Random Discussions On The Case

[fgump2]

fgump2,

I do don't know what comments Simpson made that you found to be distasteful.

As for what Baker said about Ron and the credit card, that was part of his job. The civil trial is about money. He knew the case was lost before he even entered the courtroom and he knew that Ron's earning ability would be a factor when it came to determining the size of the judgement. I found the comment to be cold but it was the truth.

The Goldmans had the same attitude about Sydney and Justin. They could not show any compassion for them because it would interfere with their plans regarding the judgement.
************************************************** *******
I didn't keep score on the statements by OJS that I found in bad taste, but I have heard others say the same thing; that he said tasteless things about Fred Goldman, and also Nicole, perhaps the Browns as well. I believe OJS said 'sometimes when a man kills a woman, she had it coming'. I believe he also said 'Even if I did kill her, it would have had to have been because I loved her so much'. I am pretty sure she said that in an interview with a woman reporter. I know it would be more convincing if I had links or at least references to whatever media editions with page numbers.

To me lawyer Bob Baker's statement was said in an insulting manner. If he was trying to keep the financial judgment down, I think he would have said it in a less abrasive manner. Such as: I realize that Ron was a nice young man, but let's face it, he handled money badly, and didn't have a good financial future". In any case most of the judgment was punitive, not as compensation for earnings lost.

One of the reasons I have a low opinion of Johnnie Cochran is that he didn't say anything sympathetic to or about the Goldmans or Browns after the criminal trial. I realize you don't like the Browns and Goldmans either, but I find it easy to feel and express sympathy for people even where I don't like some of their behavior. Of course nobody else of the OJS dream expressed any sympathy either, including OJS himself. I thought it would have helped heal the country a little if either J. Cochran or OJS could have had a bit of class, and had expressed some sympathy.

I think it is great when people express sympathy for people they might think of as enemies. For example, when George McGovern said sympathetic and friendly things about Richard Nixon. Also when prof. Harry Edwards, who has often been viewed as a black militant, said friendly and sympathetic things to and about a man who had been accused of racism, Al Campanis (name possibly misspelled), a former LA Dodger executive.

[fgump2]

I find myself constantly correcting your post
blloominghdales shoe sales manager that serviced celiberties testified that he never sold oj those BM shoes. That he would never sale oj those shoes for the weather in Buffalo. He sold him some other shoes.

Obviously you have little experience with dress gloves.Oj nor anyone else would have selected Aris light thin dress gloves fior cold weather use.If you paid any attentuion to mr Rubins testinmony you would know this.
There is nothing wrong with you making wild accusations but your post would have more credibility if you would add links so posters could read your claims for themselves. The other issue is if your claims were closer to the facts it would be easier for posters to believe them.
************************************************** ******
I don't think it is or was important how good these gloves were for cold weather. My estimate of how many gloves of that type and size (less than 100) was closer than yours of over 10,000. I never said the a Bloomingdale manager said they sold him those shoes. I have shopped at Bloomingdales, and it doesn't look to me like they keep score on who buys what shoes. Most stores don't. I am pretty sure I never posted that OJS bought those shoes at any specific store.

[fgump2]

william
here is wagners conclusions of test of blood on concrete


From this, there are two conclusions. The first is that there does not appear to be any reason to believe that Fuhrman was lying, mistaken, or embellishing. Insofar as blood on concrete shows "glistening" even after 7 days, it is not at all obvious that another surface -- leather -- might not also show glistening a long time after blood is deposited on it. The second conclusion is that we were mistaken to interpret "glistening" as indicating freshness of the stain, since this condition can be seen, under some conditions at least, a week after the blood is deposited. We were led astray because we had not made a methodical study of drying blood. We did not know that the "freshness" indication with which we were most familiar ("glistening" on paper or cloth) does not apply to concrete. And, nobody who did know bothered to tell us.

Were we misled? Of course we were. But, it is not clear that we were lied to. Can a person tell a recent (12 hour old) blood stain on concrete from an old (7 days) stain? No. Some people might be able tell a brand new (less than 2 hours old) stain from one that was a week old, but most of us could not reliably do even that. So, even after the blood-on-concrete test, it appears that a policeman's opinion that he was looking at blood (or a remarkable facsimile) is reliable, but his guess about its age is not. And, we are enlightened about "glistening."

************************************************** ****
This would have more credibility with me if it were written by a criminologist who wasn't trying to make points about the Simpson-Goldman murders. I think I have seen blood dry up and look faded in less than a day, but I could be wrong.

In Petrocelli's book, on page 144, OJS is quoted in the civil testimony that he was there one about 5 or six days before the murders, and he didn't remember bleeding. Of course a person could have forgotten; that disposition would have been more than a year later, maybe more than two.

OJS would have given a lot of thought to whether or not he bled there as soon as the police questioned him after the murders. It is still possible he bled, and forgot about it; but I don't think this is likely. OJS was and is a neat freak. Also most former athletes are very concerned with health issues.
In any case it would have been an amazing coincidence for OJS to bleed innocently near his wife's house, and then have two murders take place at the location of the blood less than a week later.
I believe that if blood is found at murder scene, we have to consider the possibility that it got there innocently, but in this case that possibility is pretty slim.

[martin II]

************************************************** *******
I didn't keep score on the statements by OJS that I found in bad taste, but I have heard others say the same thing; that he said tasteless things about Fred Goldman, and also Nicole, perhaps the Browns as well. I believe OJS said 'sometimes when a man kills a woman, she had it coming'. I believe he also said 'Even if I did kill her, it would have had to have been because I loved her so much'. I am pretty sure she said that in an interview with a woman reporter. I know it would be more convincing if I had links or at least references to whatever media editions with page numbers. When the not guilty verdict was read Fred made a long statement calling oj a dog and SOB and made other negative comments against the jury. Oj is quoted as saying he had no problem With Goldman i am sure Cochran never made a negative comment about Fred as that is not his MO.

To me lawyer Bob Baker's statement was said in an insulting manner. If he was trying to keep the financial judgment down, I think he would have said it in a less abrasive manner. Such as: I realize that Ron was a nice young man, but let's face it, he handled money badly, and didn't have a good financial future". In any case most of the judgment was punitive, not as compensation for earnings lost.

One of the reasons I have a low opinion of Johnnie Cochran is that he didn't say anything sympathetic to or about the Goldmans or Browns after the criminal trial.I am not sure yiu are aware of the statements Cochran made after the trial. I realize you don't like the Browns and Goldmans either, but I find it easy to feel and express sympathy for people even where I don't like some of their behavior. Of course nobody else of the OJS dream expressed any sympathy either, including OJS himself. I thought it would have helped heal the country a little if either J. Cochran or OJS could have had a bit of class, and had expressed some sympathy. It would have contributed to healing the country if fred had just said i don't agree with the jury verdict but they have spoken then filed his civil suit.

I think it is great when people express sympathy for people they might think of as enemies. For example, when George McGovern said sympathetic and friendly things about Richard Nixon. Also when prof. Harry Edwards, who has often been viewed as a black militant, said friendly and sympathetic things to and about a man who had been accused of racism, Al Campanis (name possibly misspelled), a former LA Dodger executive.

I am not aware of the defence team saying negative things about fred

[martin II]

He walked through the open gate.

Heidstra said he heard the metal gate slam closed when the hey hey hey was heard so if it was closed the dog could not have walked through it.

[GreenIce]

************************************************** *******
I didn't keep score on the statements by OJS that I found in bad taste, but I have heard others say the same thing; that he said tasteless things about Fred Goldman, and also Nicole, perhaps the Browns as well. I believe OJS said 'sometimes when a man kills a woman, she had it coming'. I believe he also said 'Even if I did kill her, it would have had to have been because I loved her so much'. I am pretty sure she said that in an interview with a woman reporter. I know it would be more convincing if I had links or at least references to whatever media editions with page numbers.

To me lawyer Bob Baker's statement was said in an insulting manner. If he was trying to keep the financial judgment down, I think he would have said it in a less abrasive manner. Such as: I realize that Ron was a nice young man, but let's face it, he handled money badly, and didn't have a good financial future". In any case most of the judgment was punitive, not as compensation for earnings lost.

One of the reasons I have a low opinion of Johnnie Cochran is that he didn't say anything sympathetic to or about the Goldmans or Browns after the criminal trial. I realize you don't like the Browns and Goldmans either, but I find it easy to feel and express sympathy for people even where I don't like some of their behavior. Of course nobody else of the OJS dream expressed any sympathy either, including OJS himself. I thought it would have helped heal the country a little if either J. Cochran or OJS could have had a bit of class, and had expressed some sympathy.

I think it is great when people express sympathy for people they might think of as enemies. For example, when George McGovern said sympathetic and friendly things about Richard Nixon. Also when prof. Harry Edwards, who has often been viewed as a black militant, said friendly and sympathetic things to and about a man who had been accused of racism, Al Campanis (name possibly misspelled), a former LA Dodger executive.

Fgump2,

Simpson never made an acutal comment, about loving her too much. This was said in a question and it was a response to the person interviewing him, which I think it was the ESPN interview. I don't remember him saying that sometimes when a man kills a woman, she had it coming. I think he also did talk about this with the female reporter, I think her last name was Farber?

However, it has not been that long ago, in some states, that if a man caught his wife in bed with another man, it was justifiable homicide. IMO, if you look at the verdicts of man who have killed because their spouse was cheating on them, they get a tremendous amount of compassion and their sentences do not even come close to the length in time that a woman gets when she kills her husband because of domestic abuse. The battered woman's syndrome, which is I believe is a true defense does not generate the same compassion as the cheating wife defense, IMO. I think Georgia in the 80's took that record off the books.

I am sure you will agree that a man cheating or running around on his wife is a "horn dog", has nothing to do with the love of his wife, doesn't make him bad father, etc. A woman who does the exact same thing, is not called a "horn dog" she is called names and she can't be a good mother and her running around is proof of that. We do not just have racial issues when it comes our legal system, but there is also sexism, as well as men killing gay men because they tried to pick them up or other such nonsense. We had the President of the US deny that he did not sexual relations with ML and she only engaged in oral sex---how many came out and said they agreed with him? Are you kidding me? (About the President).

[GreenIce]

2fgump,

I have never posted that I did not like the Browns or the Goldmans. In fact, Martin and I have completely different views on the Goldmans. I have posted a few times that I believe if you keep this case exactly as it is, but only but Ron in the defendant's chair, is father would be just as vocal in defending the verdict. I have also posted that Mr. Goldman needs to do what he needs to do to get himself out of bed in the morning. I don't fault him on this.

As for the Browns, I have always defended them and I will continue to so. I have always said it was unfair how the Browns were treated by the media as well as that we do not know the whole story about them and their relationship with Nicole. I do not believe that they wanted Nicole to stay with OJ for the money nor do I believe that she stayed with him all these years because of it.

[GreenIce]

In regards to what Baker said about Ron and the credit card, we don't know how it was said. We had to rely on the media for their comments on this and their interpetation on the comment. Baker knew he had a hostile jury, he knew every word he said about Ron was going to be seen as insulting to the jury, however, he still had to do what he had to do. At times, there is no easy way or the right words to use when it comes to the truth. IMO.

I think it is fair to say that Mr. Goldman would not have accepted any compassionate words from any of the defense team. They knew how the Goldmans felt about them and IMO, had they approached them with words of sympathy, it would have caused Fred to explode. Every G, including the Goldmans will say that every one has a right to a defense in a court of law, however, when the defense lawyer does their job, they are hated because they did their job well.

From everything I read, the Browns were able to handle the words, "Nicole is in a better place", they were able to find some comfort because of the their Catholic faith. Mr. Goldman did not take those words in the same way, he was enraged by them. I think it is fair to say that no words were going to comfort him and it would have been foolish had the defense even attempted to. IMO.

[martin II]

************************************************** ******
I don't think it is or was important how good these gloves were for cold weather. My estimate of how many gloves of that type and size (less than 100) was closer than yours of over 10,000. I never said the a Bloomingdale manager said they sold him those shoes. I have shopped at Bloomingdales, and it doesn't look to me like they keep score on who buys what shoes. Most stores don't. I am pretty sure I never posted that OJS bought those shoes at any specific store.

You or another poster posted that the number of gloves bloomingdales had was small i posted the amoount they purchased 1,000 Doz for the benefit of those that did not know the number.

You posted that the gloves were cold weather gloves and i posted that they were dress gloves.Are you now saying they were not cold weather gloves?

The bloomingdales managers job was to sell shoes to celebrity clients like oj Simpson when they came to the store.He had always sold Oj all of his shoes and knew what he purchased in the past and at that event.He was a personal shopper so i believe he knew his job and was accurate when he testified that Oj did not purchase any BM shoes. He was ojs personal shopper and stated that he would have never sold him that shoe for his work in the Buffalo snow.

It was the prosecution that determined that the BM had to be purchased at Bloomingdales But as Big Ben has informed us a japanese shoe company had the same shoe sole mold and made thousands of shoes using that mold. Lloyds is the name if you are interested.
Stores that offer personal shopper service do keep track on what their celebrity clients purchase.

[martin II]

Fgump2,

Simpson never made an acutal comment, about loving her too much. This was said in a question and it was a response to the person interviewing him, which I think it was the ESPN interview. I don't remember him saying that sometimes when a man kills a woman, she had it coming. I think he also did talk about this with the female reporter, I think her last name was Farber?

However, it has not been that long ago, in some states, that if a man caught his wife in bed with another man, it was justifiable homicide. IMO, if you look at the verdicts of man who have killed because their spouse was cheating on them, they get a tremendous amount of compassion and their sentences do not even come close to the length in time that a woman gets when she kills her husband because of domestic abuse. The battered woman's syndrome, which is I believe is a true defense does not generate the same compassion as the cheating wife defense, IMO. I think Georgia in the 80's took that record off the books.

I am sure you will agree that a man cheating or running around on his wife is a "horn dog", has nothing to do with the love of his wife, doesn't make him bad father, etc. A woman who does the exact same thing, is not called a "horn dog" she is called names and she can't be a good mother and her running around is proof of that. We do not just have racial issues when it comes our legal system, but there is also sexism, as well as men killing gay men because they tried to pick them up or other such nonsense. We had the President of the US deny that he did not sexual relations with ML and she only engaged in oral sex---how many came out and said they agreed with him? Are you kidding me? (About the President).


Any comment oj made about Nicole was twisted into something horrible by the reporting media. Some media reported things he never said and this was done to as paert of some media efforts to demonize him to shape public opinion. It was a no win situatuion for him. If he refused to answer trick questions he was being evasive,evidence of guilt, if he gave a answer it was modified to show him as uncaring and guilty.He did say that he had no problem with the goldmans even after freds speech on the court house steps after the verdict.

[martin II]

************************************************** ****
This would have more credibility with me if it were written by a criminologist who wasn't trying to make points about the Simpson-Goldman murders. I think I have seen blood dry up and look faded in less than a day, but I could be wrong.

In Petrocelli's book, on page 144, OJS is quoted in the civil testimony that he was there one about 5 or six days before the murders, and he didn't remember bleeding. Of course a person could have forgotten; that disposition would have been more than a year later, maybe more than two.

OJS would have given a lot of thought to whether or not he bled there as soon as the police questioned him after the murders. It is still possible he bled, and forgot about it; but I don't think this is likely. OJS was and is a neat freak. Also most former athletes are very concerned with health issues.
In any case it would have been an amazing coincidence for OJS to bleed innocently near his wife's house, and then have two murders take place at the location of the blood less than a week later.
I believe that if blood is found at murder scene, we have to consider the possibility that it got there innocently, but in this case that possibility is pretty slim.

In wagners case he did several actual experiements to test the various claims made by both sides.He did mote than any criminologist did in the case
and his results proved certain claims wrong.He never said his results were final but that they were the results of his experiments. He did the blood age test under organized experiements not just what he thought was the case.I accept his test efforts and results over what i may have thought fresh blood looked like.The truth is often in the details.

[martin II]

Thank you Martin. We all get fired up sometimes. :-)

No harm done.

Well, except for making me hungry with all the food talk. *lol* So I made chicken and veggie stir fry and lemon pudding with a graham cracker crust for dessert.

Thanks

I try to maintain my cool but when i am accused of being william and he me,
that was over the top as there is no confusion by posters as to who william is and who Martin II

Thanks for accepting my apology.
Martin II

[martin II]

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

Here is the Rockingham layout for those that are not sure of where north and south is.I think i can answer any questions if there are any.

[William Anthony]

Thanks

I try to maintain my cool but when i am accused of being william and he me,
that was over the top as there is no confusion by posters as to who william is and who Martin II

Thanks for accepting my apology.
Martin II

I think it was a recognition of the fact that great minds think alike.:)

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

What if the Browns truly believed there was only one incident where it got physical? What bothers me about all these "friends". They say they saw all this abuse yet all of them seemed to still want to be associated with OJ Simpson. They certainly enjoyed the benefits of his star status, they still vacationed with them. What did Nicole mean that if she died, her friends would sell her out?

Perhaps a better example is with Kato, he says Nicole told him that OJ was going to kill her and what weapon he would use---yet he moves in to Simpson's estate?

Did any of these friends give a deposition or go to the DA's with their story?

But the Brown's didn't believe that, as we heard Juditha and Denise both recount times that they either witnessed, or were told by Nicole, about abuse. The problem is that they didn't take it seriously, and they have expressed sorrow regarding such. I do believe that it is easy to be blinded by celebrity and dollars. In addition, we must recall that most of the abuse happened in the 1970's and 1980's at a time when domestic violence was still very much viewed as a dirty little secret and a private family affair.

Some of her friends did go to the DA.

Kate

[martin II]

I think it was a recognition of the fact that great minds think alike.:)

There is a saying about the damage idle minds can do also.
"Loose lips shink ships"

[William Anthony]

There is a saying about the damage idle minds can do also.
"Loose lips shink ships"

We have recently witnessed the demise of one on a sinking ship, who I truly believe suffered from an over active imagination that caused his lips to go into over drive and blew the sails right of the masts.

[weezer]

SNIPPED *** . . .The Goldmans had the same attitude about Sydney and Justin. They could not show any compassion for them because it would interfere with their plans regarding the judgement.

I rest my case. :seeya:

[tv]

We have recently witnessed the demise of one on a sinking ship, who I truly believe suffered from an over active imagination that caused his lips to go into over drive and blew the sails right of the masts.
Who and what are you talking about? When I witness a demise I at least like to be aware of it.

[Kate Sachel]

fgump2,

I do don't know what comments Simpson made that you found to be distasteful.

As for what Baker said about Ron and the credit card, that was part of his job. The civil trial is about money. He knew the case was lost before he even entered the courtroom and he knew that Ron's earning ability would be a factor when it came to determining the size of the judgement. I found the comment to be cold but it was the truth.

The Goldmans had the same attitude about Sydney and Justin. They could not show any compassion for them because it would interfere with their plans regarding the judgement.

I am almost in disbelief at this point.

Are you aware that Plaintiffs Rufo and Goldman did not ask for damages pertaining to Ron Goldman's future earning potential? Obviously you are not aware of such or you would not be making the misinformed statements that you have made.

You may be under the impression that because compensatory damages were awarded means that Fred Goldman was asking to be compensated for the loss of Ron's future wages. But compensatory damages can be awarded to a Plaintiff for many things such as emotional pain and suffering, loss of companionship, loss of enjoyment of life, etc.

Let us be clear - Ronald Goldman's future earning potential was not a claim in that case, and damages/awards were never asked for regarding such. Daniel Petrocelli had to make that clear to the jurors in the aftermath of Baker's callous comments regarding credit cards and restaurant dreams so that they would be certain to understand.

