Random Discussions On The Case

[tv]

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
Add that Mac and Cheese to the mince meat that Petrocelli served up in the civil trial and you have a whole meal.

[tv]

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.

When you take a polygraph they won't let you move -- they hardly let you breathe. I don't know if you could move enough to do that if a sharp examiner was watching. I took my polygraphs at the FBI in Quantico and they were on top of everything.

[William Anthony]

I think any mincemeat could only be described as an appetizer as it had nothing to do with the main course, a murder charge.

[tv]

I think any mincemeat could only be described as an appetizer as it had nothing to do with the main course, a murder charge.

I'm sure you know that Mac and Cheese is just a side dish. The superb Daniel Petrocelli made Baker and associates look like a bunch of amateurs and showed OJ Simpson to be the liar that he is.

[William Anthony]

I'm sure you know that Mac and Cheese is just a side dish. The superb Daniel Petrocelli made Baker and associates look like a bunch of amateurs and showed OJ Simpson to be the liar that he is.

Having not followed the civil trial in any great detail and, judging only from the comments attributed to to Petrocelli, or the Oily One, if you will,:) I think the only thing he is superb at is being braggadocios, or, if you will, suffering more from MF's disease than MF did, denying the truth. :)

However, I just read an interesting article on the Bruno Magli shoes and the civil trial by Bill Elisburgh.

[old_soul]

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.

An interesting read on a polygraph given (different situation, but...)
http://www.polygraphplace.com/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/000106.html

[martin II]

I'm sure you know that Mac and Cheese is just a side dish. The superb Daniel Petrocelli made Baker and associates look like a bunch of amateurs and showed OJ Simpson to be the liar that he is.

Clarke and Darden made all the mistakes for pwetrolelli and he had a jury AND a JUDGE.I knew it was over for Oj when it started and i do believe after the judge cut the defence legs off with his rulings oj knew it was over which i have always believed was the reason for so many NO answers by him

Since the civil trial was about money i knew he would loose. although i think the award was excessive but oj did not seem to care as he had already decided not to pay.The court ignored financial experts testimony that his income had been reduced to almost nothing yet they awarded a history making high award.

The results are that Fred still has not been paid.
At some time ojs lawyer offered to try to work out a settlement payment but Fred said no he wanted it all.
Pertocalli could have won that case from home using his fax machine.

[martin II]

When you take a polygraph they won't let you move -- they hardly let you breathe. I don't know if you could move enough to do that if a sharp examiner was watching. I took my polygraphs at the FBI in Quantico and they were on top of everything.

I think it is possible to move your big toe without detection by a guy looking at the needle.But it has happened.

[old_soul]

An unfair assumption on anyones part, to assume the civil case was about money, because it was not. In the long run, Goldman would have much rather have his son than win that judgement. Money was the only way to get to OJ, as opposed to a 'pound of flesh'...Goldman and the Browns wanted it to hurt like they hurt. I daresay Fred would have gotten more retribution with a baseball bat in a closed room than to win that case. Going after his money all these years was fueled by his comments that he'll give them nothing, and laughing about it. Unfortunately, Fred became very bitter about it, human nature IMO, and would not play with their offer of a settlement.

The only one who really suffered after all that was OJ....his old life and ways became a thing of the past. Look at him now.

We know now, don't we, OJ wasn't as broke as he and his financial expert claimed

[martin II]

Having not followed the civil trial in any great detail and, judging only from the comments attributed to to Petrocelli, or the Oily One, if you will,:) I think the only thing he is superb at is being braggadocios, or, if you will, suffering more from MF's disease than MF did, denying the truth. :)

However, I just read an interesting article on the Bruno Magli shoes and the civil trial by Bill Elisburgh.

He did a lot of bragging about the civil trial results to get hired with big money as the lawyer for the 'ENRON"executive and promptly got that man convicted as charged.

[martin II]

I'm sure you know that Mac and Cheese is just a side dish. The superb Daniel Petrocelli made Baker and associates look like a bunch of amateurs and showed OJ Simpson to be the liar that he is.

