gloves is whether they had the same amount of flexibility that most work gloves would have, such as carpenters or gardeners. I think that leather dress gloves are usually less flexibile, and therefore a poor pick for a killer with a knife.

I consider it very unlikely that a professional hit man would have done this. Hired killers usually use guns with silencers, not knives. There was excessive cutting of both Nicole and Ron. The killer hacked away at Nicole's neck, and probably stabbed Ron a few extra times to make sure he was dead. John Douglas said this indicates a novice criminal. Of course leaving a glove is another symptom of a novice.

[bobaugust]

It becomes obvious that Park saw Kato on his return from his first cursory search when as Park testified he saw Kato standing, because Simpson could have only put the knapsack there in between the time Kato was doing his first cursory search. Park then see's Kato and the Black figure.

The only thing that’s obvious is that you still haven’t looked at the colored diagram of the Rockingham estate, have you William? Otherwise you wouldn’t continue to make so many incorrect comments about this.

What path do you think Park saw Kaelin with his flashlight on? Let me give you the answer, the north path that Kaelin used to get from the pool area to the front of the house.

Where do you think the side yard is? Let me give you the answer. Next to the north path on the north side of Simpson’s house that was to Park’s left when he was sitting in his limo parked at the Ashford gate.

I suggest you LOOK AT THE COLORED DIAGRAM. Your comments are contradicted by both Park and Kaelin’s testimony as well as the layout of the Rockingham estate.

http://www.wagnerandson.com/images/2rockham.jpg

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

no not right
kato did no search in the back north yard. you may be confused about locations.
Kato only passed the door twice once going to the south walkway and once comming back from that walkway.


kato walked from his room asround by the north side of the house and south pass the front door LIGHTS out. he continued to the south walkway the garage area.where he searched first.

oj came down with two bags moved the golf bag and went back into the house and tuned the lights on. By then Kato was leaving the south walkway
headed back pass the front door and this time he sees the lights on.

Now. Park said he saw kato on the north walk Ashford and saw a aa walk into the house.saw the lights go on and said someone home.at the same time.

From Katos testimony he was in the south walkway searching when oj turned the lights on.So park did not see Kato at the north side of the house when the lights came.As Kato was in the south walkway searching whenn oj turned the klights on.
i hope this is more clear.

Allan Park testified that when he was waiting at the Ashford gate there was a light on in the entranceway of the house by the front door and a light on above the garage. Park said the lighting was not very bright. Park said he didn’t see any lights on downstairs in the house until after Simpson walked in the front door and then lights came on that illuminated the curtains in the windows he could see.

Kato Kaelin testified that when he first passed by the front of the house on his way to the south path there were lights on upstairs and it seemed to be dark downstairs. Kaelin said the lighting on the driveway was dim. In his deposition Simpson claimed he walked outside with a suit bag while Allan Park was still parked at the gate. Simpson said when he returned to the house he turned on the coach lights. Neither Park nor Kaelin ever said they saw any change in the outside lighting; that was just another Simpson fabrication.

Park testified that he first saw Kaelin when Kaelin came down the north path to the driveway and almost simultaneously he saw Simpson walk up to his front door, enter his house and lights come on downstairs in the house. Based on Park’s telephone records Park saw both Kaelin and Simpson at about 10:55.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Bob

how did Park see Kato when the lights came on when Kato was in the south walkway when the lights came on and Park was outside the Ashford gate?

Your question is meaningless because it’s based on a false premise amd contradicted by both Park and Kaelin's testimony. It seems you too either haven’t looked at the colored diagram of the Rockingham estate from Wagner’s web site or you don’t know the difference between north and south.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

This is when Park saw Kato standing, contemplating whether or not to open the gate and waving to park. Kato did not wave at Park when he went by the first time to do his cursory search. Therefore, Park did not see him at that time as Park was on the phone talking to his mother. Kato testified it was after he finished his first cursory search that he went to open the gate. Anyone who continues to argue this after this is just be stubborn, imho.

Park first saw Kaelin come down the north path from the back of the house. Park testified he was talking to his boss on the telephone at that time when the flashlight Kaelin was using attracted his attention. Based on Park’s telephone records he first saw Kaelin shortly before 10:55.

bobaugust

[fgump2]

This killer must have been very rational as no one has been caught, tried and convicted of murdering the two victims.