Please do your research and then be so kind as to correct your misstatements that Ron Goldman's earning potential would be or was a factor in determining the size of the judgment.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Who and what are you talking about? When I witness a demise I at least like to be aware of it.

It is not that important. Let me just say that the forum is better off without him, imho.

[old_soul]

I try to maintain my cool but when i am accused of being william and he me,
that was over the top as there is no confusion by posters as to who william is and who Martin II

[QUOTE=martin II;9179029]There is a saying about the damage idle minds can do also.
"Loose lips shink ships"

We have recently witnessed the demise of one on a sinking ship, who I truly believe suffered from an over active imagination that caused his lips to go into over drive and blew the sails right of the masts.

It reminds one of a puppeteer, this little game you play.

You care to continue this Martin? I don't believe in wolf pack mentality...with that being said, I will advise you to cease with your comments...you are only making things worse. That goes for your 'other personalities' also.....

Being snide is a sad personality trait, especially when coupled with ignorance....Everything you posted on this page about the shoes and gloves is just that. The proof is in the photos.

[William Anthony]

"Being snide is a sad personality trait, especially when coupled with ignorance'

True dat.

[tv]

In regards to what Baker said about Ron and the credit card, we don't know how it was said. We had to rely on the media for their comments on this and their interpetation on the comment. Baker knew he had a hostile jury, he knew every word he said about Ron was going to be seen as insulting to the jury, however, he still had to do what he had to do. At times, there is no easy way or the right words to use when it comes to the truth. IMO.

I think it is fair to say that Mr. Goldman would not have accepted any compassionate words from any of the defense team. They knew how the Goldmans felt about them and IMO, had they approached them with words of sympathy, it would have caused Fred to explode. Every G, including the Goldmans will say that every one has a right to a defense in a court of law, however, when the defense lawyer does their job, they are hated because they did their job well.

From everything I read, the Browns were able to handle the words, "Nicole is in a better place", they were able to find some comfort because of the their Catholic faith. Mr. Goldman did not take those words in the same way, he was enraged by them. I think it is fair to say that no words were going to comfort him and it would have been foolish had the defense even attempted to. IMO.

What difference did it make to the crime itself and the outcome of the case to ridicule Ron Goldman in front of his grieving father? It was low and it was unnecessary. His mockery of Ron Goldman was disgusting no matter how he said it. Please don't say every G hates defense lawyers because I hate no one.

[old_soul]

I am almost in disbelief at this point.

Are you aware that Plaintiffs Rufo and Goldman did not ask for damages pertaining to Ron Goldman's future earning potential? Obviously you are not aware of such or you would not be making the misinformed statements that you have made.

You may be under the impression that because compensatory damages were awarded means that Fred Goldman was asking to be compensated for the loss of Ron's future wages. But compensatory damages can be awarded to a Plaintiff for many things such as emotional pain and suffering, loss of companionship, loss of enjoyment of life, etc.

Let us be clear - Ronald Goldman's future earning potential was not a claim in that case, and damages/awards were never asked for regarding such. Daniel Petrocelli had to make that clear to the jurors in the aftermath of Baker's callous comments regarding credit cards and restaurant dreams so that they would be certain to understand.

Please do your research and then be so kind as to correct your misstatements that Ron Goldman's earning potential would be or was a factor in determining the size of the judgment.

Kate

:beer:

[William Anthony]

...I hate no one.

Great minds think alike. :)

[tv]

[QUOTE=martin II;9179025]

I try to maintain my cool but when i am accused of being william and he me,
that was over the top as there is no confusion by posters as to who william is and who Martin II





It reminds one of a puppeteer, this little game you play.

You care to continue this Martin? I don't believe in wolf pack mentality...with that being said, I will advise you to cease with your comments...you are only making things worse. That goes for your 'other personalities' also.....

Being snide is a sad personality trait, especially when coupled with ignorance....Everything you posted on this page about the shoes and gloves is just that. The proof is in the photos.

Glad to see you old_soul. From the last few posts I was afraid you'd left the forum. :)

[tv]

It is not that important. Let me just say that the forum is better off without him, imho.

Are you talking about old_soul? I think he/she makes a great contribution.

[weezer]

I try to maintain my cool but when i am accused of being william and he me,
that was over the top as there is no confusion by posters as to who william is and who Martin II





It reminds one of a puppeteer, this little game you play.

You care to continue this Martin? I don't believe in wolf pack mentality...with that being said, I will advise you to cease with your comments...you are only making things worse. That goes for your 'other personalities' also.....

Being snide is a sad personality trait, especially when coupled with ignorance....Everything you posted on this page about the shoes and gloves is just that. The proof is in the photos.

:beer::beer:

[old_soul]

[QUOTE=old_soul;9179035]

Glad to see you old_soul. From the last few posts I was afraid you'd left the forum. :)

Hey there, TV, thanks..I'm still here..I won't be leaving anytime soon..unlike others who might not want to bother with some of the other posters here...

(Though, I was warned beforehand :cool:)

[tv]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9179040]

Hey there, TV, thanks..I'm still here..I won't be leaving anytime soon..unlike others who might not want to bother with some of the other posters here...

(Though, I was warned beforehand :cool:)

Hang tough, old soul -- it's all smoke and mirrors. :D

[William Anthony]

Are you talking about old_soul? I think he/she makes a great contribution.

"Is"-a state of present existence. "Would be"- a state of things that has not yet come into existence.

[tv]

"Is"-a state of present existence. "Would be"- a state of things that has not yet come into existence.

Okay, William. If you want to be secretive it's okay with me. Who cares? :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Okay, William. If you want to be secretive it's okay with me. Who cares? :shrug:

I am not being secretive. I said what I meant and used the word is, attempting to show you that there was no need for your question about to whom you thought I was referring. I did not say "would be better off". I said "is better off", unless your are implying that Old Soul has been here before.

[tv]

I am not being secretive. I said what I meant and used the word is, attempting to show you that there was no need for your question about to whom you thought I was referring. I did not say "would be better off". I said "is better off", unless your are implying that Old Soul has been here before.

I repeat -- who cares?

[William Anthony]

I repeat -- who cares?

I thought you did since you asked. However, if you do not care, then there must have been another reason for your inquiry, imho. :)

[tv]

I thought you did since you asked. However, if you do not care, then there must have been another reason for your inquiry, imho. :)

I had mild interest but when you started with your double-talk and twisting of your own words I rapidly grew tired of the whole subject. I'd rather talk about the life and crimes of OJ Simpson.

[William Anthony]

I had mild interest but when you started with your double-talk and twisting of your own words I rapidly grew tired of the whole subject. I'd rather talk about the life and crimes of OJ Simpson.

I think that is the proper subject of discussion and not what a poster thinks another poster may be as to having various personalities, which you seemed to have applauded the poster on those posts. I have not twisted or double spoke and, in fact, showed you the tense of the passive verb I used as to what it meant. You seemingly didn't like the answer and responded with who cares. With that said, I concur that the proper subject for discussion is the Simpson case without unnecessary and unwarranted speculation as to the personalities of other posters, which I might add that I believe you have the power to set that poster straight and end the false accusations. :)

[tv]

I think that is the proper subject of discussion and not what a poster thinks another poster may be as to having various personalities, which you seemed to have applauded the poster on those posts. I have not twisted or double spoke and, in fact, showed you the tense of the passive verb I used as to what it meant. You seemingly didn't like the answer and responded with who cares. With that said, I concur that the proper subject for discussion is the Simpson case without unnecessary and unwarranted speculation as to the personalities of other posters, which I might add that I believe you have the power to set that poster straight and end the false accusations. :)

Any power that I have to help you will not be exercised. You forfeited that right when you rejected my inquiry in PM and then revealed the content of that PM on the board. You're on your own from now on. If you want to think of me as your enemy then I'll try to fill that role to your satisfaction. Now this subject is closed unless you want to post to yourself about it. I wouldn't want to see the forum put in jeopardy due to bickering between you and me. :)

[weezer]

I am not being secretive. I said what I meant and used the word is, attempting to show you that there was no need for your question about to whom you thought I was referring. I did not say "would be better off". I said "is better off", unless your are implying that Old Soul has been here before.

I wouldn't be so quick to put this in the past -- there may be more yet to come! ;)

[William Anthony]

Any power that I have to help you will not be exercised. You forfeited that right when you rejected my inquiry in PM and then revealed the content of that PM on the board. You're on your own from now on. If you want to think of me as your enemy then I'll try to fill that role to your satisfaction. Now this subject is closed unless you want to post to yourself about it. I wouldn't want to see the forum put in jeopardy due to bickering between you and me. :)

How about helping Martin or how about just setting the record straight? For the record I was not asking for you assistance. I thought the poster may need your assistance in order not to continue making false accusations and breaking the rules. Lighthearted banter, lighthearted banter, remember?:)

[tv]

How about helping Martin or how about just setting the record straight? For the record I was not asking for you assistance. I thought the poster may need your assistance in order not to continue making false accusations and breaking the rules. Lighthearted banter, lighthearted banter, remember?:)
Nope, ask someone else.

[old_soul]

TV, since you love beans so much, I'm posting my infamous pasta fagoli soup. You will love it.

Shop list:

2 thick slices pancetta or bacon
a few springs fresh thyme (if dry, 1/4 tsp)
2 carrots diced small
1 med. onion, finely chopped
5 cloves garlic, finely chopped
2 large cans cannellini beans drained
2 cups chicken stock (if you use cans, 2 cans)
3 cups of water
1/2 lb Ditalini pasta
4 Tablespoons extra virgin olive oil

Put your salted water on for pasta ~ when water boils, cook Ditalini till el dente

Brown pancetta/bacon in OO first, then add: thyme, carrots, garlic, onion and season with salt and pepper. add beans, stock and water. Bring to a slow/medium boil and cook 15 min. Remove thyme stems if you used fresh... Your pasta should have been done already, so make sure you have drained it, and add it to the bean soup. I usually will cook it together for about another 7 minutes to thicken it up. Coarse grated Percarino Romano, fresh cracked black pepper, and a splash of OO.... The cheese is optional, but soooo good on top!

Restaurants are in the family, and this was my Grandmother recipe. With a nice crusty Italian bread, some Bruchetta (I'll Post) and Vino......:beer:

[William Anthony]

An old saying

"Wish in one hand and defecate in the other and see which one gets filled first." Smile.

[tv]

This sounds delicious! I'm going to try it on Sunday and see how it turns out. Thanks so much! :beer:

[William Anthony]

Nope, ask someone else.

Alrighty then. :)

[weezer]

TV, since you love beans so much, I'm posting my infamous pasta fagoli soup. You will love it.

Shop list:

2 thick slices pancetta or bacon
a few springs fresh thyme (if dry, 1/4 tsp)
2 carrots diced small
1 med. onion, finely chopped
5 cloves garlic, finely chopped
2 large cans cannellini beans drained
2 cups chicken stock (if you use cans, 2 cans)
3 cups of water
1/2 lb Ditalini pasta
4 Tablespoons extra virgin olive oil

Put your salted water on for pasta ~ when water boils, cook Ditalini till el dente

Brown pancetta/bacon in OO first, then add: thyme, carrots, garlic, onion and season with salt and pepper. add beans, stock and water. Bring to a slow/medium boil and cook 15 min. Remove thyme stems if you used fresh... Your pasta should have been done already, so make sure you have drained it, and add it to the bean soup. I usually will cook it together for about another 7 minutes to thicken it up. Coarse grated Percarino Romano, fresh cracked black pepper, and a splash of OO.... The cheese is optional, but soooo good on top!

Restaurants are in the family, and this was my Grandmother recipe. With a nice crusty Italian bread, some Bruchetta (I'll Post) and Vino......:beer:

sounds wonderful -- do you mind if I send it on?

[William Anthony]

MF's testimony-March 1995

"Q: AND YOU FELT THE COBWEBS WHERE? ON YOUR FACE, ON YOUR SHOULDERS? CAN YOU TELL US?

A: YES, ON MY FACE AND -- INITIALLY ON MY FACE.

Q: OKAY.

A: I WENT UNDERNEATH THE AIR CONDITIONER.

Q: AND HOW TALL ARE YOU?

A: SIX FOOT THREE.

Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU GOT TO THE REAR OF THE LOCATION YOU SAW THAT AREA AND WAS THERE -- WAS IT LIKE A DIRT AREA BACK THERE?

A: SOMEWHAT. THERE WAS PLANTS AND THERE WAS WILD GRASS AND THERE WAS SOME SHRUBBERY AND THERE WAS SOME PLANTS THAT LOOKED LIKE THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF OR PLANTED THERE ON PURPOSE.

Q: DID YOU LOOK AROUND?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID -- OTHER THAN WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DESCRIBED, DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE?

A: I FOUND NO -- NO EVIDENCE OF ANYONE BEING THERE OR ANY EVIDENCE OF ANYBODY LEAVING SOMETHING IN THAT AREA, SO I LEFT. "

[tv]

MF's testimony-March 1995

"Q: AND YOU FELT THE COBWEBS WHERE? ON YOUR FACE, ON YOUR SHOULDERS? CAN YOU TELL US?

A: YES, ON MY FACE AND -- INITIALLY ON MY FACE.

Q: OKAY.

A: I WENT UNDERNEATH THE AIR CONDITIONER.

Q: AND HOW TALL ARE YOU?

A: SIX FOOT THREE.

Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU GOT TO THE REAR OF THE LOCATION YOU SAW THAT AREA AND WAS THERE -- WAS IT LIKE A DIRT AREA BACK THERE?

A: SOMEWHAT. THERE WAS PLANTS AND THERE WAS WILD GRASS AND THERE WAS SOME SHRUBBERY AND THERE WAS SOME PLANTS THAT LOOKED LIKE THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF OR PLANTED THERE ON PURPOSE.

Q: DID YOU LOOK AROUND?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID -- OTHER THAN WHAT YOU HAVE JUST DESCRIBED, DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE?

A: I FOUND NO -- NO EVIDENCE OF ANYONE BEING THERE OR ANY EVIDENCE OF ANYBODY LEAVING SOMETHING IN THAT AREA, SO I LEFT. "

Just because there were no obvious signs doesn't mean no one had been back there.

[old_soul]

sounds wonderful -- do you mind if I send it on?



Go for it! It serves 4, and is better next day!

Bruchetta

2 large ugly ripe tomatoes or best tasting (NO PLUM TOMATOES OK)
Handful of Fresh Basil
2 cloves garlic, minced
1 medium onion, diced really small
salt & pepper

Cut tomatoes into 3/4 inch cubes..all juices and cubes in bowl and salt it..it brings out the tomato's juices even more. add about 1/4 cup water.
Julienne basil (skinny strips) and add it with the garlic and onions. mix well and add cracked pepper. cover and let sit for 5 minutes while you slice and lightly toast Italian or french bread, serve bruchetta on top.

[William Anthony]

Just because there were no obvious signs doesn't mean no one had been back there.

"No Evidence, No evidence, No evidence. Found no evidence.

[William Anthony]

March 14th

"Q: DID YOU THEN AND THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, DECIDE ON YOUR OWN TO GO OUT AND INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF THAT SOUND?

A: I DECIDED TO GO OUT AND TRY TO ORIENT MYSELF WITH THE PROPERTY AND SEE WHERE THAT SOUND COULD HAVE COME FROM, YES.

Q: DID YOU DECIDE THAT YOU WOULD GO TO THE PROBABLE SOURCE AS DESCRIBED BY MR. KAELIN BY RELATING IT TO AN AIR CONDITIONER THAT PLAINLY STUCK THROUGH THE WALL?

A: I THINK WHEN I WENT TO THE SOUTH BORDER AND I SAW THE PATH, I WALKED DOWN THE PATH AS A CONTINUATION OF DISCOVERING WHERE THAT SOUND OF THAT WALL WAS LOCATED.

Q: WE ARE STILL BACK IN KATO'S ROOM. I'M ASKING WHETHER OR NOT BEFORE YOU EVER LEFT THAT ROOM YOU MADE A DECISION THAT YOU WOULD GO INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF THE SOUND?

A: I BELIEVE WHEN I WALKED -- WHEN I WALKED HIM INTO THE HOUSE AND I WALKED THROUGH THE HOUSE, WHEN I TOLD PHIL, "WHY DON'T YOU TALK TO THIS GUY AT THE BAR," I THINK I HAD DECIDED TO GO OUT AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT SOUND CAME FROM ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE WALL, YES. "

[tv]

March 14th

"Q: DID YOU THEN AND THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, DECIDE ON YOUR OWN TO GO OUT AND INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF THAT SOUND?

A: I DECIDED TO GO OUT AND TRY TO ORIENT MYSELF WITH THE PROPERTY AND SEE WHERE THAT SOUND COULD HAVE COME FROM, YES.

Q: DID YOU DECIDE THAT YOU WOULD GO TO THE PROBABLE SOURCE AS DESCRIBED BY MR. KAELIN BY RELATING IT TO AN AIR CONDITIONER THAT PLAINLY STUCK THROUGH THE WALL?

A: I THINK WHEN I WENT TO THE SOUTH BORDER AND I SAW THE PATH, I WALKED DOWN THE PATH AS A CONTINUATION OF DISCOVERING WHERE THAT SOUND OF THAT WALL WAS LOCATED.

Q: WE ARE STILL BACK IN KATO'S ROOM. I'M ASKING WHETHER OR NOT BEFORE YOU EVER LEFT THAT ROOM YOU MADE A DECISION THAT YOU WOULD GO INVESTIGATE THE SOURCE OF THE SOUND?

A: I BELIEVE WHEN I WALKED -- WHEN I WALKED HIM INTO THE HOUSE AND I WALKED THROUGH THE HOUSE, WHEN I TOLD PHIL, "WHY DON'T YOU TALK TO THIS GUY AT THE BAR," I THINK I HAD DECIDED TO GO OUT AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT SOUND CAME FROM ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE WALL, YES. "

Why wouldn't a police detective investigate the origin of thumps heard by Kato Kaelin? I don't see anything sinister about that.

[William Anthony]

Why wouldn't a police detective investigate the origin of thumps heard by Kato Kaelin? I don't see anything sinister about that.

Why would he not ask for help, as he did not know what or whom (more than one person he might encounter) and, if he was investigating, he found no evidence.

[tv]

Why would he not ask for help, as he did not know what or whom (more than one person he might encounter) and, if he was investigating, he found no evidence.
Why would he need help to explore the cause of some noises. He did say he used caution after he spotted the glove because he didn't know if someone was still back there.

[tv]

Go for it! It serves 4, and is better next day!

Bruchetta

2 large ugly ripe tomatoes or best tasting (NO PLUM TOMATOES OK)
Handful of Fresh Basil
2 cloves garlic, minced
1 medium onion, diced really small
salt & pepper

Cut tomatoes into 3/4 inch cubes..all juices and cubes in bowl and salt it..it brings out the tomato's juices even more. add about 1/4 cup water.
Julienne basil (skinny strips) and add it with the garlic and onions. mix well and add cracked pepper. cover and let sit for 5 minutes while you slice and lightly toast Italian or french bread, serve bruchetta on top.

Double yummy! Thanks, old soul!

[William Anthony]

Why would he need help to explore the cause of some noises. He did say he used caution after he spotted the glove because he didn't know if someone was still back there.

Assuming that he was not the clumsy oath, who banged into the wall three times, he should have thought there were as many as three people back there that were possibly armed and he was headed into an alleged unfamiliar area and I do believe that LE is taught to have back up under similar circumstances, assuming, of course, that he didn't know no threat was back there.