I am sure the defence mac and Cheese was hard to go down but i would bet that back in the office Clarke and Darden ate it as i am sure they were starving after hearing that verdict.

When Darden cried in public was he crying because the Mac and Cheese was made from Swiss and not yellow cheese or was he crying because Clarke only allow him one small amount?

[martin II]

There are many unqualified examiners giving these test.There seems to be no nationwide standard test procedures. Rarly does the client get to choose the examinor. The questions seem to be different depending on the reason for the test.
One thing is for sure most test take several hours and i cannot believe a examinor make a read on the first 4-5 questions.

If i take the test and my normal BP is 250 and i was asked a sensitive question and i told the truth my BP may go to 300 and the machine may say lie.

[martin II]

I thought the defense made shredded cheese out of the illusion of a block. :)

I think GG attended the daily after trial meetings and must have screamed at Clarke WTH is going on.

[martin II]

if i was taking a polygraph to prove something to someone my lawyer would choose one that he could control with a extra $2,000.

Did you ever hear the story that Furhman did take a test but that the examinor allowed him to write the quesitons he would be asked?

[Hipcheck]

Martin

Have you ever seen a polygraph administered to someone? I have seen this done where some have passed and some have failed. The tests lasted over an hour but like I said before they don't last 2 to 3 hours like was postd earlier.

I don't know the questions that were asked but if Shapiro called Bailey and said things weren't going very good then common sense tells me that O.J. was failing questions about the murders.

[martin II]

Martin

Have you ever seen a polygraph administered to someone? I have seen this done where some have passed and some have failed. The tests lasted over an hour but like I said before they don't last 2 to 3 hours like was postd earlier.

I don't know the questions that were asked but if Shapiro called Bailey and said things weren't going very good then common sense tells me that O.J. was failing questions about the murders.

I have never had reason to take a polygraph test as no one that i have involved with has had a reason to question my answers to them and i have applied for few jobs. so far.

There is documented evidence that some/most test take several hours to adnmister so i don't question that. I have researched the issue and have found no test that lasted 4-5 questions or one hour.Or one that was graded on the first lie answer.

Since shaperio did not advise Bailey that he had arranged for oj to take the test in advance i guess he thought he should when he did. if you have evidence of what Shaperio said to Bailey then you may know but if not i can assume you got this from some media reporting or gossip.

Since you don't know what the questions that were asked were i can assume that the common sense you say you used was without facts.

There were many pieces of false information floated around about many issues during this case. If one states something as fact then one should be prepared to give them.

martinii

[martin II]

Martin

Have you ever seen a polygraph administered to someone? I have seen this done where some have passed and some have failed. The tests lasted over an hour but like I said before they don't last 2 to 3 hours like was postd earlier.

I don't know the questions that were asked but if Shapiro called Bailey and said things weren't going very good then common sense tells me that O.J. was failing questions about the murders.

did you read the link where it talked about a set of test generic type questions are asked before the actual test is administered. Did you read about
there are various groups of questions that are focused on different areas of interest. Gees
All of these links are wrong?

[Hipcheck]

did you read the link where it talked about a set of test generic type questions are asked before the actual test is administered. Did you read about
there are various groups of questions that are focused on different areas of interest. Gees
All of these links are wrong?

I never said generic type questions were never asked. I told you what question would be asked during the polygraph and I never said the test was grade by just the first question.

Here is a polygraph test and interview of a murder suspect done in San Diego.

www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2003/0108westerfield-redden.html

[martin II]

I never said generic type questions were never asked. I told you what question would be asked during the polygraph and I never said the test was grade by just the first question.

Here is a polygraph test and interview of a murder suspect done in San Diego.

www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2003/0108westerfield-redden.html

From the sites i have read today the examiner may ask questions from different subject matters at different times. Some may go after did you kill type question as the first ones and some may break them up and ask at differrent times.So your idea of the kind of questions that would be asked is in some conflict with the sites i and others have posted.

since you have no idea of what questions were asked and no answers he gave, Don't you think we both are sort of like two blind men at a art gallery
discussing the art work.
It feel that way to me.