I don't think the fact that nobody has been convicted shows it was rational. I thnk wearing inappropriate gloves and shoes shows bad judgment. A clever criminal wouldn't want to leave unusual foot prints, or wear unusual gloves which he might drop. Leaving a glove wasn't very rational. Also the killer was lucky there weren't witnesses coming along as the violence too place. A lot of criminals have been caught partly because they drew attention to themselves by acting strangely.Wearing gloves and a hat on a warm night in June can draw atention to a person, and get someone to take down a license plate number.

Also it looks to me like the killer spent about 10M to stay out of jail, and also gave himself a bad reputation. Before the killings he was making about 1M a year from advertising and broadcasting, now his name is mud. Does this seem rational?

[old_soul]

If it doesn't matter, why do you post here? Why spend so much time trying to prove to us OJ's innocence if you feel that the trial accomplished that and, therefore, nothing else matters?

Regardless, I happen to think that you are wrong martin. And I guarantee you that any family member who has lost a loved one to a murder and has felt that justice was not served also think you are wrong.

The not guilty trial verdict of an accused does not speak to their innocence. In fact, several jurors from the criminal trial that you hold in such high regard have stated that they believe that he "more than likely" committed the crimes, but that when held up to the higher standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" they were not able to convict.
Two people lost their lives to a brutal murder on June 12, 1994 and that matters martin. Their lives mattered. The justice system in this country matters to most Americans, and when a case comes about in which people believe that justice was not served, that matters to those people.
Kate

http://i39.tinypic.com/23jijrd.gif LOL

[William Anthony]

I don't think the fact that nobody has been convicted shows it was rational. I thnk wearing inappropriate gloves and shoes shows bad judgment. A clever criminal wouldn't want to leave unusual foot prints, or wear unusual gloves which he might drop. Leaving a glove wasn't very rational. Also the killer was lucky there weren't witnesses coming along as the violence too place. A lot of criminals have been caught partly because they drew attention to themselves by acting strangely.Wearing gloves and a hat on a warm night in June can draw atention to a person, and get someone to take down a license plate number.

Also it looks to me like the killer spent about 10M to stay out of jail, and also gave himself a bad reputation. Before the killings he was making about 1M a year from advertising and broadcasting, now his name is mud. Does this seem rational?

What gloves and shoes would be appropriate/rational for a murderer to wear?
What gloves fit Simpson's hand? What shoes did the prosecution produce that Simpson wore? I thought your idea of a disguise was to avoid detection, correct? Yes, the so called disguise does not fit.

Ah, the retribution of the court of public opinion and you rely on this when the verdict was not guilty to call someone a murderer, correct?:)

[William Anthony]

Park first saw Kaelin come down the north path from the back of the house. Park testified he was talking to his boss on the telephone at that time when the flashlight Kaelin was using attracted his attention. Based on Park’s telephone records he first saw Kaelin shortly before 10:55.

bobaugust

Impossible, since Park did not see Kato untilafter he finished his first cursory search by the testimony-reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

Allan Park testified that when he was waiting at the Ashford gate there was a light on in the entranceway of the house by the front door and a light on above the garage. Park said the lighting was not very bright. Park said he didn’t see any lights on downstairs in the house until after Simpson walked in the front door and then lights came on that illuminated the curtains in the windows he could see.

Kato Kaelin testified that when he first passed by the front of the house on his way to the south path there were lights on upstairs and it seemed to be dark downstairs. Kaelin said the lighting on the driveway was dim. In his deposition Simpson claimed he walked outside with a suit bag while Allan Park was still parked at the gate. Simpson said when he returned to the house he turned on the coach lights. Neither Park nor Kaelin ever said they saw any change in the outside lighting; that was just another Simpson fabrication.

Park testified that he first saw Kaelin when Kaelin came down the north path to the driveway and almost simultaneously he saw Simpson walk up to his front door, enter his house and lights come on downstairs in the house. Based on Park’s telephone records Park saw both Kaelin and Simpson at about 10:55.

bobaugust

Impossible, since Park did not see Kato untill after he finished his first cursory search by the testimony-reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

http://i39.tinypic.com/23jijrd.gif LOL

Is this a picture of the court of public opinion or the posters in the CNN poll of whom 85% thought Simpson was guilty?:)

[GreenIce]

With Kato's fear in mind, if the noise he heard wasn't OJ coming over the fence and hitting the back of his room, what do you sleuths attribute the incident to? If not OJ, what do you think likely caused the noise and the picture to shift?