[tv]

Assuming that he was not the clumsy oath, who banged into the wall three times, he should have thought there were as many as three people back there that were possibly armed and he was headed into an alleged unfamiliar area and I do believe that LE is taught to have back up under similar circumstances, assuming, of course, that he didn't know no threat was back there.On hindsight I'm sure he wishes another officer would have been with him when he investigated the noises but then they would have been accused of being part of the blue wall of silence, right? Do you think Det. Fuhrman is the only police officer to ever investigate something alone?

[William Anthony]

On hindsight I'm sure he wishes another officer would have been with him when he investigated the noises but then they would have been accused of being part of the blue wall of silence, right? Do you think Det. Fuhrman is the only police officer to ever investigate something alone?

Unless they yelled, hey MF, what are you doing. :) Sorry, I missed your question. No, I don't think he was the only one to have so done but MF had three other LE members readily at hand.

[martin II]

Why would he need help to explore the cause of some noises. He did say he used caution after he spotted the glove because he didn't know if someone was still back there.

the correct and smart thing for furhman to have done if he though t robber may have been there was to tell phillips, a noise was heard back there come with me to see whats there. this way he has a witness to what he saw and did.

[tv]

Unless they yelled, hey MF, what are you doing. :) Sorry, I missed your question. No, I don't think he was the only one to have so done but MF had three other LE members readily at hand.

No, he didn't. They were busy in the house.

[tv]

the correct and smart thing for furhman to have done if he though t robber may have been there was to tell phillips, a noise was heard back there come with me to see whats there. this way he has a witness to what he saw and did.

It's a sad day for LE when they have to drag someone around with them as a witness.

[tv]

the correct and smart thing for furhman to have done if he though t robber may have been there was to tell phillips, a noise was heard back there come with me to see whats there. this way he has a witness to what he saw and did.
What robber? I don't recall a report of anything being stolen.

[martin II]

What robber? I don't recall a report of anything being stolen.

Potential robber like kato thought. or a person planning to do something wrong. Furhman was going to investigate a unknown he should have taken backup or assistant.

[martin II]

Just because there were no obvious signs doesn't mean no one had been back there.

Well now we have furhman vanhatter and two other detectives testifying that no one was back there.

[martin II]

It's a sad day for LE when they have to drag someone around with them as a witness.

tv
Don't cops work in pairs. Why do you believe that is the case?

[martin II]

No, he didn't. They were busy in the house.

They had finished talking to Arnell, Kato and oj. what were they doing searching the house without a search warrant?

[martin II]

Just because there were no obvious signs doesn't mean no one had been back there.

There was no obvious evidence that Park saw Kato when he said he saw him yet some here want to believe he did.

[martin II]

How about helping Martin or how about just setting the record straight? For the record I was not asking for you assistance. I thought the poster may need your assistance in order not to continue making false accusations and breaking the rules. Lighthearted banter, lighthearted banter, remember?:)

If you are talking about what i think you are talking about i may not be correct on some things but i do believe that tv knows that william is one poster and Martin is another and that neither has ever posted under the others nic.imo

[martin II]

Just because there were no obvious signs doesn't mean no one had been back there.

Furhman and Vanhatter were experienced enough to look at a heavy growth area and tell if someone had been in the area.Itr has been said that both were very good at detecting.
Looking at the pictures i posted showing the heavy growth i agree that no one jumped the fence and no one walked in the path in the back of Katos or Arnells quarters.

[martin II]

I wouldn't be so quick to put this in the past -- there may be more yet to come! ;)

That issue has been dropped nothing else to say about it.

[martin II]

It's a sad day for LE when they have to drag someone around with them as a witness.

Vanhatter and Lang did a drag job on Furhman and his partner all the way to Rockingham. hahaha

[martin II]

[QUOTE=martin II;9178573]http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo22/mc71111/s_walk18_small.jpg


The fence is under that growth someplace.A person would have to have a buzz saw handy to jump through all that growth.

[martin II]

Any power that I have to help you will not be exercised. You forfeited that right when you rejected my inquiry in PM and then revealed the content of that PM on the board. You're on your own from now on. If you want to think of me as your enemy then I'll try to fill that role to your satisfaction. Now this subject is closed unless you want to post to yourself about it. I wouldn't want to see the forum put in jeopardy due to bickering between you and me. :)

Thanks tv.i think it is closed for william also.

[weezer]

Why wouldn't a police detective investigate the origin of thumps heard by Kato Kaelin? I don't see anything sinister about that.

ha -- I was thinking the same thing: God forbid the detective coming from a horrible murder scene investigate strange noises outside the home of the ex-husband. :eek:

[William Anthony]

No, he didn't. They were busy in the house.

They had recently left the scene of the a double homicide and by the affidavit for probable cause they did not know if they had the killer at Rockingham. Therefore, MF should have exercised caution throughout his search. I think that there is reasonable doubt on the issue of whether anyone was back there before MF. I am not saying that your are wrong and I am right or vice versa.

[weezer]

On hindsight I'm sure he wishes another officer would have been with him when he investigated the noises but then they would have been accused of being part of the blue wall of silence, right? Do you think Det. Fuhrman is the only police officer to ever investigate something alone?

personally, I'm thinking that if it wasn't orenthal then it was three boogey men that made that noise.

[weezer]

Go for it! It serves 4, and is better next day!

Bruchetta

2 large ugly ripe tomatoes or best tasting (NO PLUM TOMATOES OK)
Handful of Fresh Basil
2 cloves garlic, minced
1 medium onion, diced really small
salt & pepper

Cut tomatoes into 3/4 inch cubes..all juices and cubes in bowl and salt it..it brings out the tomato's juices even more. add about 1/4 cup water.
Julienne basil (skinny strips) and add it with the garlic and onions. mix well and add cracked pepper. cover and let sit for 5 minutes while you slice and lightly toast Italian or french bread, serve bruchetta on top.

umm-ummm-ummm! guess what my family is eating this weekend?!

[William Anthony]

Thanks tv.i think it is closed for william also.

Yes, it is and I appreciate Tvdinner wanting to drop the issue as I do believe the moderator has done his/her job and there is no need for a private investigator or instigator. I think that Tvdinner has handled the situation in a proper and lady-like fashion.

[William Anthony]

The three blind mice. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

[weezer]

Potential robber like kato thought. or a person planning to do something wrong. Furhman was going to investigate a unknown he should have taken backup or assistant.

Why would the policeman need a policeman to protect him? :punch:

the noise had happened hours earlier, kato said he didn't find anything, orenthal wasn't worried -- he left his house unlocked. . .

[William Anthony]

As Ms. Tvdinner correctly points out by the testimony MF claimed Kato had not told him of his cursory searches.

[martin II]

Any power that I have to help you will not be exercised. You forfeited that right when you rejected my inquiry in PM and then revealed the content of that PM on the board. You're on your own from now on. If you want to think of me as your enemy then I'll try to fill that role to your satisfaction. Now this subject is closed unless you want to post to yourself about it. I wouldn't want to see the forum put in jeopardy due to bickering between you and me. :)

Thanks tv.i think it is closed for william also.

[weezer]

Vanhatter and Lang did a drag job on Furhman and his partner all the way to Rockingham. hahaha

are we back to talking about orenthal's lingerie AGAIN?!

[old_soul]

Go for it! It serves 4, and is better next day!

Bruchetta

2 large ugly ripe tomatoes or best tasting (NO PLUM TOMATOES OK)
Handful of Fresh Basil
2 cloves garlic, minced
1 medium onion, diced really small
salt & pepper

Cut tomatoes into 3/4 inch cubes..all juices and cubes in bowl and salt it..it brings out the tomato's juices even more. add about 1/4 cup water.
Julienne basil (skinny strips) and add it with the garlic and onions. mix well and add cracked pepper. cover and let sit for 5 minutes while you slice and lightly toast Italian or french bread, serve bruchetta on top.

OH! Wait! Looks like I forgot one of the most important things....the olive oil! Pour it in with the cubed tomatoes (about 1/8 cup) and the water also, so it 'juices up'.

[weezer]

OH! Wait! Looks like I forgot one of the most important things....the olive oil! Pour it in with the cubed tomatoes (about 1/8 cup) and the water also, so it 'juices up'.

well thank goodness you cleared that up! LOL

[William Anthony]

March 13th-MF

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU FIRST WENT BACK ON THAT WALKWAY, DID YOU KNOW WHETHER KATO HAD ALREADY GONE BACK THERE TO INVESTIGATE THE THUMPS ON THE WALL?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

[martin II]

Why would the policeman need a policeman to protect him? :punch:

the noise had happened hours earlier, kato said he didn't find anything, orenthal wasn't worried -- he left his house unlocked. . .

The purpose of cops being paired in twos is to give each protection against any threat they may encounter. As cops often say they always back up their partner as they are a team. Vanhatter Lang- Furhman Phillips.etc When cops go into a house to arrest a suspect it is common practise that one goes to the front door and the other to the back as a team. Furhman didn't know what threat could be in the walkway. if there had been three armed people there he would have been in trouble.

[martin II]

March 13th-MF

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU FIRST WENT BACK ON THAT WALKWAY, DID YOU KNOW WHETHER KATO HAD ALREADY GONE BACK THERE TO INVESTIGATE THE THUMPS ON THE WALL?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

So the question is why didn't K ato tell Furhman that he had been in the walkway twice and found no one.:shrug:

or did he?

[weezer]

In a written decision that was as terse and low-key as the defense rhetoric on the point had been impassioned, Judge Ito ruled that Mr. Fuhrman's testimony on three points disputed by Mr. Simpson's lawyers -- his reasons for entering the property, interrogating Brian (Kato) Kaelin and venturing to the spot where the glove was found -- were corroborated by others.

september 8, 1995

[William Anthony]

The purpose of cops being paired in twos is to give each protection against any threat they may encounter. As cops often say they always back up their partner as they are a team. Vanhatter Lang- Furhman Phillips.etc When cops go into a house to arrest a suspect it is common practise that one goes to the front door and the other to the back as a team. Furhman didn't know what threat could be in the walkway. if there had been three armed people there he would have been in trouble.

If there had been three armed people back there, he would have been in as much trouble as when he took the stand, imho.:)

[martin II]

are we back to talking about orenthal's lingerie AGAIN?!

no
i know you wish we were.

[William Anthony]

MF's testimony was corroborated by one who Ito said had a reckless disregard for the truth, which shows the character of a man, according to one poster.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/22/us/simpson-s-attempt-to-bar-evidence-is-turned-down.html?sec=&spon=

[weezer]

So the question is why didn't K ato tell Furhman that he had been in the walkway twice and found no one.:shrug:

or did he?

what do you think martin? I'm thinking because once he saw orenthal in the dark sweatsuit, he knew there was going to be a double murder that night, called LE, the prosecutors, the labs, etc., and said "I'm in" for the frame-up.

[weezer]

no
i know you wish we were.

oh, my mistake. you posted 'dragged' and the only person I knew to be associated with that was orenthal. my apologies.

[William Anthony]

So the question is why didn't K ato tell Furhman that he had been in the walkway twice and found no one.:shrug:

or did he?

According to Kato's and MF's testimonies, Kato did not tell MF, which would be all the more reason to have back up, imho.

[weezer]

OH! Wait! Looks like I forgot one of the most important things....the olive oil! Pour it in with the cubed tomatoes (about 1/8 cup) and the water also, so it 'juices up'.

I shared your recipe and got this back!

RATTLESNAKE

SKIN, CLEAN AND CUT INTO BITE-SIZE PIECES.. YOU WANT THE SNAKE DEAD(DUH)! SEASON AND DIP IN BUTTERMILK. COVER WELL WITH FLOUR or CORNMEAL(whichever you prefer). FRY IN VERY HOT FAT UNTIL GOLDEN BROWN.

WA-LA!! YOU NOW HAVE THE PERFECT LITTLE BITE-SIZE NUGGET TO GO WITH YOUR BRUCHETTA! PAIRED WITH A NICE PINOT GRIGIO, YOU WILL BE THE 'HIT' OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD!!

PARTY ON, GIRL!!

[martin II]

According to Kato's and MF's testimonies, Kato did not tell MF, which would be all the more reason to have back up, imho.

Recently two cops stopped a car to investigate a possible drug offence with two people inside. one of the people came out shooting and hit one cop and then another the first cop was able to get off some shots that killed both occupants.If they had not been working in a pairs the people would have escaped.Another case for cops working in pairs which they always do.

[William Anthony]

Recently two cops stopped a car to investigate a possible drug offence with two people inside. one of the people came out shooting and hit one cop and then another the first cop was able to get off some shots that killed both occupants.If they had not been working in a pairs the people would have escaped.Another case for cops working in pairs which they always do.

March 22nd-Kato

"Q: OKAY. DID YOU TELL HIM THAT YOU HAD GONE OUT TO THAT WALKWAY AREA TWICE EARLIER THAT NIGHT TO INVESTIGATE THE THUMPS?

A: NO. "

[weezer]

Recently two cops stopped a car to investigate a possible drug offence with two people inside. one of the people came out shooting and hit one cop and then another the first cop was able to get off some shots that killed both occupants.If they had not been working in a pairs the people would have escaped.Another case for cops working in pairs which they always do.

of course you mean except for when they're going to the home of the ex-husband of a murder victim? because I know you were quite vocal over that scenario. . . .

[William Anthony]

Hmm. LE needs one to investigate a potentially precarious situation and four to make a notification.:shrug:

[weezer]

And how many times, Mr. Simpson, in the course of these physical altercations, did you hit Nicole?

A. Never.

Q. How many times did you strike Nicole?

A. Never.

Q. How many times did you slap Nicole?

A. Never.

Q. How many times did you kick her?

A. Never.

Q. How many times did you beat her, sir?

A. Never.

[martin II]

According to Kato's and MF's testimonies, Kato did not tell MF, which would be all the more reason to have back up, imho.

Wonder why fyrhman did not ask Kato to come show me where your exterior wall is.Did he already know?

[weezer]

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Let's talk about what you did physically with your hand, your foot, whatever.

Tell us how she got the cut on her lip, the split on her lip, that caused it to bleed that night?

A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

Tell us how she got the welt over the right eye.

A. I don't know specifically how.

Q. You did hit her there?

A. No.

Q. And it's your testimony, before this jury, that you never touched her face with your hand, true?

A. I don't know, as I told you in the deposition, in wrestling her, maybe my hand hit -- hit or was on her face. I certainly didn't punch her or slap her.

Q. You say your hand was on her face.

Did you strike her at any time?

A. As I told you, I had her in a head lock at one point, in trying to get her out of the door, so I would assume that my hand was somewhere around her -- her face.

Q. When you say "head lock," you said in the deposition that you had her head in kind of a head lock to get her out of the room, true?

A. At one point, yes.

Q. Are you saying that that's when that injury to her eye occurred?

A. I don't know when it occurred. But I'm assuming it occurred during the altercation or when she fell outside and

[weezer]

Q. You said, at least that night, she was quite a match for you, right?

[weezer]

And then I was trying to get her -- to get her out of the door, and she was grabbing things and hitting. And eventually, I got her out of the door.

Q. Okay.

And when you said you grabbed her, you put your right hand into a fist --

A. Yes.

Q. -- just now.

Is that what you did that night when you grabbed her?

A. Quite possibly when I grabbed her arm, quite possibly I did.

Q. When you did -- now, you just put both hands in a fist.

When you did it that night, did you punch her in the face with your hands?

A. No. No.

Q. Did you put your fingers and hands on her throat and leave marks on her throat, sir?

A. I don't recall doing that at all, no.

Q. You are aware she had marks on her throat, are you not?

[martin II]

And how many times, Mr. Simpson, in the course of these physical altercations, did you hit Nicole?

A. Never.

Q. How many times did you strike Nicole?

A. Never.

Q. How many times did you slap Nicole?

A. Never.

Q. How many times did you kick her?

A. Never.

Q. How many times did you beat her, sir?

A. Never.

That should clear up the issue of abuse and why the prosecution did not charge oj with abuse.

[weezer]

Friday, November 22

Petrocelli questions Simpson about a call he made to Paula Barbieri on the night of the murders. O.J. claims not to have received a message from Barbieri earlier that evening breaking off their romantic involvement.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You heard her testify that you left her three messages -- at least three messages that day, correct?

A. That day, yes. I thought you were talking about after a certain time.

Q. And in the messages you said in substance, hey, what's wrong, last night we were talking about filling rooms with babies, what's wrong.

You heard her testify to that, correct?

A. In the last message at 10 something, yes.

Q. And you left her that message because you had received her message by 6:56 p.m. telling you that the relationship was over, correct?

A. That's incorrect.

Q. Now, about a half an hour after that 6:56 p.m. call from Rockingham to your message manager, you made a call to a woman named Gretchen Stockdale, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And that call was made at 7:32 p.m., correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in that call you left Ms. Stockdale a telephone message, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And in substance you said, hi, this is O.J., I'm unattached for the first time in my life, true?

A. Or words to that effect, yes.

Q. And the reason you left that message to Gretchen Stockdale that you were unattached for the first time in your life is because on that day you were unattached from Nicole and you were unattached from Paula Barbieri, true?

A. That's incorrect.

Q. And you had just found out from Paula that that relationship was over, and now you were without both women for the first time in your life, correct?

[weezer]

Friday, November 22

Petrocelli elicits an admission from Simpson that he knows of no person that saw him between 9:35 and 10:55 on the night of the murders. Petrocelli also asks Simpson directly if he killed Nicole and Ron.

Q. Now, Mr. Simpson, after you got back from McDonald's at 9:35, the next time that you ran into Kato Kaelin was about 10:55 p.m.; is that true?

A. I would guess so.

Q. And about that time, you also encountered a limousine driver, true?

A. I would think so.

Q. Now, between 9:35 p.m. and 10:55 p.m. on Sunday, June 12, there is not a single living human being who you can identify that saw or spoke to you; is that true?

A. That's absolutely true, unless somebody drove out and saw me when I was outside --

Q. Excuse me. Is that true, that there --

A. To my knowledge.

Q. There's not a single living person that you know of who saw or spoke to you between 9:35 p.m. and 10:55 p.m.; is that true?

A. I would believe that would be true.

Q. You know of no such person, correct?

A. I don't know of anyone who saw me from 7:30 to 9:00, either.

Q. I didn't ask you about 7:30.

9:35 p.m. to 10:55 p.m. you don't know anybody who saw or spoke to you; is that true?

A. No one was at my house. Unless they were driving by when I was in my yard --

Q. Sir, I'm not asking about --

A. No.

[martin II]

of course you mean except for when they're going to the home of the ex-husband of a murder victim? because I know you were quite vocal over that scenario. . . .

The procedure is the same if they are expecting the person to flee or cause problems.Don't take my word for it.Ask le why they pair up officers.

[weezer]

Monday, November 25

Petrocelli questions Simpson about the cut on his finger.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, you did tell the police, however, sir, when you were interviewed the next morning, that you did cut your finger that night, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told the police that you cut your finger at a time that was between 10 and 11, right?

A. Yes.

Q. That's the time that Ron and Nicole were murdered, right?

A. That's what I'm told, yes.

Q. And you told the police that you may have reopened that cut in Chicago, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, the cut that you reopened in Chicago, sir, was on your middle finger, right?

A. May have reopened, yes.

Q. What do you mean may have?

You just -- you didn't tell the cops "may have," did you?

A. I thought so. I thought that's what I said to them.

Q. Now, the cut on your middle finger is one that still bears a scar, does it not?

(Witness reviews finger.)

A. Yes.

Q. Left hand middle finger, right?

A. Yes.

[weezer]

Q. Right over there, right across the knuckle?

A. Yes.

Q. How did that mark get on your finger between 10 and 11 on June 12 in Los Angeles?

A. I didn't see that or any mark on my hand between 10 and 11 on June 12.

Q. How is it, then, that you reopened that cut in Chicago the next morning?

A. It was in -- an assumption on my part.

Q. What do you mean by assumption? You assumed --

MR. BAKER: Let him answer the question.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You assumed --

MR. BAKER: He asked you what?