[martin II]

I never said generic type questions were never asked. I told you what question would be asked during the polygraph and I never said the test was grade by just the first question.

Here is a polygraph test and interview of a murder suspect done in San Diego.

www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2003/0108westerfield-redden.html

hipcheck

The polygraph exam is touted as a reliable scientific test. This simply isn't so. The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP – whose members are all scientists) in the August 2001 of the committees' magazine, Skeptical Inquirer, did its own study of the polygraph exam. Its conclusions can be summed up in these quotes:

"The polygraph is a ruse, carefully constructed as a tool of intimidation, and used as an excuse to conduct an illegal inquisition under psychologically and physically unpleasant circumstances."

"[T]he polygrapher tries to persuade the unwitting subject that their measurements indicate when a lie is being told. The subject, nervously strapped in a chair, is often convinced by the aura surrounding this cheap parlor trick, and is then putty in the hands of the polygrapher, who launches into an intrusive, illegal, and wide-ranging inquisition. The subject is told, from time to time, that the machine is indicating 'deception' [it isn't, of course], and he is urged to 'clarify' his answers, by providing more and more personal information. At some point [it's completely arbitrary and up to the judgment of the polygrapher], the test is stopped and the polygrapher renders a subjective assessment of 'deceptive response.'"

Most courts do not allow polygraph exams to be introduced as evidence for several reasons. At their core is an unspoken reason (though well known to law enforcement and lawyers) that would torpedo the profitable and convenient polygraph industry. If the polygraph examiner is so inclined he can affect the readings of the polygraph machine to suit whatever interpretation he wishes to reach.

[Hipcheck]

From the sites i have read today the examiner may ask questions from different subject matters at different times. Some may go after did you kill type question as the first ones and some may break them up and ask at differrent times.So your idea of the kind of questions that would be asked is in some conflict with the sites i and others have posted.

since you have no idea of what questions were asked and no answers he gave, Don't you think we both are sort of like two blind men at a art gallery
discussing the art work.
It feel that way to me.

I don't know exactly how the questions were worded but I know those questions would be asking O.J. if he had any involvement in the murders.

Did you notice from my above link how long Paul Redden who is the polygraph operator was with David Westerfield? He said 2 hours and 45 minutes. Redden did a polygraph and an interview which took less than three hours. The interview normally lasts a lot longer than the polygraph.

[martin II]

Why would any examiner wish to affect the polygraph results and by what method? The examiner and/or his bosses may have an agenda other than the truth and there are many ways this can be done.

There is a long history of abuse of the polygraph. Cases where people were subjected to hours of "third-degree" type interrogation and then immediately given a polygraph exam when their fear and anxiety were at their peak. Cases where shouts, threats, lies, and loud noises intimidated the subject during key questions in the exam.

Surely, you say, even if you fail a polygraph there is other evidence to consider. There may very well be other evidence if the authorities continue to look for it. A "deceptive" polygraph may stop the investigation with you. Many people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence alone and cleared by DNA evidence many [often 10 to 20] years later. A polygraph is a one-sided sword. If you fail, the investigation can stop with you. If you pass, you can not use it in court as a defense and it doesn't guarantee you won't be investigated and charged anyway. Surely the appeals system can undo an injustice? Consider that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has stated in a legal opinion that "... evidence of innocence is an insufficient cause for the reversal of a conviction." His position is that as long as no rules of procedure were violated and the evidence of innocence is not absolute, such reversals would cause a massive backlog in the courts and extreme inconvenience to the justice system. Once the justice system has invested in pursuing someone's guilt, it is reluctant to deflect that course.

A novice examiner who wishes to please his bosses (police, prosecutors, corporate bosses, etc) and demonstrate his ability to detect deception can even inadvertently taint an exam. My first experience with the polygraph was as a security officer, 30 years ago, at a large industrial plant. My rounds took an hour and 30 minutes to complete. One morning I found that an office had been broken into and valuable items had been stolen. I reported it to upper management and the police. A few days later I was asked by my boss to take a polygraph exam. At the time my knowledge of polygraph exams was no more than that of the average person. I agreed with no reservations or precautions. After the exam, my boss asked the examiner for the results in my presence. The examiner stated that I didn't lie directly when asked if I committed the burglary. But, he quickly added with the enthusiasm of a cat pouncing on a mouse, that the exam indicated that I had "guilty knowledge" of the crime. They both looked at me expectantly.