Serpentsfall,

If the noises were caused by Simpson crashing into the wall, then the DA's should have had no problem recreating it. I have always thought they must have tried to do this.

Clark clearly focused on how the noises were, she never asked him to do the common sense demonstration, she just had him bang on the witness stand rail. It is obvious to me, she had no clue how that glove got back there.

I am sure there were more then enough 200 pound men that could re-enact the "crash".

[serpentsfall]

As another poster posted the glove most likely would have been placed at another place until kato told furhman about the noise.

If the killers wanted to implicate oj the glove would have been planted on his property. someone planted the glove back there but they did not jump the fence to do it.

I don't think it would have been smart to just toss the glove in plain to the driveway in plain sight as oj may have seen it.

What would be the big deal about OJ possibly seeing a bloody glove on his driveway if he knew nothing about Nicole having just been murdered? If someone wanted to frame him, an innocent OJ would get blood on his hands if he saw and picked up the bloody glove! If you think the glove was planted after OJ left for Chicago, he wouldn't have been around to see it but cops would have seen it for sure. Apparently you don't think MF planted the glove, because he DID jump the fence that night to gain entry to Rockingham and the back walkway! So do you think OJ was not guilty but planted the glove to implicate himself?

[William Anthony]

Is this a picture of the court of public opinion or the posters in the CNN poll of whom 85% thought Simpson was guilty?:)

Correction-Pollsters.

[martin II]

Your question is meaningless because it’s based on a false premise amd contradicted by both Park and Kaelin's testimony. It seems you too either haven’t looked at the colored diagram of the Rockingham estate from Wagner’s web site or you don’t know the difference between north and south.

bobaugust

i know the rockingham lay out as well as you or any one else.
The question is meaningless if one does not hasve a answer

[serpentsfall]

Serpentsfall,

If the noises were caused by Simpson crashing into the wall, then the DA's should have had no problem recreating it. I have always thought they must have tried to do this.

Clark clearly focused on how the noises were, she never asked him to do the common sense demonstration, she just had him bang on the witness stand rail. It is obvious to me, she had no clue how that glove got back there.

I am sure there were more then enough 200 pound men that could re-enact the "crash".

Clark apparently assumed the obvious would be obvious and failed to do a thorough recreation. Kato's verbal description of the what happened and his concern about what he heard and felt was enough to convince me that something or someone heavy had hit the back wall of his room that night. In the light of day, when a 200 lb tester can see what he's going to have to slam his body into to make the noise and cause the picture on the wall to move realizes its probably gonna hurt, I can imagine deciding that Kato's verbal description of what happened is going to be enough. I wouldn't ask someone to possibly hurt themselves simply to prove what seems at the time to be an obvious conclusion.

[William Anthony]

Under what scenario other than a drunken mountain lion or a drunken ghost do you have something 200 pounds bumping into a wall three times and leaving no signs of being near the wall?

[martin II]

What would be the big deal about OJ possibly seeing a bloody glove on his driveway if he knew nothing about Nicole having just been murdered? If someone wanted to frame him, an innocent OJ would get blood on his hands if he saw and picked up the bloody glove! If you think the glove was planted after OJ left for Chicago, he wouldn't have been around to see it but cops would have seen it for sure. Apparently you don't think MF planted the glove, because he DID jump the fence that night to gain entry to Rockingham and the back walkway! So do you think OJ was not guilty but planted the glove to implicate himself?

There are many options as to how the glove got there.i have tried to figure that out as you have.There is no evidemce that ANYONE JUMPED THE FENCE.According to le detcetives investigation of the fence area.

I have not said when the glove was placed there. Kato said he heard some noise.That may have been when the glove was placed there but really there is no proof of that.

The glove could have been placed there anytime after the murders up until it was found.

If i had been oj and while loading the bags i saw the glove in my driveway i would haven gotten it off my property.

It is very possible that someone walked to the first or second gate and just tossed the glove to where it was found.

GI brings up a good point If Clarke thought oj crashed against the air conditioner why didn't she bring it to the lab and have it tested for dna to determine who crashed into it. ot at least try to determine. imo

Mf is the only person that we know was in the south walkway.