MR. PETROCELLI: Would you answer the question.

MR. BAKER: What do you mean by an assumption?

MR. PETROCELLI: Withdraw the question.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You assumed you reopened the cut; is that what you're saying?

A. Yes, because I did not see any cut, as I emphasized to the police on numerous occasions, the night before. And I guess I did the wrong thing by trying to assume, and I assumed that if I was cut the night before, maybe it was the same cut because there was no other cut on my hand.

[weezer]

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, you went to this polygraph examiner's office on Tuesday, June 14, true?

A. I don't know.

Q. It was that time frame, right?

A. I believe it was that week; it was -- that week is kind of fuzzy for me.

Q. And I asked you in your deposition in January: (Reading) Question: "Have you ever taken a polygraph test?

"A. No.

"Q. I was going to say, since Nicole's death, have you taken a polygraph test?

"A. No."

That was untrue, wasn't it, sir?

A. As far as I know, I didn't take a polygraph test.

Q. You did, in fact, sit for that test, didn't you?

A. That's incorrect.

[William Anthony]

I guess the above testimony destroys Ms. Shively's testimony.

[martin II]

Q. You said, at least that night, she was quite a match for you, right?

if you are referring to nicole, her friends stated that she was in great physical shape and gave as much as she received.

[weezer]

Q. Or why blood matching yours was found on the inside door panel, right where you would open the door to get out --

A. No.

Q. -- using your left hand?

A. No.

Q. You do use your left hand when you exit the door, do you not?

A. I would have, unless my arthritis was kicking up. I would imagine so, yes.

Q. You're sitting there in your driver seat, you're getting ready to get out of car and you open the door with your left hand, do you not?

A. Most of the time, yes.

Q. And your left middle finger would contact the area right where that red spot is indicated, would it not, sir.

A. It possibly could.

Q. Right where you have the scar on your finger, true?

A. Possibly could.

Q. You have no explanation for any -- why any of that blood was there, true?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, you don't recall bleeding in the back alleyway or back driveway of Nicole's condominium in the two or three weeks before her death, do you?

A. No.

[weezer]

Monday, November 25

Petrocelli questions Simpson about the famous ride in Al Cowlings Bronco, including questions about O.J.'s phone conversations with police.

Q. Now, there were a bunch of other items in Al Cowlings' car, by the way, like items of your clothing, right?

A. I don't know about that, no.

Q. In the back of the car?

A. I'm not aware of that.

Q. A windbreaker, socks, underwear, shirts --

A. I'm not aware of that, no.

Q. Okay.

And you had a gun, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you started to become -- your infamous ride in the Bronco with Mr. Cowlings, correct?

MR. BAKER: I object to the characterization. It's argumentative.

THE COURT: I'll sustain it.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You took off in the Bronco, Cowlings' Bronco, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you ended up returning to Rockingham some eight or nine hours later, right?

A. I really was kind of lost time, so I don't know how long it was.

Q. And there was a time near the end there, near the end there, sir, when you were on the phone quite a bit with Detective Tom Lange, correct?

A. I don't know.

[weezer]

Q. Do -- you don't you recall Mr. Lange calling you while you were on the cell phone and you spoke to him?

A. I remember -- I didn't know Mr. Lange from anyone else, and I do remember somebody from the police talking to me at the time.

Q. Do you recall Detective Tom Lange urging you, begging you not to harm yourself, sir, with the gun?

A. I believe that was what whoever I was talking to was trying to tell me.

Q. Do you recall Detective Tom Lange trying to convince you to just put the gun down and come on home?

Do you remember all that?

MR. BAKER: I object to relevance, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Do you remember that, sir?

A. I believe whoever I was talking to, that was the substance of what they were saying.

Q. And remember, you're saying the following:

"Just tell them all I'm sorry. You can tell them later on today and tomorrow that I was sorry and that I'm sorry that I did this to the police department."

Do you remember saying that?

A. And I also remember telling them --

Q. Yes or no?

A. -- I didn't do it.

Q. Do you remember saying that?

A. No, I don't remember that, no. But I probably did.

Q. Excuse me. Just answer the questions; we'll get through this.

A. Oh.

Yes.

Q. Do you remember saying the following to Tom Lange:

"Hey, you've been a good guy too, man, Lange. Thanks. You let me tell you, I know you're doing your job. You've been honest with me right from the beginning. Mr. Lange, I appreciate that."

And you said -- just saying, you're doing your job; I know you're doing a good job.

Do you remember saying that to Detective Lange?

[weezer]

if you are referring to nicole, her friends stated that she was in great physical shape and gave as much as she received.

really? do you think they were talking about the pictures of a violated and beaten Nicole? and if she 'gave as much as she received' you will be able to post links to the pictures of orenthal's bruises, cuts, marks and/or links to police reports and/or links to descriptions by other people of the Nicole's abuse of orenthal. what a vile and evil depth some people will stoop to.

[William Anthony]

March 13th-MF

"Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, FOR WHAT PURPOSE DID YOU RETAIN YOUR LAWYER, ROBERT TOURTELOT?

A: BECAUSE I WAS DEFAMED IN THE MEDIA FOR PLANTING EVIDENCE IN A CAPITAL CRIME.

Q: SOME MAGAZINE OR OTHER?

A: MAGAZINE, RADIO, T.V., PERSONAL ATTACKS.

Q: NOW, DID YOU AUTHORIZE YOUR ATTORNEY TO SEND A LETTER TO CERTAIN OF MR. SIMPSON'S COUNSEL THREATENING A LAWSUIT FOR DEFAMATION WHEN THIS CASE ENDS?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU REVIEW ANY SUCH LETTERS BEFORE THEY WENT?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I RECEIVED COPIES, BUT I DID NOT REVIEW THEM AND APPROVE THEM, NO.

Q: AND YOU WERE COMPLAINING THAT YOU HAD BEEN ACCUSED AS A RESULT OF CONDUCT FOR WHICH YOU THOUGHT THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE OF PLANTING EVIDENCE IN A CAPITAL CASE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THE FIRST PART OF THAT QUESTION I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND IT.

Q: YOU WERE COMPLAINING, AS YOU JUST TOLD US, THAT YOU WERE BEING ACCUSED IN THE MEDIA PARTLY DUE TO THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, THESE LAWYERS --

A: YES, SIR.

Q: -- OF PLANTING EVIDENCE IN A CAPITAL CASE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. AND THAT IS A VERY SERIOUS CRIME, ISN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL?

A: YES.

Q: YEAH. OKAY. NOW, WHEN THIS LAWSUIT IS OVER, YOU HAVE AN INTENT TO BEGIN A DEFAMATION LAWSUIT OF A CIVIL NATURE AGAINST MR. SHAPIRO AND MR. COCHRAN, CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE SO, YES.

Q: AND TO ASK A JURY FOR MONEY DAMAGES FOR THE DAMAGE TO YOUR REPUTATION FOR BEING ACCUSED OF PLANTING THE GLOVE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE OBJECTION?

MS. CLARK: EXCEEDS THE COURT'S RULING.

THE COURT: NO. IT'S THE NATURE OF THE LAWSUIT, COUNSEL. OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: IS THAT NOT YOUR INTENT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. NOW, IN ADDITION TO THAT, HAVE YOU SOUGHT TO OBTAIN MONEY IN ANY OTHER FASHION DUE TO YOUR CONNECTION IN THIS CASE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU AUTHORIZE MR. TOURTELOT TO SEND A LETTER TO VARIOUS POLICE DEPARTMENTS ASKING FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO MARK FUHRMAN?

A: I BELIEVE HE STARTED A DEFENSE FUND, YES.

Q: WELL, THE LETTER WHICH WENT TO POLICE SAID, "MARK FUHRMAN NEEDS HELP," DIDN'T IT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. OBJECTION. THIS IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: THAT'S WHAT IT SAID, ISN'T IT?

A: I BELIEVE SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT, YES. "

Was MF talking about a case in addition to this one where he was accused of planting evidence, because I do not believe Simpson was a capital case?

[weezer]

ignorant people continue to post untrue and inaccurate stuff. I think it is best for us to remember -- because evidently some on this board are not unlike the criminal jury -- the case of the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown were murder cases. the case wasn't 'let's put LE on trial because we all know the LE don't like us" and it wasn't black power salute to a murder defendant and it wasn't 'we're the victims here'.

the case was about abuse, obsession, rage, and murder. the only role Ron Goldman played in the sordid life of orenthal simpson was being in the wrong place at the wrong time when orenthal flew into one of his rages.

[weezer]

March 13th-MF

"Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, FOR WHAT PURPOSE DID YOU RETAIN YOUR LAWYER, ROBERT TOURTELOT?

A: BECAUSE I WAS DEFAMED IN THE MEDIA FOR PLANTING EVIDENCE IN A CAPITAL CRIME.

Q: SOME MAGAZINE OR OTHER?

A: MAGAZINE, RADIO, T.V., PERSONAL ATTACKS.

Q: NOW, DID YOU AUTHORIZE YOUR ATTORNEY TO SEND A LETTER TO CERTAIN OF MR. SIMPSON'S COUNSEL THREATENING A LAWSUIT FOR DEFAMATION WHEN THIS CASE ENDS?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU REVIEW ANY SUCH LETTERS BEFORE THEY WENT?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I RECEIVED COPIES, BUT I DID NOT REVIEW THEM AND APPROVE THEM, NO.

Q: AND YOU WERE COMPLAINING THAT YOU HAD BEEN ACCUSED AS A RESULT OF CONDUCT FOR WHICH YOU THOUGHT THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE OF PLANTING EVIDENCE IN A CAPITAL CASE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THE FIRST PART OF THAT QUESTION I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND IT.

Q: YOU WERE COMPLAINING, AS YOU JUST TOLD US, THAT YOU WERE BEING ACCUSED IN THE MEDIA PARTLY DUE TO THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, THESE LAWYERS --

A: YES, SIR.

Q: -- OF PLANTING EVIDENCE IN A CAPITAL CASE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. AND THAT IS A VERY SERIOUS CRIME, ISN'T IT?

A: YES.

Q: BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL?

A: YES.

Q: YEAH. OKAY. NOW, WHEN THIS LAWSUIT IS OVER, YOU HAVE AN INTENT TO BEGIN A DEFAMATION LAWSUIT OF A CIVIL NATURE AGAINST MR. SHAPIRO AND MR. COCHRAN, CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE SO, YES.

Q: AND TO ASK A JURY FOR MONEY DAMAGES FOR THE DAMAGE TO YOUR REPUTATION FOR BEING ACCUSED OF PLANTING THE GLOVE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE OBJECTION?

MS. CLARK: EXCEEDS THE COURT'S RULING.

THE COURT: NO. IT'S THE NATURE OF THE LAWSUIT, COUNSEL. OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: IS THAT NOT YOUR INTENT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. NOW, IN ADDITION TO THAT, HAVE YOU SOUGHT TO OBTAIN MONEY IN ANY OTHER FASHION DUE TO YOUR CONNECTION IN THIS CASE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU AUTHORIZE MR. TOURTELOT TO SEND A LETTER TO VARIOUS POLICE DEPARTMENTS ASKING FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO MARK FUHRMAN?

A: I BELIEVE HE STARTED A DEFENSE FUND, YES.

Q: WELL, THE LETTER WHICH WENT TO POLICE SAID, "MARK FUHRMAN NEEDS HELP," DIDN'T IT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. OBJECTION. THIS IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: THAT'S WHAT IT SAID, ISN'T IT?

A: I BELIEVE SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT, YES. "

Was MF talking about a case in addition to this one where he was accused of planting evidence, because I do not believe Simpson was a capital case?

don't tell me they're not teaching you that stuff in your wannabe lawyer classes! you may want your money back.

[old_soul]

really? do you think they were talking about the pictures of a violated and beaten Nicole? and if she 'gave as much as she received' you will be able to post links to the pictures of orenthal's bruises, cuts, marks and/or links to police reports and/or links to descriptions by other people of the Nicole's abuse of orenthal. what a vile and evil depth some people will stoop to.

Your posts on the testimony ............:(.
At 5'5" and 120 lbs, it hardly seems like she was any match for 200lbs and 6' plus ~ with hands as big as her head...........
He lies like a rug, time after time ~ after putting his hand on the bible. :no:

:rose: Nicole knew it would end this way....

[martin II]

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, you went to this polygraph examiner's office on Tuesday, June 14, true?

A. I don't know.

Q. It was that time frame, right?

A. I believe it was that week; it was -- that week is kind of fuzzy for me.

Q. And I asked you in your deposition in January: (Reading) Question: "Have you ever taken a polygraph test?

"A. No.

"Q. I was going to say, since Nicole's death, have you taken a polygraph test?

"A. No."

That was untrue, wasn't it, sir?

A. As far as I know, I didn't take a polygraph test.

Q. You did, in fact, sit for that test, didn't you?

A. That's incorrect.

The polygraph

Shaperio agganged for oj to tak a polygraph test with ouy Baileys knowledgeThe polygraph test expert.

Oj had taken about 1/3 of the test when Shaperio called Bailey in Florida
and told him oj was taking the test, bailey ordered Shaperio to stop the test. Shaperio stopped the test Oj had only taken about 1/3 of the total test.The fact that oj had taken that small part of the test was later leaked to the media.

It is my opinion that a polygrapgh test is not a polygraph test until it is completed 100% and this test was not taken 100% All the questions were never asked as Bailey had stropped all further questions.

Regardless, some have continued to say Oj took a polygraph test and Petrrocelli tried to play that same game.
Polygrapghs are not permitted in most states and i doubt a prosecutor would try to use one that was not complete even if a state would allow it.

[weezer]

this made me laugh out loud:

"I’m sorry, but Christie Prody needs to go into the Ex-Girlfriend of a Murdering Athlete Protection Program . . ."

[old_soul]

I shared your recipe and got this back!

RATTLESNAKE

SKIN, CLEAN AND CUT INTO BITE-SIZE PIECES.. YOU WANT THE SNAKE DEAD(DUH)! SEASON AND DIP IN BUTTERMILK. COVER WELL WITH FLOUR or CORNMEAL(whichever you prefer). FRY IN VERY HOT FAT UNTIL GOLDEN BROWN.

WA-LA!! YOU NOW HAVE THE PERFECT LITTLE BITE-SIZE NUGGET TO GO WITH YOUR BRUCHETTA! PAIRED WITH A NICE PINOT GRIGIO, YOU WILL BE THE 'HIT' OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD!!

PARTY ON, GIRL!!

LOLOLOLOL
Umm....don't be hurt if I pass on the rattlesnake...it's not a Italian/Frenchie's usual fare, and I'm game for a lot of things, but............:eek:

Have you eaten this? I have heard it "Tastes like Chicken" :hat: Everything tastes like chicken! BTW ~ let me know when you're ready for 'Chicken Breasts with Lemon Olive Sauce'...a frenchie recipe. ;)

[weezer]

The polygraph

Shaperio agganged for oj to tak a polygraph test with ouy Baileys knowledgeThe polygraph test expert.

Oj had taken about 1/3 of the test when Shaperio called Bailey in Florida
and told him oj was taking the test, bailey ordered Shaperio to stop the test. Shaperio stopped the test Oj had only taken about 1/3 of the total test.The fact that oj had taken that small part of the test was later leaked to the media.

It is my opinion that a polygrapgh test is not a polygraph test until it is completed 100% and this test was not taken 100% All the questions were never asked as Bailey had stropped all further questions.

Regardless, some have continued to say Oj took a polygraph test and Petrrocelli tried to play that same game.
Polygrapghs are not permitted in most states and i doubt a prosecutor would try to use one that was not complete even if a state would allow it.

Bailey Says He Halted Polygraph Test of Simpson
Published: Monday, June 5, 2000

Lee Bailey has testified that days after O. J. Simpson's former wife and a friend were stabbed to death, Mr. Simpson took a polygraph test that Mr. Bailey stopped because it was not going well.

On Friday, in a courtroom where his license to practice law is being challenged, Mr. Bailey said that shortly after the killings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald L. Goldman in June 1994, he received a telephone call from Robert L. Shapiro, a Los Angeles defense lawyer.

Mr. Bailey, who has said he is an expert on polygraph tests, said Mr. Shapiro had wanted advice about a polygraph test of Mr. Simpson in progress that was not going well.

Mr. Bailey said he told Mr. Shapiro the reason was that the test was being given to Mr. Simpson at an emotional time. ''I said shut the test down. You have to let him settle down,'' said Mr. Bailey, who became part of Mr. Simpson's legal team.

Mr. Bailey said that Mr. Shapiro had taken the test results and that no one had seen them. He said Mr. Shapiro had said he did not have the results. There was no response to messages left today for Mr. Shapiro.

Mr. Simpson has said he never took a polygraph test. In the civil case against Mr. Simpson, lawyers for the Goldman family contended that Mr. Simpson had failed a polygraph test shortly after the slayings.

Mr. Simpson was acquitted of criminal charges in the deaths, but a civil jury found him liable for the crimes. He was ordered to pay $33.5 million in damages to the victims' families.

Mr. Bailey discussed the polygraph incident while accounting for how his time had been spent defending another client, Claude Duboc, a drug trafficker. Mr. Bailey is accused of misappropriating millions of dollars in stock held by Mr. Duboc..
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/05/us/bailey-says-he-halted-polygraph-test-of-simpson.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[William Anthony]

Although this was not a part of my training and purely a matter of common intelligence I think it worthy to explain to those that may be laboring under false impressions and seek to insult rather than understand. It is the duty of the prosecution to bring the charges, which includes determining if a crime will seek charged will result in a death penalty. Those with no or little training, who do not have a rudimentary understanding of the judicial process may not understand this and may want to spend some money acquiring knowledge. However, this may prevent the need for them to spend money.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/22/weekinreview/the-nation-o-j-simpson-and-susan-smith-two-crimes-two-punishments.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

[martin II]

ignorant people continue to post untrue and inaccurate stuff. I think it is best for us to remember -- because evidently some on this board are not unlike the criminal jury -- the case of the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown were murder cases. the case wasn't 'let's put LE on trial because we all know the LE don't like us" and it wasn't black power salute to a murder defendant and it wasn't 'we're the victims here'.

the case was about abuse, obsession, rage, and murder. the only role Ron Goldman played in the sordid life of orenthal simpson was being in the wrong place at the wrong time when orenthal flew into one of his rages.

If the prosecution believed in the abuse stories as you seem to, they could have easilly charged him with murder and abuse.They were not that disorganized that they did not know what charges were availabvle to them
if they thought they could prove the charges.Is that correct?

The fact that they didn't charge him with abuse leads me to believe they knew there was not enough evidence to prove that charge.

[weezer]

If the prosecution believed in the abuse stories as you seem to, they could have easilly charged him with murder and abuse.They were not that disorganized that they did not know what charges were availabvle to them
if they thought they could prove the charges.Is that correct?

The fact that they didn't charge him with abuse leads me to believe they knew there was not enough evidence to prove that charge.

that is such an ignorant argument. it seems everyone but you and two others understands that the abuse precipitated the murders. 17 years of abuse and torment culminated in murder because orenthal couldn't have what he wanted or maybe it was just because what he had didn't want him anymore.

[martin II]

Bailey Says He Halted Polygraph Test of Simpson
Published: Monday, June 5, 2000

Lee Bailey has testified that days after O. J. Simpson's former wife and a friend were stabbed to death, Mr. Simpson took a polygraph test that Mr. Bailey stopped because it was not going well.

On Friday, in a courtroom where his license to practice law is being challenged, Mr. Bailey said that shortly after the killings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald L. Goldman in June 1994, he received a telephone call from Robert L. Shapiro, a Los Angeles defense lawyer.

Mr. Bailey, who has said he is an expert on polygraph tests, said Mr. Shapiro had wanted advice about a polygraph test of Mr. Simpson in progress that was not going well.

Mr. Bailey said he told Mr. Shapiro the reason was that the test was being given to Mr. Simpson at an emotional time. ''I said shut the test down. You have to let him settle down,'' said Mr. Bailey, who became part of Mr. Simpson's legal team.

Mr. Bailey said that Mr. Shapiro had taken the test results and that no one had seen them. He said Mr. Shapiro had said he did not have the results. There was no response to messages left today for Mr. Shapiro.

Mr. Simpson has said he never took a polygraph test. In the civil case against Mr. Simpson, lawyers for the Goldman family contended that Mr. Simpson had failed a polygraph test shortly after the slayings.

Mr. Simpson was acquitted of criminal charges in the deaths, but a civil jury found him liable for the crimes. He was ordered to pay $33.5 million in damages to the victims' families.

Mr. Bailey discussed the polygraph incident while accounting for how his time had been spent defending another client, Claude Duboc, a drug trafficker. Mr. Bailey is accused of misappropriating millions of dollars in stock held by Mr. Duboc..
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/05/us/bailey-says-he-halted-polygraph-test-of-simpson.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


Bailey stopped the test long before it was finished.Oj never completed the polygraph test.

[weezer]

Although this was not a part of my training and purely a matter of common intelligence I think it worthy to explain to those that may be laboring under false impressions and seek to insult rather than understand. It is the duty of the prosecution to bring the charges, which includes determining if a crime will seek charged will result in a death penalty. Those with no or little training, who do not have a rudimentary understanding of the judicial process may not understand this and may want to spend some money acquiring knowledge. However, this may prevent the need for them to spend money.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/22/weekinreview/the-nation-o-j-simpson-and-susan-smith-two-crimes-two-punishments.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

how about you come back and give us your little gems of wisdom when you actually are an attorney? it might actually carry some weight by then.

[weezer]

Bailey stopped the test long before it was finished.Oj never completed the polygraph test.

Lee Bailey has testified that days after O. J. Simpson's former wife and a friend were stabbed to death, Mr. Simpson took a polygraph test that Mr. Bailey stopped because it was not going well.

[William Anthony]

For those uneducated and ill informed on the law.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Capital+crime

Notice that the word "is" is used as opposed to "could or would be". Since the complaint was drawn by a lawyer, perhaps, MF should have gotten his money back and that might not have been a bad idea, since he was the only convicted of a crime, resulting from the murder trial, despite the fact he had a lawyer.

[old_soul]

Bailey Says He Halted Polygraph Test of Simpson
Published: Monday, June 5, 2000

Lee Bailey has testified that days after O. J. Simpson's former wife and a friend were stabbed to death, Mr. Simpson took a polygraph test that Mr. Bailey stopped because it was not going well.

On Friday, in a courtroom where his license to practice law is being challenged, Mr. Bailey said that shortly after the killings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald L. Goldman in June 1994, he received a telephone call from Robert L. Shapiro, a Los Angeles defense lawyer.

Mr. Bailey, who has said he is an expert on polygraph tests, said Mr. Shapiro had wanted advice about a polygraph test of Mr. Simpson in progress that was not going well.

Mr. Bailey said he told Mr. Shapiro the reason was that the test was being given to Mr. Simpson at an emotional time. ''I said shut the test down. You have to let him settle down,'' said Mr. Bailey, who became part of Mr. Simpson's legal team.

Mr. Bailey said that Mr. Shapiro had taken the test results and that no one had seen them. He said Mr. Shapiro had said he did not have the results. There was no response to messages left today for Mr. Shapiro.

Mr. Simpson has said he never took a polygraph test. In the civil case against Mr. Simpson, lawyers for the Goldman family contended that Mr. Simpson had failed a polygraph test shortly after the slayings.

Mr. Simpson was acquitted of criminal charges in the deaths, but a civil jury found him liable for the crimes. He was ordered to pay $33.5 million in damages to the victims' families.

Mr. Bailey discussed the polygraph incident while accounting for how his time had been spent defending another client, Claude Duboc, a drug trafficker. Mr. Bailey is accused of misappropriating millions of dollars in stock held by Mr. Duboc..
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/05/us/bailey-says-he-halted-polygraph-test-of-simpson.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm....one would think that despite any emotional conflicts, innocence would prevail. For arguments sake, Why not have the test taken then, at a later time when Mr. Simpson was 'less emotional' as Mr. Bailey claimed was the reason...perhaps before or after a particularly good game of golf? I don't remember another ever being done....

I seem to remember Mark Klass jumping in that chair after his daughters disappearance, as did John Walsh............They passed with flying colors ~ and it was their Child who disappeared......... They also were avidly involved in the search for the perps, but that was them, eh?

[martin II]

that is such an ignorant argument. it seems everyone but you and two others understands that the abuse precipitated the murders. 17 years of abuse and torment culminated in murder because orenthal couldn't have what he wanted or maybe it was just because what he had didn't want him anymore.

Since you seem to believe so strongly in your opinion you may want to ask the prosecuiton why they felt they could not prove abuse.I had no imput into what they charged or did not charge So you may be attacking the wrong party.

[William Anthony]

The wise understand that words of wisdom come from the mouths of babes. However, anyone can feel free not to read and become educated by anything they so desire. After all, not everyone wants to be educated or wise. With that recognition I have decided it is best for me to give some a good leaving alone as they have been rude and insulting to many posters on this board and I don't know why I thought to be treated any differently. I think it may be a matter or nature over nurturing in this case. :)

[martin II]

Lee Bailey has testified that days after O. J. Simpson's former wife and a friend were stabbed to death, Mr. Simpson took a polygraph test that Mr. Bailey stopped because it was not going well.

Regardless of how the 1/3 of the test was going the other 2/3 was not taken.
Do we give results when 1/3 of a game has been played.Do you pay for a hamburger that has 1/3 of what is expected. Does the lab give results when 1/3 of q blood test has been performed. do we accept only part of a DNA test?

I don't think so.

[martin II]

don't tell me they're not teaching you that stuff in your wannabe lawyer classes! you may want your money back.

Weezer it is very simple
Was ojs case a capital case? yes or no as they say in court questioning.

[weezer]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm....one would think that despite any emotional conflicts, innocence would prevail. For arguments sake, Why not have the test taken then, at a later time when Mr. Simpson was 'less emotional' as Mr. Bailey claimed was the reason...perhaps before or after a particularly good game of golf? I don't remember another ever being done....

I seem to remember Mark Klass jumping in that chair after his daughters disappearance, as did John Walsh............They passed with flying colors ~ and it was their Child who disappeared......... They also were avidly involved in the search for the perps, but that was them, eh?

and of course there's the argument used by the criminal defense and posted by the NG's that orenthal was soooooo over Nicole that there was no reason for him to kill her. :shrug:

[weezer]

Since you seem to believe so strongly in your opinion you may want to ask the prosecuiton why they felt they could not prove abuse.I had no imput into what they charged or did not charge So you may be attacking the wrong party.

I don't know how else to get this across martin -- Nicole is laying in a pool of her own blood, throat cut deep enough to show her spine -- why would the prosecution charge orenthal with abuse? she wasn't abused -- she was DEAD!

[weezer]

Regardless of how the 1/3 of the test was going the other 2/3 was not taken.
Do we give results when 1/3 of a game has been played.Do you pay for a hamburger that has 1/3 of what is expected. Does the lab give results when 1/3 of q blood test has been performed. do we accept only part of a DNA test?

I don't think so.

Lee Bailey has testified that days after O. J. Simpson's former wife and a friend were stabbed to death, Mr. Simpson took a polygraph test that Mr. Bailey stopped because it was not going well.

[weezer]

Weezer it is very simple
Was ojs case a capital case? yes or no as they say in court questioning.

I wasn't asked that -- i____t! you need to re-read the post before you ride to william's rescue.

[martin II]

Q. Do -- you don't you recall Mr. Lange calling you while you were on the cell phone and you spoke to him?

A. I remember -- I didn't know Mr. Lange from anyone else, and I do remember somebody from the police talking to me at the time.

Q. Do you recall Detective Tom Lange urging you, begging you not to harm yourself, sir, with the gun?

A. I believe that was what whoever I was talking to was trying to tell me.

Q. Do you recall Detective Tom Lange trying to convince you to just put the gun down and come on home?

Do you remember all that?

MR. BAKER: I object to relevance, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Do you remember that, sir?

A. I believe whoever I was talking to, that was the substance of what they were saying.

Q. And remember, you're saying the following:

"Just tell them all I'm sorry. You can tell them later on today and tomorrow that I was sorry and that I'm sorry that I did this to the police department."

Do you remember saying that?

A. And I also remember telling them --

Q. Yes or no?

A. -- I didn't do it.

Q. Do you remember saying that?

A. No, I don't remember that, no. But I probably did.

Q. Excuse me. Just answer the questions; we'll get through this.

A. Oh.

Yes.

Q. Do you remember saying the following to Tom Lange:

"Hey, you've been a good guy too, man, Lange. Thanks. You let me tell you, I know you're doing your job. You've been honest with me right from the beginning. Mr. Lange, I appreciate that."

And you said -- just saying, you're doing your job; I know you're doing a good job.

Do you remember saying that to Detective Lange?

This must be to conversation between oj and lang after Oj had left Nicoles cemetary and was driving on their way back to rockingham.Some called it a chase but at 30-35 miles per hour is seems to be a slow drive to ojs house.

[martin II]

I don't know how else to get this across martin -- Nicole is laying in a pool of her own blood, throat cut deep enough to show her spine -- why would the prosecution charge orenthal with abuse? she wasn't abused -- she was DEAD!

Weezer
i think it has been your position that 17 years of abuse led oj to kill nicole on 6/12. i am saying the prosecution obviously did not agree with your claim as they did not charge oj with what you claimed caused him to finally kill her.
If that is not your claim i did not understand what you claim.

[martin II]

And then I was trying to get her -- to get her out of the door, and she was grabbing things and hitting. And eventually, I got her out of the door.

Q. Okay.

And when you said you grabbed her, you put your right hand into a fist --

A. Yes.

Q. -- just now.

Is that what you did that night when you grabbed her?

A. Quite possibly when I grabbed her arm, quite possibly I did.

Q. When you did -- now, you just put both hands in a fist.

When you did it that night, did you punch her in the face with your hands?

A. No. No.

Q. Did you put your fingers and hands on her throat and leave marks on her throat, sir?

A. I don't recall doing that at all, no.

Q. You are aware she had marks on her throat, are you not?

The next question and answer was---

[weezer]

Weezer
i think it has been your position that 17 years of abuse led oj to kill nicole on 6/12. i am saying the prosecution obviously did not agree with your claim as they did not charge oj with what you claimed caused him to finally kill her.
If that is not your claim i did not understand what you claim.

There is something in our environment that is obviously very different. I understand that after 17 years of abuse, torment and threats, orenthal's rage finally culminated in Nicole's death. I'm not sure why you can't make that connection and I'm not sure why you believe he would have been charged with abuse for a dead person.

[William Anthony]

For anyone to think that LE was above having to prove what they did in the Simpson murder trial is a distorted view of reality and to think that LE operated in isolation as to how they have treated a community and what LE is actually capable of ignorantly and inaccurately ignores those that have been exonerated due to the transgressions of prosecutors and police.

[weezer]

For anyone to think that LE was above having to prove what they did in the Simpson murder trial is a distorted view of reality and to think that LE operated in isolation as to how they have treated a community and what LE is actually capable of ignorantly and inaccurately ignores those that have been exonerated due to the transgressions of prosecutors and police.

and for anyone to think that the use of the murder trial of a young man and woman to voice their alledged victimization by LE -- not by the actual victims -- is vile.

[martin II]

i have spent too much time playing with you.
see you later when i have more time to play.

[weezer]

Monday, November 25

Petrocelli questions Simpson about the cut on his finger.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, you did tell the police, however, sir, when you were interviewed the next morning, that you did cut your finger that night, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told the police that you cut your finger at a time that was between 10 and 11, right?

A. Yes.

Q. That's the time that Ron and Nicole were murdered, right?

A. That's what I'm told, yes.

Q. And you told the police that you may have reopened that cut in Chicago, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, the cut that you reopened in Chicago, sir, was on your middle finger, right?

A. May have reopened, yes.

Q. What do you mean may have?

You just -- you didn't tell the cops "may have," did you?

A. I thought so. I thought that's what I said to them.

Q. Now, the cut on your middle finger is one that still bears a scar, does it not?

(Witness reviews finger.)

A. Yes.

Q. Left hand middle finger, right?

A. Yes.

orenthal's police statement - June 13, 1994

V: We've got some blood on and in your car, we've got some blood at your house, sort of a problem.

S: Well, take my blood test.

L: Well, we'd like to do that. We've got, of course, the cut on your finger that you aren't real clear on. Do you recall having that cut on your finger the last time you were at Nicole's house?

S: A week ago?

L: Yeah.

S: No. It was last night.

L: OK, so last night you cut it.

V: Somewhere after the recital?

S: Somewhere when I was rushing out of my house.

[William Anthony]

To give LE a free pass and not question what they did and to have defendant's wrongly convicted, because of LE who think they are above the law and use corrupt tactics to incarcerate people they hate simply because of the color of their skin and to expect that the prosecution should not be held to their burden of proof not only shows a lack of understanding of our judicial system but demonstrates an attitude that is beyond vile and reprehensible and may be reminiscent of days of yore, imho.

[weezer]

To give LE a free pass and not question what they did and to have defendant's wrongly convicted, because of LE who think they are above the law and use corrupt tactics to incarcerate people they hate simply because of the color of their skin and to expect that the prosecution should not be held to their burden of proof not only shows a lack of understanding of our judicial system but demonstrates an attitude that is beyond vile and reprehensible and may be reminiscent of days of yore, imho.

despite many investigations, there is and has never been proof/evidence that all the nefarious crap in the accusations by the defense against LE ever happened. it just simply and plainly didn't happen. the selfishness and self-absorption to use the murder trial of a young man and woman as a bully pulpit is vile.

[martin II]

There is something in our environment that is obviously very different. I understand that after 17 years of abuse, torment and threats, orenthal's rage finally culminated in Nicole's death. I'm not sure why you can't make that connection and I'm not sure why you believe he would have been charged with abuse for a dead person.

The center of the issue is that there was no 17 years of beatings and abuse as you frequently claim.At least nicole gave a totally different idea when she wrote oj the letter taking responsibility for their problems and asking, pleading for him to allow her to return to his house at rockingham so she could have her family and him back. So nicoles letter is in opposition to your claims and so was the prosecutions noncharge.That seems to leave some with made up claims without proof.imo

[weezer]

The center of the issue is that there was no 17 years of beatings and abuse as you frequently claim.At least nicole gave a totally different idea when she wrote oj the letter taking responsibility for their problems and asking, pleading for him to allow her to return to his house at rockingham so she could have her family and him back. So nicoles letter is in opposition to your claims and so was the prosecutions noncharge.That seems to leave some with made up claims without proof.imo

are you talking about the letter where she said "I never felt the same about you after that."?

[weezer]

The center of the issue is that there was no 17 years of beatings and abuse as you frequently claim.At least nicole gave a totally different idea when she wrote oj the letter taking responsibility for their problems and asking, pleading for him to allow her to return to his house at rockingham so she could have her family and him back. So nicoles letter is in opposition to your claims and so was the prosecutions noncharge.That seems to leave some with made up claims without proof.imo

do I think she wanted to go home at some point -- sure. from what I understand, that's common for abuse victims. the fact remains that at the end of her life, she wasn't with orenthal and didn't want to be with orenthal. he murdered her.

[William Anthony]

For those that have some education and training in the law and understand which party has the burden of proof, the defense need only provide evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the prosecution's evidence can and should not be trusted.

[martin II]

There is something in our environment that is obviously very different. I understand that after 17 years of abuse, torment and threats, orenthal's rage finally culminated in Nicole's death. I'm not sure why you can't make that connection and I'm not sure why you believe he would have been charged with abuse for a dead person.

oj was not charged with abuse by the prosecution.if they felt that was abuse they could/would just charged him. your opinions did not seem to be asccepted by the prosecution which leads me to conclude that you are making claims that are just not true. just more attempts to demonise Mr Simpson. which has become your mo. imo

[weezer]

For those that have some education and training in the law and understand which party has the burden of proof, the defense need only provide evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the prosecution's evidence can and should not be trusted.

and for those us with common sense and no axe to grind, the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that orenthal james simpson murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

the rest of the crap that the defense threw against the wall was for the benefit of a few.

[weezer]

oj was not charged with abuse by the prosecution.if they felt that was abuse they could/would just charged him. your opinions did not seem to be asccepted by the prosecution which leads me to conclude that you are making claims that are just not true. just more attempts to demonise Mr Simpson. which has become your mo. imo

martin, listen slowly -- no one has ever said orenthal was charged with abuse. I understand that that lifestyle is accepted and understood by some people in some communities. the rest of us understand that it was a train wreck that culminated in orenthal james simpson finally murdering Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

[martin II]

For those that have some education and training in the law and understand which party has the burden of proof, the defense need only provide evidence from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the prosecution's evidence can and should not be trusted.

William
From post here it appears that some that do not understand the law took the opinion that oj was charged there was blood that the prosecution was his, the prosecution taol us there was mountain of evidence and me Oj looked guilty. hell a white girl and a white guy was killed So what the hell are we waiting on. reasonable doubt. prepondance of something. let the prosecution state their case give the defence a minute or two and tell the judge to tell the jury to convice this thug.
It went well until the jury got a chance to listen to the prosecutions case witnesses and view the evidence and speak on all of it. That was when the prosecutions case caught fire and burned to the floor in front of their eyes.

I think it was when Darden stepped to the speakers box and cried like a baby
as he had finally realized that the drean team had done a job on him and clarke.The glove demo must have flashed before his eyes
clarke may not have cared because she may have already had her book manuscript in her desk.

[weezer]

William
From post here it appears that some that do not understand the law took the opinion that oj was charged there was blood that the prosecution was his, the prosecution taol us there was mountain of evidence and me Oj looked guilty. hell a white girl and a white guy was killed So what the hell are we waiting on. reasonable doubt. prepondance of something. let the prosecution state their case give the defence a minute or two and tell the judge to tell the jury to convice this thug.
It went well until the jury got a chance to listen to the prosecutions case witnesses and view the evidence and speak on all of it. That was when the prosecutions case caught fire and burned to the floor in front of their eyes.

I think it was when Darden stepped to the speakers box and cried like a baby
as he had finally realized that the drean team had done a job on he and clarke.The glove demo must have flashed before his eyes

after numerous investigations then and since, there has never been proof/evidence that any of the crap the criminal defense threw against the wall ever happened. to continue to whine and whine about what LE did is pointless -- it didn't happen.

obviously Darden's reaction bothered you -- he at least had a conscience. cockroach and company 'did a job' on the victims. lots of us cried over that.

[William Anthony]

Some have ground their axe away over the past 14 years but that has not stopped them as they are now whittling away the axe handle trying to do what the prosecution failed to.:)

[William Anthony]

William
From post here it appears that some that do not understand the law took the opinion that oj was charged there was blood that the prosecution was his, the prosecution taol us there was mountain of evidence and me Oj looked guilty. hell a white girl and a white guy was killed So what the hell are we waiting on. reasonable doubt. prepondance of something. let the prosecution state their case give the defence a minute or two and tell the judge to tell the jury to convice this thug.
It went well until the jury got a chance to listen to the prosecutions case witnesses and view the evidence and speak on all of it. That was when the prosecutions case caught fire and burned to the floor in front of their eyes.