[martin II]

Clark apparently assumed the obvious would be obvious and failed to do a thorough recreation. Kato's verbal description of the what happened and his concern about what he heard and felt was enough to convince me that something or someone heavy had hit the back wall of his room that night. In the light of day, when a 200 lb tester can see what he's going to have to slam his body into to make the noise and cause the picture on the wall to move realizes its probably gonna hurt, I can imagine deciding that Kato's verbal description of what happened is going to be enough. I wouldn't ask someone to possibly hurt themselves simply to prove what seems at the time to be an obvious conclusion.

After the glove was found the OBVIOUS conclusion for Clarke was that ojumped the fence and put it there.After the detectives said no one jumped the fence and no blood or other evidence was found to verify her claim she put that on the back burner.So what is obvious.

[serpentsfall]

Impossible, since Park did not see Kato untill after he finished his first cursory search by the testimony-reasonable doubt.

William, I've really tried to figure out what you're saying, but I can't. You post testimony that doesn't support what you imply it supports. I'm with Bob August on this. Kato says he left his room, went behind the house and up the north path toward but not to the end of the driveway where Park was parked. He says no downstairs lights were on in the house. Park notices Kato standing in the north lawn area holding a penlight. Beyond where Kato was standing, Park suddenly sees the dark AA figure walking along the south area of the driveway toward the front of the house. Kato's not forward enough towards the driveway to share Park's vantage point enabling him to see the AA figure walking toward the house from the south. Kato is looking the other direction, he sees Park's limo and turns around and goes back the way he came to search further. The downstairs lights in the house are still dark as he passes back. Kato's back would be to the front of the house where Simpson is entering and beginning to turn on lights in the house. Kato can't see behind him. As Park is observing lights coming on in the house, Kato is circling through the back yard area and eventually up the south side of the house toward the Rockingham end of the driveway. At this point lights are on in front of the house and Kato sees the knapsack in the driveway near the car on the south end of the driveway. He looks down the driveway towards north and sees the limo still there, passes the front of the house to go let the limo in through the Ashford gate. Using your vernacular, Kato didn't notice lights on in the house, see the knapsack, or let Park in until he had finished his second cursory search behind the house. Park saw Kato as he was finishing his first cursory search.

[martin II]

Clark apparently assumed the obvious would be obvious and failed to do a thorough recreation. Kato's verbal description of the what happened and his concern about what he heard and felt was enough to convince me that something or someone heavy had hit the back wall of his room that night. In the light of day, when a 200 lb tester can see what he's going to have to slam his body into to make the noise and cause the picture on the wall to move realizes its probably gonna hurt, I can imagine deciding that Kato's verbal description of what happened is going to be enough. I wouldn't ask someone to possibly hurt themselves simply to prove what seems at the time to be an obvious conclusion.

I reposted the info about Kato being in the south walkway for you.
Did you have a chance to review it?

[serpentsfall]

After the glove was found the OBVIOUS conclusion for Clarke was that ojumped the fence and put it there.After the detectives said no one jumped the fence and no blood or other evidence was found to verify her claim she put that on the back burner.So what is obvious.

I don't recall any definitive testimony by detectives that no one jumped the fence. In fact, I thought I read on this board that Lee actually found blood on the air conditioner but I don't remember that from the trial. I recall having seen pictures on somebody's website of the fence/walkway area showing there was a small tree at the fence that a man could use to hoist himself/climb over the fence.

[William Anthony]

William, I've really tried to figure out what you're saying, but I can't. You post testimony that doesn't support what you imply it supports. I'm with Bob August on this. Kato says he left his room, went behind the house and up the north path toward but not to the end of the driveway where Park was parked. He says no downstairs lights were on in the house. Park notices Kato standing in the north lawn area holding a penlight. Beyond where Kato was standing, Park suddenly sees the dark AA figure walking along the south area of the driveway toward the front of the house. Kato's not forward enough towards the driveway to share Park's vantage point enabling him to see the AA figure walking toward the house from the south. Kato is looking the other direction, he sees Park's limo and turns around and goes back the way he came to search further. The downstairs lights in the house are still dark as he passes back. Kato's back would be to the front of the house where Simpson is entering and beginning to turn on lights in the house. Kato can't see behind him. As Park is observing lights coming on in the house, Kato is circling through the back yard area and eventually up the south side of the house toward the Rockingham end of the driveway. At this point lights are on in front of the house and Kato sees the knapsack in the driveway near the car on the south end of the driveway. He looks down the driveway towards north and sees the limo still there, passes the front of the house to go let the limo in through the Ashford gate. Using your vernacular, Kato didn't notice lights on in the house, see the knapsack, or let Park in until he had finished his second cursory search behind the house. Park saw Kato as he was finishing his first cursory search.