I think it was when Darden stepped to the speakers box and cried like a baby
as he had finally realized that the drean team had done a job on him and clarke.The glove demo must have flashed before his eyes
clarke may not have cared because she may have already had her book manuscript in her desk.

Was it Darden or Clark that was singing, "Hey You, Get Off My Mountain"?

[weezer]

Was it Darden or Clark that was singing, "Hey You, Get Off My Mountain"?

I -- and I'm sure every other G -- would like to see the proof/evidence of all the crap you believe happened. not your little debating scenarios, not the argument of a wannabe lawyer -- proof. something concrete. you know -- that thing you insist LE didn't have against orenthal. let's see your proof against LE.

[William Anthony]

Again some are determined to not understand the law, as argument is a form of persuasion and the burden of proof contains a burden of persuasion. It is a testament of one's ability to make the opponent become irrational, rude and insulting and to want to continue to engage you after you have informed them that the debate is over.:)

[weezer]

Again some are determined to not understand the law, as argument is a form of persuasion and the burden of proof contains a burden of persuasion. It is a testament of one's ability to make the opponent become irrational, rude and insulting and to want to continue to engage you after you have informed them that the debate is over.:)

:chicken::chicken:

[William Anthony]

:seeya:, :seeya:, :seeya: and :seeya:

[weezer]

no less than expected.

[William Anthony]

:seeya:, :seeya:, :seeya:

[martin II]

martin, listen slowly -- no one has ever said orenthal was charged with abuse. I understand that that lifestyle is accepted and understood by some people in some communities. the rest of us understand that it was a train wreck that culminated in orenthal james simpson finally murdering Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

i have not posted any thing about abuse in certain communities. i thimk abuse takes in rich and poor white communites as it takes place in back,hispanic and asian communities.
i have no idea as to what you speak of when you often talk about this certain community.

my point is simple. if the prosecution believes as you do that oj abused nicole for 17 years they would have had a good abuse case. since they didn't i conclude they did not agree with you and or did have the proof to prove the charge you make.They had much more investigative capacity than you. that is for sure.So imo that leaves you on the sidewalk with a abuse sign that no

[GreenIce]

I am almost in disbelief at this point.

Are you aware that Plaintiffs Rufo and Goldman did not ask for damages pertaining to Ron Goldman's future earning potential? Obviously you are not aware of such or you would not be making the misinformed statements that you have made.

You may be under the impression that because compensatory damages were awarded means that Fred Goldman was asking to be compensated for the loss of Ron's future wages. But compensatory damages can be awarded to a Plaintiff for many things such as emotional pain and suffering, loss of companionship, loss of enjoyment of life, etc.

Let us be clear - Ronald Goldman's future earning potential was not a claim in that case, and damages/awards were never asked for regarding such. Daniel Petrocelli had to make that clear to the jurors in the aftermath of Baker's callous comments regarding credit cards and restaurant dreams so that they would be certain to understand.

Please do your research and then be so kind as to correct your misstatements that Ron Goldman's earning potential would be or was a factor in determining the size of the judgment.

Kate

Kate,

The civil trial is all about money. To even suggest otherwise is just plain wrong. How many times have you heard the Goldmans say why they want their money, they want to hurt him where it counts, in his wallet. It is all about the money and it is disengenious (sp) to suggest otherwise.

You know as well as I do the outcome of the civil trial was already known 24 hours after the criminal trial verdict came in. You remember the media saying how it would be totally different in Santa Monica. Over and over again the legal talking heads talked about what jurors do take into consideration when they are in the damages phase of the trial. Are they suppose to, I don't how they can't. Do you honestly believe that when a jury has this responsibilty they don't ask themselves these types of questions?

Come on Kate, you are being silly to suggest otherwise. No one can measure or put a monetary amount on someone's pain and suffering, that is an impossible task. However, when you take into consideration the person's age, their career path, etc., it makes an impossible task just a little less impossible.

Petrocelli was wise when he didn't ask for any sum of money, he put it totally in the jurors hands---however, he knew he won the case, he knew it was going to be huge. He didn't ask for an amount because he was trusting the jury to determine the sum.

[martin II]

martin, listen slowly -- no one has ever said orenthal was charged with abuse. I understand that that lifestyle is accepted and understood by some people in some communities. the rest of us understand that it was a train wreck that culminated in orenthal james simpson finally murdering Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

i have not posted any thing about abuse in certain communities. i thimk abuse takes in rich and poor white communites as it takes place in back,hispanic and asian communities.
i have no idea as to what you speak of when you often talk about this certain community.

my point is simple. if the prosecution believes as you do that oj abused nicole for 17 years they would have had a good abuse case. since they didn't i conclude they did not agree with you and or did have the proof to prove the charge you make.They had much more investigative capacity than you. that is for sure.So imo that leaves you on the sidewalk with a abuse sign that few
support or no proof imo

[GreenIce]

But the Brown's didn't believe that, as we heard Juditha and Denise both recount times that they either witnessed, or were told by Nicole, about abuse. The problem is that they didn't take it seriously, and they have expressed sorrow regarding such. I do believe that it is easy to be blinded by celebrity and dollars. In addition, we must recall that most of the abuse happened in the 1970's and 1980's at a time when domestic violence was still very much viewed as a dirty little secret and a private family affair.

Some of her friends did go to the DA.

Kate

Kate,

I have never read anything like this. I only remember Denise was very public in the beginning say that her sister was not a battered woman. That the 1989 incident was an isolated one. However, I do believe as she became more of an advocate, she educated herself and during that process she may have remembered a few things. If her parents did witness Simpson beating her and knew he was, then I don't understand how they could even look their grandchildren in the face.

The same for Nicole's friends---if they knew it but still enjoyed Simpsons' fame and money and still went out with them socially, then I have no respect for any of them. And they certainly can't be called friends, IMO.

[GreenIce]

I rest my case. :seeya:

FBG,

You better explain this post and you better include an apology in it as well. I will not take your abuse. And that is what it is. You continue to make snide and nasty comments, for some odd reason some of your buddies jump in and then I ended reading posts how you all blame Martin and William for having the threads shut down.

This is your last chance to do the right thing, I will not ask you again. However, I will ask someone else to do the right thing and apologize to me for your abuse.

[martin II]

I -- and I'm sure every other G -- would like to see the proof/evidence of all the crap you believe happened. not your little debating scenarios, not the argument of a wannabe lawyer -- proof. something concrete. you know -- that thing you insist LE didn't have against orenthal. let's see your proof against LE.

The prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonble doubt. The proof of this was in the jury verdict.That is what i think

[Hipcheck]

Bailey stopped the test long before it was finished.Oj never completed the polygraph test.

You are right that O.J. never completed a polygraph test but the questions he was asked showed that he was lying.

What were the questions he failed? Those questions had to have been asked if he had any involvement in Nicole and Ron's death and he failed those which tells me he did in fact murder them.

[martin II]

do I think she wanted to go home at some point -- sure. from what I understand, that's common for abuse victims. the fact remains that at the end of her life, she wasn't with orenthal and didn't want to be with orenthal. he murdered her.

i am not sure if nicole knew what she wanted to go. She wanted to be with oj. but when she was partying with faye and other men she had met she said she wanted her freedon.When she thought family life, the children and oj as her husband and the security he brought to the relationship she wanted to be at rockingham. When oj and Paula became a couple at the end she wanted Paula out but oj refused. So it is not clear at all that she did not want to be with Simpson or what she wanted to do. For sure she felt that she could always get oj back but that last time when Paula had taken her place it was not for sure she could.imo

[martin II]

You are right that O.J. never completed a polygraph test but the questions he was asked showed that he was lying.

What were the questions he failed? Those questions had to have been asked if he had any involvement in Nicole and Ron's death and he failed those which tells me he did in fact murder them.

If this is true then there would be no reason for all the questions that were not asked because the test would be graded only on the first few questions.

I have not seen any report stating what first questions he was asked and whether the machine said lie or truth on those first questions.

From what i have heard the first set of questions are questions of no value as they are basic quesitons with known answers. Like what is you name.Do you have children. are you 65 years old. Are you in los angeles now.I am not sure of this.

If a person answers a total of 100 questions and the machine says lie on
on 60 then i would assume the person failed.If the machine says he was truthful on 75 what does that mean.

I see no way that test could have 100 questions and a results could be made after say 20 asre answered.
All of this is my opinion as i have never taken or given this test.

Do you know what questions he was asked on the part of the test he took??

[bobaugust]

The magnificent one's closing-September 28th

"One final word about Allan Park. We talked a lot about Allan Park. He is somebody that Miss Clark, of course, found credible, but even credible people don't get everything right."

You see that was part of his magnificence. He did not have to tell the jury what didn't make sense. He relied on them to listen to the testimony and compare it to the phone records and consider the inferences to be drawn therefrom just as I did.

I see, you claim that the scenario you imagined, that is impossible to have happened, is what actually happened. You claim Allan Park’s telephone records somehow support your inference, when in fact they do no such thing. You claim Allan Park first saw Kaelin once that night when Kaelin opened the gate for him, not as Park testified to that Kaelin opened the gate the second time he saw him that night. And you claim that Allan Park was simply mistaken, that he only assumed he saw Kaelin come from the back of the house on the Ashford side path when in fact Allan Park consistently testified to that fact at the grand jury, the preliminary hearing, the criminal trial, and the civil trial. And of course you claim that your imagined impossible scenario creates reasonable doubt for you.

Once again you have shown us how far you will go and the excuses you will use, even to believing the impossible, to avoid admitting you are wrong when you are so obviously wrong. But I understand since it’s evident you realize how incriminating for Simpson Allan Park’s testimony actually is and to admit to it blows your entire position regarding Simpson’s innocence out the window. This is your third end of story regarding this issue. Good job William.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I see, you claim that the scenario you imagined, that is impossible to have happened, is what actually happened. You claim Allan Park’s telephone records somehow support your inference, when in fact they do no such thing. You claim Allan Park first saw Kaelin once that night when Kaelin opened the gate for him, not as Park testified to that Kaelin opened the gate the second time he saw him that night. And you claim that Allan Park was simply mistaken, that he only assumed he saw Kaelin come from the back of the house on the Ashford side path when in fact Allan Park consistently testified to that fact at the grand jury, the preliminary hearing, the criminal trial, and the civil trial. And of course you claim that your imagined impossible scenario creates reasonable doubt for you.

Once again you have shown us how far you will go and the excuses you will use, even to believing the impossible, to avoid admitting you are wrong when you are so obviously wrong. But I understand since it’s evident you realize how incriminating for Simpson Allan Park’s testimony actually is and to admit to it blows your entire position regarding Simpson’s innocence out the window. This is your third end of story regarding this issue. Good job William.

bobaugust

I am sorry if you misunderstood. My response was to your claim that the magnificent one or the defense never argued what I claimed, that's all. I have shown how the phone records and the testimony supports my inference and Martin has shown you by the lights, which you claimed Kato never testified to. Show me where Park claimed to have seen Kato on two separate occasions and as you say post the date and the testimony. He saw Kato and Simpson simultaneously and within a minute and a half of that sighting Kato was opening the gate for him.:)

I don't know how many times I can tell you or will but I don't have to be right, only be able to draw a reasonable inference from the evidence that supports reasonable doubt. You, on the other hand, have to be right and call others wrong, because it blows your theory that Simpson is the murderer into outer space, if it is even possible that you are wrong. It is alright as I can understand, since you have devoted so much of your life to trying to prove Simpson guilty and someone like me can so easily show reasonable doubt. I will save you from looking for Park testifying to seeing Kato on two separate occasions.

Park-March 28th

"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. "

Let's do our best to remain civil, agreed?

[martin II]

i wonder if when Kato walked from his room and saw the limo but did not see Park if park was standing behind the limo smoking or had he ducked down under the dash board to finish off that joint. i don't understand what the circumstances were that caused him not to see Park since Park claimed he saw Kato.

[William Anthony]

An interesting article on lie detector tests.

http://www.barristermagazine.com/articles/issue24/profbull.htm

[weezer]

SNIPPED*** If her parents did witness Simpson beating her and knew he was, then I don't understand how they could even look their grandchildren in the face.

trust me -- you are owed no apology.

[weezer]

i wonder if when Kato walked from his room and saw the limo but did not see Park if park was standing behind the limo smoking or had he ducked down under the dash board to finish off that joint. i don't understand what the circumstances were that caused him not to see Park since Park claimed he saw Kato.

how many times do you have to be reminded? on the night orenthal james simpson murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, he was the only one with drugs in his system. On the night that Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown were murdered, ONLY their murderer orenthal james simpson had drugs in his system.

[weezer]

If this is true then there would be no reason for all the questions that were not asked because the test would be graded only on the first few questions.

I have not seen any report stating what first questions he was asked and whether the machine said lie or truth on those first questions.

From what i have heard the first set of questions are questions of no value as they are basic quesitons with known answers. Like what is you name.Do you have children. are you 65 years old. Are you in los angeles now.I am not sure of this.

If a person answers a total of 100 questions and the machine says lie on
on 60 then i would assume the person failed.If the machine says he was truthful on 75 what does that mean.

I see no way that test could have 100 questions and a results could be made after say 20 asre answered.
All of this is my opinion as i have never taken or given this test.

Do you know what questions he was asked on the part of the test he took??

I'm pretty sure it was the questions: did you murder Ron Goldman? Did you murder Nicole Brown?

[weezer]

i am not sure if nicole knew what she wanted to go. She wanted to be with oj. but when she was partying with faye and other men she had met she said she wanted her freedon.When she thought family life, the children and oj as her husband and the security he brought to the relationship she wanted to be at rockingham. When oj and Paula became a couple at the end she wanted Paula out but oj refused. So it is not clear at all that she did not want to be with Simpson or what she wanted to do. For sure she felt that she could always get oj back but that last time when Paula had taken her place it was not for sure she could.imo

on the night she was murdered, Nicole knew exactly where she wanted to be -- far, far away from her abuser. She made it very clear.

[weezer]

i have not posted any thing about abuse in certain communities. i thimk abuse takes in rich and poor white communites as it takes place in back,hispanic and asian communities.
i have no idea as to what you speak of when you often talk about this certain community.

my point is simple. if the prosecution believes as you do that oj abused nicole for 17 years they would have had a good abuse case. since they didn't i conclude they did not agree with you and or did have the proof to prove the charge you make.They had much more investigative capacity than you. that is for sure.So imo that leaves you on the sidewalk with a abuse sign that few
support or no proof imo

I still don't understand why you would think orenthal would be charged for abuse when Nicole was dead from having her throat cut. No one but the NG's have tried to shift the focus to abuse. The rest of us understand that the years of abuse finally culminated in orenthal james simpson murdering Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown in a fit of rage.

I wasn't left on the sidewalk martin. Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown were left on the sidewalk -- slaughtered by orenthal james simpson.

[martin II]

I am sorry if you misunderstood. My response was to your claim that the magnificent one or the defense never argued what I claimed, that's all. I have shown how the phone records and the testimony supports my inference and Martin has shown you by the lights, which you claimed Kato never testified to. Show me where Park claimed to have seen Kato on two separate occasions and as you say post the date and the testimony. He saw Kato and Simpson simultaneously and within a minute and a half of that sighting Kato was opening the gate for him.:)

I don't know how many times I can tell you or will but I don't have to be right, only be able to draw a reasonable inference from the evidence that supports reasonable doubt. You, on the other hand, have to be right and call others wrong, because it blows your theory that Simpson is the murderer into outer space, if it is even possible that you are wrong. It is alright as I can understand, since you have devoted so much of your life to trying to prove Simpson guilty and someone like me can so easily show reasonable doubt. I will save you from looking for Park testifying to seeing Kato on two separate occasions.

Park-March 28th

"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. "

Let's do our best to remain civil, agreed?


absolutely correct

Park could not have seen oj go into the house and the lights come on and saw Kaoto at the same time because Kato was in the south walkway when the lights came on investigating.
The proof of this is that Kato walked past the front door on his way to the walkway and the lights were off. He arrived at the walkway and did his invetigation,
He then turned around and walked back up in front of the front door and the lights were on.Oj turned the lights on after Kato passed the front door and was in the south walkway.

A few days ago BOB said Kato did not say the lights were off during his first past and on during his return past and HE demanded that i post Katos saying this. I posted katons testimony saying just that, I bet bob was greately suprised when he read Katos testimony.

[martin II]

I still don't understand why you would think orenthal would be charged for abuse when Nicole was dead from having her throat cut. No one but the NG's have tried to shift the focus to abuse. The rest of us understand that the years of abuse finally culminated in orenthal james simpson murdering Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown in a fit of rage.

I wasn't left on the sidewalk martin. Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown were left on the sidewalk -- slaughtered by orenthal james simpson.

weezer take a moment to think.
the prosecution did not have evidence to charge abuse led to murder as you believe it did.
However they did waste the courts time when they caused Darden to stand before the jury yapping and yapping trying to make a case for abuse or try to get the jury to focus on that nonsense.It failed because the jury was focusing on the charge of murder.I think Clarke even gave it a shot herself.

We know the jury did not go for abuse in a murder trial when abuse was not charged.imo

[martin II]

I am sorry if you misunderstood. My response was to your claim that the magnificent one or the defense never argued what I claimed, that's all. I have shown how the phone records and the testimony supports my inference and Martin has shown you by the lights, which you claimed Kato never testified to. Show me where Park claimed to have seen Kato on two separate occasions and as you say post the date and the testimony. He saw Kato and Simpson simultaneously and within a minute and a half of that sighting Kato was opening the gate for him.:)

I don't know how many times I can tell you or will but I don't have to be right, only be able to draw a reasonable inference from the evidence that supports reasonable doubt. You, on the other hand, have to be right and call others wrong, because it blows your theory that Simpson is the murderer into outer space, if it is even possible that you are wrong. It is alright as I can understand, since you have devoted so much of your life to trying to prove Simpson guilty and someone like me can so easily show reasonable doubt. I will save you from looking for Park testifying to seeing Kato on two separate occasions.

Park-March 28th

"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. "

Let's do our best to remain civil, agreed?
See Park was fudging and got mixed up/confused.

[weezer]

weezer take a moment to think.
the prosecution did not have evidence to charge abuse led to murder as you believe it did.
However they did waste the courts time when they caused Darden to stand before the jury yapping and yapping trying to make a case for abuse or try to get the jury to focus on that nonsense.It failed because the jury was focusing on the charge of murder.I think Clarke even gave it a shot herself.

We know the jury did not go for abuse in a murder trial when abuse was not charged.imo

I understand what you obviously can't -- this was a murder case that culminated after years of abuse -- no one but the NG's have tried to make it anything else.

I'm kinda surprised that you don't grasp the 'history of abuse' being the reason something happens.

[martin II]

I'm pretty sure it was the questions: did you murder Ron Goldman? Did you murder Nicole Brown?
Weezer
your opinion about what you think the question was is not enough to call it fact or to answer the question. don't you agree?

[William Anthony]

absolutely correct

Park could not have seen oj go into the house and the lights come on and saw Kaoto at the same time because Kato was in the south walkway when the lights came on investigating.
The proof of this is that Kato walked past the front door on his way to the walkway and the lights were off. He arrived at the walkway and did his invetigation,
He then turned around and walked back up in front of the front door and the lights were on.Oj turned the lights on after Kato passed the front door and was in the south walkway.

A few days ago BOB said Kato did not say the lights were off during his first past and on during his return past and HE demanded that i post Katos saying this. I posted katons testimony saying just that, I bet bob was greately suprised when he read Katos testimony.

I remember the incident vividly.

[weezer]

Weezer
your opinion about what you think the question was is not enough to call it fact or to answer the question. don't you agree?

you mean like your opinion about the questions you posted?

"Like what is you name.Do you have children. are you 65 years old. Are you in los angeles now."

I agree completely -- guess that makes my opinion on what the questions were that were going so badly the questioning had to stop as valid as yours. don't you agree?

[William Anthony]

Some folks in some communities don't believe LE abuses people and are therefore more tolerant of it, imho. ;)

[weezer]

Some folks in some communities don't believe LE abuses people and are therefore more tolerant of it, imho. ;)

that may be true -- but MOST people understood that the murder trial of orenthal james simpson for the brutal murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown wasn't about LE abusing people since we ALL know that in the numerous investigations into the allegations then and since, there has NEVER been proof/evidence that any of the crap thrown against the wall by the criminal defense ever happened.

[William Anthony]

If everyone that committed crimes was guaranteed to get caught, I think the crime rate would drop drastically. However, when there is a fraternal brotherhood devoted to backing each other up, the chances of those crimes being proven are slim to none, especially when you have one member of the brotherhood investigating another. However, I sometimes feel compelled to repeat myself. The defense did not have to prove anything, only provide evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that the prosecution's evidence should not be trusted.

[weezer]

If everyone that committed crimes was guaranteed to get caught, I think the crime rate would drop drastically. However, when there is a fraternal brotherhood devoted to backing each other up, the chances of those crimes being proven are slim to none, especially when you have one member of the brotherhood investigating another. However, I sometimes feel compelled to repeat myself. The defense did not have to prove anything, only provide evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that the prosecution's evidence should not be trusted.

and according to the NG's and the criminal jury, the defense succeeded -- that doesn't make it so. that simply means that small group of people say they don't believe orenthal james simpson murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown or 'it's our turn to teach them a lesson' or 'we take care of our own'. the rest of us understand that orenthal james simpson did butcher and murder Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

[William Anthony]

Legal scholars and professionals and even some Gs believe there was reasonable doubt.

[Hipcheck]

If this is true then there would be no reason for all the questions that were not asked because the test would be graded only on the first few questions.

I have not seen any report stating what first questions he was asked and whether the machine said lie or truth on those first questions.

From what i have heard the first set of questions are questions of no value as they are basic quesitons with known answers. Like what is you name.Do you have children. are you 65 years old. Are you in los angeles now.I am not sure of this.

If a person answers a total of 100 questions and the machine says lie on
on 60 then i would assume the person failed.If the machine says he was truthful on 75 what does that mean.

I see no way that test could have 100 questions and a results could be made after say 20 asre answered.
All of this is my opinion as i have never taken or given this test.

Do you know what questions he was asked on the part of the test he took??

If the polygraph test wasn't going very well then common sense tells me that those question were about the murders.

The polygraph operator would have asked O.J. questions like this.

Were you involved with murdering Nicole and Ron?

Were you the person who caused Nicole and Ron's deaths?

Do you know who murdered Nicole and Ron?

All the questions asked would have been asked if he was involved or knew who was in the murders.

A polygraph operator doesn't ask that many question and it only takes one failed question to fail the test.

[weezer]

Legal scholars and professionals and even some Gs believe there was reasonable doubt.

I'm sure there is. doesn't change the fact that the majority of the world believes orenthal james simpson murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

[William Anthony]

Believing something and proving it is two different things.

[Hipcheck]

Legal scholars and professionals and even some Gs believe there was reasonable doubt.

Who are these legal scholars and professionals?

[weezer]

Believing something and proving it is two different things.

orenthal's guilt was proven. what can't be proven is the outrageous accusations made against LE in this case. or maybe you have concrete proof that you can share with us? you know, that thing that you say wasn't given to prove orenthal's guilt. that thing you keep insisting isn't there. let's see concrete proof that the crap the criminal defense threw against the wall is true.

[Hipcheck]

Believing something and proving it is two different things.

So what are the names of these people?

[weezer]

somebody's little legs must be very tired tonight! LOL
:chicken::chicken:

[William Anthony]

So what are the names of these people?

I did not feel like typing all the names but I am sure this will get you started.

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=legal+professional+who+criticize+Marcia+clark+an d+chris+darden

[William Anthony]

Someone's mouth may be in need of a rest.:seeya:, :seeya:, :seeya: and :seeya:

[weezer]

I did not feel like typing all the names but I am sure this will get you started.

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=legal+professional+who+criticize+Marcia+clark+an d+chris+darden

this one?

". . .Darden was afraid that the defense team's tactics would work all too well on the jury. In his book, he described the misgivings he felt about the twelve people who would ultimately decide Simpson's fate: "As soon as I saw the first-teamers, I could tell it was one of the worst juries--from a prosecutor's standpoint--that I'd ever seen. And I'm not talking about race. These were simply not happy- looking, motivated, or successful people. From the first day, I sensed that many of them were angry at the system for various insults and injuries--12 people lined up at the grinder with big axes."

[William Anthony]

I am talking about legal professionals who did not make excuses for loosing. Try this link.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/prosecution.html

[William Anthony]

It seems Ms. Clark may have resorted to Darden's tactics,

http://www.articlearchives.com/population-demographics/demographic-groups/632893-1.html

[martin II]

i was under the impression that the test last 2-3 hours.

It would be informative if we are ever able to get the record of the actual questions posted. This way we would not have to rely on individuals opinions or gusess on what they were.Everyone saying i think they would be this or that is not enough to call it factual.
If failure happens at the first lie are any further questions asked,if so for what purpose?

[martin II]

If the polygraph test wasn't going very well then common sense tells me that those question were about the murders.

The polygraph operator would have asked O.J. questions like this.

Were you involved with murdering Nicole and Ron?

Were you the person who caused Nicole and Ron's deaths?

Do you know who murdered Nicole and Ron?

All the questions asked would have been asked if he was involved or knew who was in the murders.

A polygraph operator doesn't ask that many question and it only takes one failed question to fail the test.


and if the polugraph operatyor did not ask oj the questions you think he would have asked him in the first part of the test where does that leave your opinion?

[Hipcheck]

i was under the impression that the test last 2-3 hours.

It would be informative if we are ever able to get the record of the actual questions posted. This way we would not have to rely on individuals opinions or gusess on what they were.Everyone saying i think they would be this or that is not enough to call it factual.
If failure happens at the first lie are any further questions asked,if so for what purpose?

I don't know the exact wording of the questions asked O.J. but I do know what the content would be. All the questions would be about if O.J. did, was involved or knew who murdered Nicole or Ron.

O.J. failed his polyraph test which tells me he murdered Nicole and Ron. Robert Shapiro also knew O.J. was guilty of the murders and wanted him to plead guilty of some type of murder charge and hoped O.J. would be parolled one day. That's the reason Shapiro got fired.

[Hipcheck]

i was under the impression that the test last 2-3 hours.

It would be informative if we are ever able to get the record of the actual questions posted. This way we would not have to rely on individuals opinions or gusess on what they were.Everyone saying i think they would be this or that is not enough to call it factual.
If failure happens at the first lie are any further questions asked,if so for what purpose?

Have you ever seen someone taking a polygraph test? I have seen this done where some passed and some failed.

The polygraph operator has a list of question he is going to ask. The list of questions is usally any where between five but less than ten questions.

If a person fails the first question then the polygraph operator will go on to the second and if he fails again the operator will go on to the next and then the next until he is done. Once he is done with the test he will then go over the results of each question and tell the person how he did.

[GreenIce]

I don't know the exact wording of the questions asked O.J. but I do know what the content would be. All the questions would be about if O.J. did, was involved or knew who murdered Nicole or Ron.

O.J. failed his polyraph test which tells me he murdered Nicole and Ron. Robert Shapiro also knew O.J. was guilty of the murders and wanted him to plead guilty of some type of murder charge and hoped O.J. would be parolled one day. That's the reason Shapiro got fired.

Hipcheck,

Martin is right, the test takes a few hours. However, any lie detector test should only be taken after so many hours, I dont know if it is 48 or 72 hours. There is a reason why that is.

I blame Shapiro for this, he should have known the circumstances of when a lie detector should be taken. However, what is interesting is that Shapiro did over for Simpson to take a lie detector test to the DA's. However, if they accepted this, then the results had to be introduced into evidence. The DA's declined. If Shapiro made this deal and the DA's took it, knowing that Simpson allegedy failed a lie detector test, then he would have lost his license to practice. If Shapiro knew allegedy knew Simpson failed a lie detector test, then there is no way Simpson would have been able to take the stand.

Also, if you have read Petrocelli's book, he says something very interesting on this subject. He was was told not to let Simpson take another one--it has been a long time and I no longer have his book but Bob August has it, maybe he knows what exactly was said about this.

I do not believe that lie detector tests should even be allowed. IMO, they are nothing more then a public relations stunt. The don't prove anything and no one is going to change their mind. If OJ took 500 hundred lie detector tests and passed every one of them and each of the examiners said that he was telling the truth, would you then believe Simpson was innocent?

[Hipcheck]

If OJ took 500 hundred lie detector tests and passed every one of them and each of the examiners said that he was telling the truth, would you then believe Simpson was innocent?

Yes I would think that O.J. was innocent.

But the fact is O.J. took one and it was reported that he failed it. I heard he got a very low score.

Polygraph test results can't be used in court but they are very accurate and even Mark Geragos agrees.

[GreenIce]

Yes I would think that O.J. was innocent.

But the fact is O.J. took one and it was reported that he failed it. I heard he got a very low score.

Polygraph test results can't be used in court but they are very accurate and even Mark Geragos agrees.

Hipcheck,

It is only personal belief that lie detectors prove nothing. If you believe that Simpson would be innocent if he passed the lie detector test, then aren't you saying that he was being framed for the murder?

I know the test takes several hours and I think there is more then one "round" of questions. I think they ask a set of questions and then a couple hours later, they ask the same one.

However, does it make sense you that Shapiro would have made the offer to the DA's if he believed Simpson failed the test? IMO, this was "Shapiro's Glove Demonstration".

Just another tibet---Fuhrman asked Clark to give him a lie detector test and Clark said no. The drug dealer who claimed he sold Kato and OJ meth on the night of the murders passed his lie detector test.

[GreenIce]

I don't know the exact wording of the questions asked O.J. but I do know what the content would be. All the questions would be about if O.J. did, was involved or knew who murdered Nicole or Ron.

O.J. failed his polyraph test which tells me he murdered Nicole and Ron. Robert Shapiro also knew O.J. was guilty of the murders and wanted him to plead guilty of some type of murder charge and hoped O.J. would be parolled one day. That's the reason Shapiro got fired.

Hipcheck,

I would think the examiner has to ask certain questions in the begining of the test, then gradually builds to the reasons why he is taking this test. Because Shapiro through the results and we don't know the questions, we have no idea if the test indicated a "lie" on questions that the examiner knew to be true. Simpson said that every time Nicole's named was mentioned during the test, his heart started to race. So if this is true, then even innocent questions that had Nicole's name it, would have appeared to be deceitful. For example:
How long were married to Nicole? How many children do you and Nicole have.

However, it is possible that the examiner did start off with the harball questions and if that is the case, I can understand why Simpson became so upset when Nicole's name was mentioned.

BTW, do you like hockey?

[GreenIce]

Kate,

I owe you an apology. I went back and I read my response to your post about the civil trial in regards to the factors that play into the amount of the judgement. It came off much harsher then I intended. Again I am sorry.

Also, I did not explain well enough about this, so I will try here.

Lets just say it was you and me who were murdered and our families filed a law suit.

I am 25 years older then you and I am a teacher. You are a lawyer who is 25 years old and your earning power is at least 3 times mine. Do you think that the judgement should be equal?

IMO, if these factors were not considered then why isn't everybody life worth the same amount? Shouldn't every family who goes through this get the same amount for pain and trama that they have gone through and will continue to go through for the rest of their lives?

If every murder victim is treated the same then every settlement should be the same amount, IMO.

[GreenIce]

I see, you claim that the scenario you imagined, that is impossible to have happened, is what actually happened. You claim Allan Park’s telephone records somehow support your inference, when in fact they do no such thing. You claim Allan Park first saw Kaelin once that night when Kaelin opened the gate for him, not as Park testified to that Kaelin opened the gate the second time he saw him that night. And you claim that Allan Park was simply mistaken, that he only assumed he saw Kaelin come from the back of the house on the Ashford side path when in fact Allan Park consistently testified to that fact at the grand jury, the preliminary hearing, the criminal trial, and the civil trial. And of course you claim that your imagined impossible scenario creates reasonable doubt for you.

Once again you have shown us how far you will go and the excuses you will use, even to believing the impossible, to avoid admitting you are wrong when you are so obviously wrong. But I understand since it’s evident you realize how incriminating for Simpson Allan Park’s testimony actually is and to admit to it blows your entire position regarding Simpson’s innocence out the window. This is your third end of story regarding this issue. Good job William.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

What does it matter when and where Park saw Simpson or Kato for that matter? If Alan Park saw the front door open, Simpson walk out of it, does that mean he is innocent? Wouldn't you then be making the argument that this doesn't matter? Wouldn't you be saying of course he saw Simpson coming out of his house and that Simpson knew what time the limo was coming so he knew he had to be back in his house by a certain time? IMO.

And again, it is not about what Park should have seen but what he should have heard. IMO.

[GreenIce]

i have not posted any thing about abuse in certain communities. i thimk abuse takes in rich and poor white communites as it takes place in back,hispanic and asian communities.
i have no idea as to what you speak of when you often talk about this certain community.

my point is simple. if the prosecution believes as you do that oj abused nicole for 17 years they would have had a good abuse case. since they didn't i conclude they did not agree with you and or did have the proof to prove the charge you make.They had much more investigative capacity than you. that is for sure.So imo that leaves you on the sidewalk with a abuse sign that no

Martin,

What is really weird about Clark going with the DV motive, is that she had to be talked into. Scott Gordon went to her several times about this motive and Clark brushed him off---so what did she think the motive was if it wasn't DV?

IMO, the DA's using DV motive was clearly a sign of a major weakness in their case in the eyes of the jurors. IMO. I believe the DA's finally used this motive because using any other would open doors to questions that they could not answer, IMO.

[martin II]

this one?

". . .Darden was afraid that the defense team's tactics would work all too well on the jury. In his book, he described the misgivings he felt about the twelve people who would ultimately decide Simpson's fate: "As soon as I saw the first-teamers, I could tell it was one of the worst juries--from a prosecutor's standpoint--that I'd ever seen. And I'm not talking about race. These were simply not happy- looking, motivated, or successful people. From the first day, I sensed that many of them were angry at the system for various insults and injuries--12 people lined up at the grinder with big axes."

After the glove demo. which some blamed him for,and loosing the case, what would one expect Darden to say in his book that was targeted to those that thought he won.?

[William Anthony]

After the glove demo. which some blamed him for,and loosing the case, what would one expect Darden to say in his book that was targeted to those that thought he won.?

Martin,

I am thoroughly surprised that you don't know the rules of personal responsibility only apply to the defendant and the defense.

[martin II]

I don't know the exact wording of the questions asked O.J. but I do know what the content would be. All the questions would be about if O.J. did, was involved or knew who murdered Nicole or Ron.

O.J. failed his polyraph test which tells me he murdered Nicole and Ron. Robert Shapiro also knew O.J. was guilty of the murders and wanted him to plead guilty of some type of murder charge and hoped O.J. would be parolled one day. That's the reason Shapiro got fired.

Shaperio had a reputation for plea barganing his clients early and having oj take that test on 6/13 was his hope that oj would pass and he would use this in his plea. When Oj learned that of Shaperio plan he got better advice and demoted him. He was not fired.

You stated that one lie answer means that the person failed.Above you state that the lie answere are evaluated at the end of the test.

From everything i have read the test takes several hours ans is done in parts so i dissagree with your claim that it only take a short amount of time.

I have also read that the first set of question are ones with known answers like what is yiou name,how old are you etc because the machcine has to be calabrated and set to receive the response for this client. I have never heard of a short test with a few questions so you may want to check your opinion on this.

Since the test results remain private we don't now what the questions were or what the answers were.

Bailey has said that the reason he ordered Shaperio to stop the test was because it was too early after the murders to take the test.For anyone. I have read nothing where he said 'THE TEST WERE GOING BAD" and Bailey has the reputation of being a Polygraph expert lawyer.

It is perfectly ok for you to have a opinion from what you thnk you know but if you want others to accept your opinion you have to offer proof.Which in this case would be a list of the questions asked, the answers to these questions, the time of the test,and maby even other professional opinion as to whether enough time had passed for the client to take the test.

Absent this information we know vert little info about the test or the results.
Question: where did the idea that simpson failed come from.Was this some media leak. Did the testor make his results public if so can you give a link to his report?

If the first five question were about the murders and the machine determined he was not truthful. Then the testor would stop the test and say he failed.
Why would the testor prepared a long list of questions if he could get what he was looking in the first five.I have never heasrd of a five question polygraphy test.

These test have been evaluated and the scientific community has not given approval of it as a means to get to the truth which is why most courts have not allowed them as evidence.without the above listed info how can you feel confident that oj failed the test?

[bobaugust]

I am sorry if you misunderstood. My response was to your claim that the magnificent one or the defense never argued what I claimed, that's all. I have shown how the phone records and the testimony supports my inference and Martin has shown you by the lights, which you claimed Kato never testified to. Show me where Park claimed to have seen Kato on two separate occasions and as you say post the date and the testimony. He saw Kato and Simpson simultaneously and within a minute and a half of that sighting Kato was opening the gate for him.:)

I don't know how many times I can tell you or will but I don't have to be right, only be able to draw a reasonable inference from the evidence that supports reasonable doubt. You, on the other hand, have to be right and call others wrong, because it blows your theory that Simpson is the murderer into outer space, if it is even possible that you are wrong. It is alright as I can understand, since you have devoted so much of your life to trying to prove Simpson guilty and someone like me can so easily show reasonable doubt. I will save you from looking for Park testifying to seeing Kato on two separate occasions.

Park-March 28th

"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. "

Let's do our best to remain civil, agreed?

Yes, let’s try to remain civil. You may not think you have to be right but on this issue you are absolutely wrong. There is no reasonable doubt based on your scenario because it is impossible to have happened the way you imagine it.

The question you keep raising is where was Kato Kaelin when Allan Park first saw him?

Park testified that while talking to his boss on the phone he first saw a white male come from the back of the house on the Ashford side path with a flashlight. Park said that seconds later almost simultaneously he saw a black male walk up and enter the house.

Park testified to this fact in the grand jury on June 21, 1994, the preliminary hearing on July 5, 1994, the criminal trial on March 28, 1995 and the civil trial on November 20, 1996.

The testimony you posted from the criminal trial is what happened after Park first saw Kaelin come from the back of the house and after Simpson enter his house.

In the criminal trial Park testified that after Kaelin acknowledge him with a wave he waited to be let in the gate but no one let him in, so the got out of his limousine and rang the intercom. This time Simpson answered. They had a conversation and Park returned to the limousine and waited some more time until as Park said in the civil trial “finally, the white male came and opened the gate for me.”

What seems to be causing you some problem is that Kaelin didn’t said he waved to Park when Park said Kaelin waved to him. This small inconsistency is either Kaelin or Park’s mis-recollection but that doesn’t change the fact that Park first saw Kaelin on the Ashford side path after leaving his room to investigate the noises. And the time that happened according to Park’s telephone records was shortly before 10:55. What ever Martin said about the lights doesn’t change any of these facts.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Yes I would think that O.J. was innocent.