Thank you. You may say "as he was finishing" and I may say "after he finished" his first cursory search but neither of us agree that it was at the start of his first cursory search as bobaugust implies.

[serpentsfall]

no not right
kato did no search in the back north yard. you may be confused about locations.
Kato only passed the door twice once going to the south walkway and once comming back from that walkway.


kato walked from his room asround by the north side of the house and south pass the front door LIGHTS out. he continued to the south walkway the garage area.where he searched first.

oj came down with two bags moved the golf bag and went back into the house and tuned the lights on. By then Kato was leaving the south walkway
headed back pass the front door and this time he sees the lights on.

Now. Park said he saw kato on the north walk Ashford and saw a aa walk into the house.saw the lights go on and said someone home.at the same time.

From Katos testimony he was in the south walkway searching when oj turned the lights on.So park did not see Kato at the north side of the house when the lights came.As Kato was in the south walkway searching whenn oj turned the klights on.
i hope this is more clear.

I don't think Kato testified he walked from the north lawn, where he first saw the limo and Park first saw him, to the south walkway by walking down the driveway past the front door. He turned around and went back the way he'd come passing the back of the house to the south walk to investigate.

[martin II]

I don't recall any definitive testimony by detectives that no one jumped the fence. In fact, I thought I read on this board that Lee actually found blood on the air conditioner but I don't remember that from the trial. I recall having seen pictures on somebody's website of the fence/walkway area showing there was a small tree at the fence that a man could use to hoist himself/climb over the fence.

See Vanhatters criminal trial testimony.Lee did a presumptive test for blood
no confirmation test were done by anyone. So no blood was found.I have see no picture of such tree and heard no testimony of such. Jason testified that was no way or impossible for someone to jump the fence, Lee testified that one would have to be in a helicopter to get over the growth.
What i think is that if anyone had jumped that fence and fell against the wall
the leaves on the ground would have been distrubed and would show this in the pictures. Not so,.

[serpentsfall]

Thank you. You may say "as he was finishing" and I may say "after he finished" his first cursory search but neither of us agree that it was at the start of his first cursory search as bobaugust implies.

What it apparently WAS the start of was a first effort to look down the south walkway; he turned back and finally began to investigate the area where the noise was heard.

[William Anthony]

I don't think Kato testified he walked from the north lawn, where he first saw the limo and Park first saw him, to the south walkway by walking down the driveway past the front door. He turned around and went back the way he'd come passing the back of the house to the south walk to investigate.

Kato-March 22nd

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. "

Kato testified that he went to let the limo in after he finished his first cursory search and Park testified that it was within a minute and a half to two minutes after he saw the Black figure enter the house. The question is not when Kato saw the limo for the first time but when Park saw Kato for the first time and Park supplied that answer.:) Park waited thirty seconds to go to the buzzer after seeing the Black figure, Simpson responded almost immediately and it was twenty to thirty seconds after that when Kato buzzed him in. Kato had finished his first cursory search of the area behind his quarters when Park first saw Kato. Least I forget the most important part, Park saw Kato simultaneous to the time he saw the Black figure he thought was Simpson.

[martin II]

I don't think Kato testified he walked from the north lawn, where he first saw the limo and Park first saw him, to the south walkway by walking down the driveway past the front door. He turned around and went back the way he'd come passing the back of the house to the south walk to investigate.

I posted and others have posted Katos testimony of his path from his room to the south walkway.

I gave you the layout of the property showing Katos quarters and all important point on his walk to the south walkway.Kato walked from his room Not any north Lawn.

He walked pass the FRONT OF THE HOUSE. Not THE BACK of the house when he saw the lights not on and then on.

Kato walked from his rome to a point on the north side of the house at Ashford and then down the driveway in front of the house to the area of the garage to the south walkway.All of this is in front of the house.

I hope you are not ignoring Katos testimony that i and others have posted on where he walked.
If this is not clear by now i may not be able to make it clearer.
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

I post her for the same reason i think most do. For fun because i like to discuss the different testimony. Because there were some interesting arguments made. Because i learn much about the law and because i can.

Really? Because I don't see you having fun. I see you as frequently becoming agitated and somewhat hostile when a poster challenges you or, in some cases, simply does not agree with you.

Kate