But the fact is O.J. took one and it was reported that he failed it. I heard he got a very low score.

Polygraph test results can't be used in court but they are very accurate and even Mark Geragos agrees.

Hipcheck
There inlies the problem.
You admit 'It was reported. by who?
"i heard he got a very low score" what is the source of this ifo?

The scientific community has stated that these test are not accurate.Mark Geragos may have a opinion but the scientific community dissagrees.

Nothing wrong with you haveing a opinion on this issue. But without the proven facts it may be difficult to state it as such.imo

[William Anthony]

Yes, let’s try to remain civil. You may not think you have to be right but on this issue you are absolutely wrong. There is no reasonable doubt based on your scenario because it is impossible to have happened the way you imagine it.

The question you keep raising is where was Kato Kaelin when Allan Park first saw him?

Park testified that while talking to his boss on the phone he first saw a white male come from the back of the house on the Ashford side path with a flashlight. Park said that seconds later almost simultaneously he saw a black male walk up and enter the house.

Park testified to this fact in the grand jury on June 21, 1994, the preliminary hearing on July 5, 1994, the criminal trial on March 28, 1995 and the civil trial on November 20, 1996.

The testimony you posted from the criminal trial is what happened after Park first saw Kaelin come from the back of the house and after Simpson enter his house.

In the criminal trial Park testified that after Kaelin acknowledge him with a wave he waited to be let in the gate but no one let him in, so the got out of his limousine and rang the intercom. This time Simpson answered. They had a conversation and Park returned to the limousine and waited some more time until as Park said in the civil trial “finally, the white male came and opened the gate for me.”

What seems to be causing you some problem is that Kaelin didn’t said he waved to Park when Park said Kaelin waved to him. This small inconsistency is either Kaelin or Park’s mis-recollection but that doesn’t change the fact that Park first saw Kaelin on the Ashford side path after leaving his room to investigate the noises. And the time that happened according to Park’s telephone records was shortly before 10:55. What ever Martin said about the lights doesn’t change any of these facts.

bobaugust

It is not hard for me to remain civil with you as you persistently call me and others wrong, because I realize that you have convinced yourself, and I might add with some prompting of others, that only you can be right. With that recognition, I will explain to you what you obviously misunderstand about my position, although I thought I have made it painstakingly clear. It is not just where Kato was standing when Park first saw Kato, although that is telling. It is also when Park could have first seen Kato. Don't you remember all the posts about Kato testifying to letting the limo in after he completed his first cursory search and don't you remember me posting that testimony? Martin posted the testimony on the lights to support the fact that Park could have only seen kato for the first time after Kato finished his first cursory search. I know that you don't want to consider things or say they don't matter, if those thing contradict you.

Kato plainly tells us that he did not let the limo in until after he finished his first cursory search and Park tells us that Kato let the limo in within a minute and a half to two minutes of simultaneously seeing Simpson and Kato. By the testimony Park couldn't have seen Kato coming down what you call the north pathway, because Kato said he walked back up the driveway after finishing his first cursory search. I like the way you try to dispel the time Park testified to waiting. He said he waited twenty to 30 seconds, IIRC, after talking to Simpson for kato to let him in and talked to Simpson after waiting 30 seconds and going to the intercom and Simpson answered immediately.

Nothing about the gesture bothers me. That is not an inconsistency worth worrying about. The inconsistency that should bother you is that Park said he saw Kato still standing. Therefore, Kato could not have gone to do a search as you surmise. Kato testified he finished his first cursory search and thought about letting the limo in and decided that he would. Therefore, the testimony and the phone records are consistent with the ten forty five time line of the thumps. The obvious import of Park's testimony and Kato's is that Kato had finished the first cursory search and was standing contemplating whether or not to let the limo in when Park first saw him. With all that said, I still don't need to be right, because of the concept of reasonable doubt, but, you do to prove Simpson guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt or all you hard work was for naught.

[martin II]

Yes, let’s try to remain civil. You may not think you have to be right but on this issue you are absolutely wrong. There is no reasonable doubt based on your scenario because it is impossible to have happened the way you imagine it.

The question you keep raising is where was Kato Kaelin when Allan Park first saw him?

Park testified that while talking to his boss on the phone he first saw a white male come from the back of the house on the Ashford side path with a flashlight. Park said that seconds later almost simultaneously he saw a black male walk up and enter the house.

Park testified to this fact in the grand jury on June 21, 1994, the preliminary hearing on July 5, 1994, the criminal trial on March 28, 1995 and the civil trial on November 20, 1996.

The testimony you posted from the criminal trial is what happened after Park first saw Kaelin come from the back of the house and after Simpson enter his house.

In the criminal trial Park testified that after Kaelin acknowledge him with a wave he waited to be let in the gate but no one let him in, so the got out of his limousine and rang the intercom. This time Simpson answered. They had a conversation and Park returned to the limousine and waited some more time until as Park said in the civil trial “finally, the white male came and opened the gate for me.”

What seems to be causing you some problem is that Kaelin didn’t said he waved to Park when Park said Kaelin waved to him. This small inconsistency is either Kaelin or Park’s mis-recollection but that doesn’t change the fact that Park first saw Kaelin on the Ashford side path after leaving his room to investigate the noises. And the time that happened according to Park’s telephone records was shortly before 10:55. What ever Martin said about the lights doesn’t change any of these facts.

bobaugust


Bob

It is not what Martin said about the lights it is what Kato and PARK testified about the lights being off and then on.

You claimed that Kato never testified about the lights and i gave you his testinmony, You seen surprised that he had given this testimony.
I have posted the details if his testimony and the events that took place during this time so i will not post it again.
But the short of it is Park could not have seen Kato at Ashford and Oj at the same time and the "lights came on immediately" because when the lights came on the fact is that Kato was in the south walkway doing his investigation of the noise he thought he had heard at 10;40 10;45.
My conclusion is that Park was mistaken and or confused as to when he saw Kato the first time.The other issue is park was talking to Dale when he was suppose to have seen Kato but no mention of this to dale even as he had waited fo someone to appear. Yet he identified who he had seen when he saw the AA go towards the front door by telling Dale "Someone home" when he saw'THE LIGHTS GO ON"" But as i have said Kato was in the south walkway when the lights came on.

So. nothing to Dale about seeing Kato but something to Dale about seeing OJ.after seeimg both of them at the same time.
Does not add up.

[martin II]

WHAT KIND OF QUESTIONS MAY BE ASKED ON A POLYGRAPH TEST?

Normally, eight to ten questions are asked on a polygraph test. Prior to administering the test, all test questions are reviewed with the examinee, word for word. The question review process eliminates any misunderstandings, confusion, or attempts to rationalize the true meaning of any test question. There are no surprise or trick questions. The test series consists of relevant questions interspersed with irrelevant and comparison questions.

The answer to each test questions is limited to either a yes or no. There are no narrative answers or interrogation taking place during the polygraph test as portrayed on television or in the movies.
Compound test questions or test questions that ask for opinions, feelings, emotions, intent, or frame of mind must not be used.
Hypothetical questions or questions about future events must not be used.

[tv]

Martin,

What is really weird about Clark going with the DV motive, is that she had to be talked into. Scott Gordon went to her several times about this motive and Clark brushed him off---so what did she think the motive was if it wasn't DV?

IMO, the DA's using DV motive was clearly a sign of a major weakness in their case in the eyes of the jurors. IMO. I believe the DA's finally used this motive because using any other would open doors to questions that they could not answer, IMO.

While a jury always likes to see a motive the prosecution is under no obligation to present one. What questions are you referring to that they couldn't answer?

[William Anthony]

Martin,

The prosecution had Kato's phone records and they used them to refresh his memory as to the time he called his friend Tom. However, they did not use them to refresh his memory about any other times surrounding the thumps or what time he first saw the limo, not when Park first saw him. The prosecution could have easily refreshed his memory by showing the records and saying, if you waited two to three minutes after hanging up with Rachel to exit your quarters, do the phone records indicate that you ended you phone call with Rachel at ten fifty one. However, they didn't, which reinforces kato's estimate on the times. This may have slipped passed some but not us.

[martin II]

While a jury always likes to see a motive the prosecution is under no obligation to present one. What questions are you referring to that they couldn't answer?

The jury hears the prosecution give a opening statement and kinda sits back and waits for the prosecution to prove the statements.I think a motive statement goes a long was in telling the jury why they think the defendant did what they said he did.Without one the jury may be left with trying to figure it out for themselves. Not a good idea as far as i am concerned.

[William Anthony]

The jury hears the prosecution give a opening statement and kinda sits back and waits for the prosecution to prove the statements.I think a motive statement goes a long was in telling the jury why they think the defendant did what they said he did.Without one the jury may be left with trying to figure it out for themselves. Not a good idea as far as i am concerned.

I think you are right. Once the prosecution supplied a motive they were wed to producing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it was that motive. Personally, not being a licensed lawyer, if I were handling the case, I would have said that, while the evidence cannot tell us why the defendant decided to commit murder (acknowledging the weakness in my case), the evidence I believe will show that he did commit murder (focusing on the strength of my case).

[tv]

The jury hears the prosecution give a opening statement and kinda sits back and waits for the prosecution to prove the statements.I think a motive statement goes a long was in telling the jury why they think the defendant did what they said he did.Without one the jury may be left with trying to figure it out for themselves. Not a good idea as far as i am concerned.

It's always good to show motive but it's not required so Clarke and Darden had the option to not present a motive. I think they believed in the domestic violence motive but that's only my opinion.

[martin II]

While a jury always likes to see a motive the prosecution is under no obligation to present one. What questions are you referring to that they couldn't answer?

The only answer the prosecuiton gave for the mixed up oj blood sample envelops was to tell her to say 'I DON'T KNOW" and 'I MUST HAVE FORGOTTEN" The question was far to serious for such a simple answer imo

[martin II]

It's always good to show motive but it's not required so Clarke and Darden had the option to not present a motive. I think they believed in the domestic violence motive but that's only my opinion.

Well, charge him with DV and explain it to the jury.They left it to the jury
and it was not clear to them.The connection . So all the jury rejected those bits and pieces about DV.Maby looked ast what was charged and did not see DV which may have led them to say this trial was not about DV.

[tv]

Well, charge him with DV and explain it to the jury.They left it to the jury
and it was not clear to them.The connection . So all the jury rejected those bits and pieces about DV.Maby looked ast what was charged and did not see DV which may have led them to say this trial was not about DV.

martin, why would they charge him with DV? They were trying to show how his behavior escalated over the years. It's common knowledge that the most dangerous time for a battered spouse is when she is breaking away from the influence of the abuser. It's obvious that Nicole was doing just that. The jury didn't buy it but that's the chance that the prosecution took. If you believed OJ Simpson is guilty what would you have used for motive?

[martin II]

martin, why would they charge him with DV? They were trying to show how his behavior escalated over the years. It's common knowledge that the most dangerous time for a battered spouse is when she is breaking away from the influence of the abuser. It's obvious that Nicole was doing just that. The jury didn't buy it but that's the chance that the prosecution took. If you believed OJ Simpson is guilty what would you have used for motive?

She pulled away in a way at divoice.She was in and she was out.mostly when she needed ojs help financially she was in. I would have charged him with what they though they could prove to a jury.
The mistake they made imo is that took him took him to trial based on what they thought they had when they should have evaluated the possibilities of what they had being destroyed by a good defence.They looked at the evidence from a prosecutions standpoint only.A little play acting was in order.
I think Clarke was responsible for this rush.she had a idea in her head and she ignored a lot of professional advice that was given or that was available.

I bet the dream team did a lot of play acting to find out where the holes were in the prosecution case as they had no problem in attacking them. They always seemed to be ready.

[tv]

Hipcheck,

Martin is right, the test takes a few hours. However, any lie detector test should only be taken after so many hours, I dont know if it is 48 or 72 hours. There is a reason why that is.

I blame Shapiro for this, he should have known the circumstances of when a lie detector should be taken. However, what is interesting is that Shapiro did over for Simpson to take a lie detector test to the DA's. However, if they accepted this, then the results had to be introduced into evidence. The DA's declined. If Shapiro made this deal and the DA's took it, knowing that Simpson allegedy failed a lie detector test, then he would have lost his license to practice. If Shapiro knew allegedy knew Simpson failed a lie detector test, then there is no way Simpson would have been able to take the stand.

Also, if you have read Petrocelli's book, he says something very interesting on this subject. He was was told not to let Simpson take another one--it has been a long time and I no longer have his book but Bob August has it, maybe he knows what exactly was said about this.
I do not believe that lie detector tests should even be allowed. IMO, they are nothing more then a public relations stunt. The don't prove anything and no one is going to change their mind. If OJ took 500 hundred lie detector tests and passed every one of them and each of the examiners said that he was telling the truth, would you then believe Simpson was innocent?

It was John Douglas, former FBI criminal personality profiler, that advised Daniel Petrocelli. He stated that polygraphs are based on beliefs rather than truths.

TRIUMPH OF JUSTICE page 423
Douglas believed that, by the time of the trial, Simpson would have dealt with the trauma by actually believing he was innocent. Douglas had said to me, "Watch out. Don't fall for their trap of offering to have him take a poloygraph test; by having convinced himself he didn't do it, Simpson could probably pass."

[tv]

She pulled away in a way at divoice.She was in and she was out.mostly when she needed ojs help financially she was in. I would have charged him with what they though they could prove to a jury.
The mistake they made imo is that took him took him to trial based on what they thought they had when they should have evaluated the possibilities of what they had being destroyed by a good defence.They looked at the evidence from a prosecutions standpoint only.A little play acting was in order.
I think Clarke was responsible for this rush.she had a idea in her head and she ignored a lot of professional advice that was given or that was available.

I bet the dream team did a lot of play acting to find out where the holes were in the prosecution case as they had no problem in attacking them. They always seemed to be ready.So you think if Clarke and Darden had put on a better case they could have won a conviction?

[martin II]

It was John Douglas, former FBI criminal personality profiler, that advised Daniel Petrocelli. He stated that polygraphs are based on beliefs rather than truths.

TRIUMPH OF JUSTICE page 423
Douglas believed that, by the time of the trial, Simpson would have dealt with the trauma by actually believing he was innocent. Douglas had said to me, "Watch out. Don't fall for their trap of offering to have him take a poloygraph test; by having convinced himself he didn't do it, Simpson could probably pass."

The fbi guy had a good point. i guess.I have never agreed that oj could have killed them and told himself he knew nothing about it. i think this came from people looking to dissagree with the verdict.

This proves that the FBI was giving assistance advice to pretocilli not remaining neutral.
People take blood pressure medication , high and low,and even put pins in their shoes to control their answers. So maby these test should betaken after a medil person takes the blood presure or their shoes are inspected.

Without the list of questions and the answers we are in the dark about what was done.

[tv]

The fbi guy had a good point. i guess.I have never agreed that oj could have killed them and told himself he knew nothing about it. i think this came from people looking to dissagree with the verdict.

This proves that the FBI was giving assistance advice to pretocilli not remaining neutral.
People take blood pressure medication , high and low,and even put pins in their shoes to control their answers. So maby these test should betaken after a medil person takes the blood presure or their shoes are inspected.

Without the list of questions and the answers we are in the dark about what was done.

John Douglas was no longer working for the FBI when he gave advice to Mr. Petrocelli. What's the purpose of pins on the shoes? I took a polygraph test once for a polygraph study and I don't think pins on the shoes would have helped. I'm not sure I agree with John Douglas but it's an interesting theory.

[William Anthony]

She pulled away in a way at divoice.She was in and she was out.mostly when she needed ojs help financially she was in. I would have charged him with what they though they could prove to a jury.
The mistake they made imo is that took him took him to trial based on what they thought they had when they should have evaluated the possibilities of what they had being destroyed by a good defence.They looked at the evidence from a prosecutions standpoint only.A little play acting was in order.
I think Clarke was responsible for this rush.she had a idea in her head and she ignored a lot of professional advice that was given or that was available.

I bet the dream team did a lot of play acting to find out where the holes were in the prosecution case as they had no problem in attacking them. They always seemed to be ready.

I think if the prosecution had better evidence, they may have won the case.

[martin II]

So you think if Clarke and Darden had put on a better case they could have won a conviction?

not saying that.saying that they had a faulty case from jump start and when they looked at what they had they only recognised what they saw as good for them.They never considered what a team of good lawyers would be able to do with their evidence.
Whenn they charged him i think Shaperio was in charge of the case and considering his hisrtory of pleas bargains they may have thought they had it made. But when Oj demoted him and Brought in Cochran and he Brought in Neufield. schack and Bailey was ugraded by Cochran Clarke may have been surprised as who would be attacking her claims but it was too late to change.
She should have taken more time to test her witnesses and evidence before charging him. That is what Cochran meant when he said there was a rush to judgenment. He was telling the prosecution that he knew the problems they had even then. But clarke just tossed this out the window as she did with other advice. She could or should have stopped Darden from asking the quesiton in front of the jury about the gloves because he/she did not know what the answer would be.They did not like the answer so they then told Rubin they wantred him to talk about another issue, Glove shrinkage which
he should have talked about before the demo.It showed them running aroung looking for a excuse as to why the glove did not fit. Burt Darden said they fit
yet the nexr day Rubin was trying to exxplain why they did not fit.
Go figure.

[martin II]

I think if the prosecution had better evidence, they may have won the case.

To the porosecution the evidence looked like a big block of Anerican Yellow cheese, to the defence it looked like a big block of Swiss cheese.So the defence just made Mac and Cheese using swiss rathen American yellow.imo

[tv]

not saying that.saying that they had a faulty case from jump start and when they looked at what they had they only recognised what they saw as good for them.They never considered what a team of good lawyers would be able to do with their evidence.
Whenn they charged him i think Shaperio was in charge of the case and considering his hisrtory of pleas bargains they may have thought they had it made. But when Oj demoted him and Brought in Cochran and he Brought in Neufield. schack and Bailey was ugraded by Cochran Clarke may have been surprised as who would be attacking her claims but it was too late to change.
She should have taken more time to test her witnesses and evidence before charging him. That is what Cochran meant when he said there was a rush to judgenment. He was telling the prosecution that he knew the problems they had even then. But clarke just tossed this out the window as she did with other advice. She could or should have stopped Darden from asking the quesiton in front of the jury about the gloves because he/she did not know what the answer would be.They did not like the answer so they then told Rubin they wantred him to talk about another issue, Glove shrinkage which
he should have talked about before the demo.It showed them running aroung looking for a excuse as to why the glove did not fit. Burt Darden said they fit
yet the nexr day Rubin was trying to exxplain why they did not fit.
Go figure.

A couple of the ladies on the jury thought they fit too. I've never been a big fan of the prosecution in this case but I still thought they presented more than enough evidence to get a conviction. I don't think Rubin was explaining why they didn't fit. He was explaining how OJ Simpson was able to make them appear not to fit. Clarke was also told that black women wouldn't be sympathetic towards Nicole but she wouldn't listen. Not only that -- they didn't like Marcia Clarke either.

[martin II]

John Douglas was no longer working for the FBI when he gave advice to Mr. Petrocelli. What's the purpose of pins on the shoes? I took a polygraph test once for a polygraph study and I don't think pins on the shoes would have helped. I'm not sure I agree with John Douglas but it's an interesting theory.


It was discovered that some clients had put straight pins near their toes and just pressed their toes agains them to alter body responses.I don;t know the details only that they were used.

[William Anthony]

To the porosecution the evidence looked like a big block of Anerican Yellow cheese, to the defence it looked like a big block of Swiss cheese.So the defence just made Mac and Cheese using swiss rathen American yellow.imo

I thought the defense made shredded cheese out of the illusion of a block. :)