At that time those exam results would have been enough to get me fired and blackballed within the security community. I replied, "Of course I have knowledge of the crime. I discovered it first, examined the scene, reported it, and wrote a report that included an interview with the office's occupant to create an inventory of the stolen items." Fortunately, they were not yet deeply invested in me being the guilty party.

It is paradoxical, and hypocritical, that an exam to detect deception would depend heavily on deception in its execution. It is legally established that the police can lie to a suspect during an interrogation. Unofficially, polygraphers can and will do the same (unless they are police officers, then it is official lying).


http://www.crimemagazine.com/07/polygraph,0722-7.htm

[Hipcheck]

I have never had reason to take a polygraph test as no one that i have involved with has had a reason to question my answers to them and i have applied for few jobs. so far.


I have a question for you. Did you or did you not take a polygraph test?

Here you say that you had never taken a polygraph test but in a later post you said you did so which is it. Did you or didn't you take one?

O.J. was given a polygraph by a private polygraph operator who Robert Shapiro used for his clients.

[martin II]

I don't know exactly how the questions were worded but I know those questions would be asking O.J. if he had any involvement in the murders.

Did you notice from my above link how long Paul Redden who is the polygraph operator was with David Westerfield? He said 2 hours and 45 minutes. Redden did a polygraph and an interview which took less than three hours. The interview normally lasts a lot longer than the polygraph.

I read that and i read other links that said the test is much longer.It depands
on the test

[martin II]

I have a question for you. Did you or did you not take a polygraph test?

Here you say that you had never taken a polygraph test but in a later post you said you did so which is it. Did you or didn't you take one?

O.J. was given a polygraph by a private polygraph operator who Robert Shapiro used for his clients.

no

I never said i took a test. IF I DID I LIED.

He was not authorized to do so with oj and Bailey the expert told him so.

The question could have been:did you love Nicole? answer yes machine lie.
did you snort cocain this morning? :answer no machine lie
are you jason simpsons father? answer yes machine lie.
did nicole date other men? answer no. machine lie.
do you have more that $8,000 in your pocket? . answer no machine
lie.
do you know who killed nicole?.answer no machine.truth
did you put flowers on her grave? answer yes machine lie
did anyone tell you you have to pay me
to pass this test? answer yes. machine. true dat.

[fgump2]

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.

I think that some people put pins or tacks in their shoes so they can press down, and feel pain which will give a reaction of being upset at all questions. That way if they see to get upset about every question, their reacations to questions about illegal activity won't look unusual.

Some people say they can beat the test by stepping into another pesonality, as an actor would. If this is true, they could probably beat any lie detector test.

There are other forms of lie detector testing that are being studied. At least one based on magnetic resonance of the brain, and also face reading and body language. For the last two I think they sometimes take a movie and play it in slow motion. Some of the people who study these methods say they are more reliable than conventional tests.

I believe that the prison guard who claimed he heard OJS confess passed a lie detector test. He claimed that Simpson said something like "I did it, I didn't mean to do it, but I did it".

[martin II]

I think that some people put pins or tacks in their shoes so they can press down, and feel pain which will give a reaction of being upset at all questions. That way if they see to get upset about every question, their reacations to questions about illegal activity won't look unusual.

Some people say they can beat the test by stepping into another pesonality, as an actor would. If this is true, they could probably beat any lie detector test.

There are other forms of lie detector testing that are being studied. At least one based on magnetic resonance of the brain, and also face reading and body language. For the last two I think they sometimes take a movie and play it in slow motion. Some of the people who study these methods say they are more reliable than conventional tests.

I believe that the prison guard who claimed he heard OJS confess passed a lie detector test. He claimed that Simpson said something like "I did it, I didn't mean to do it, but I did it".

The guard may have had pins in his shoes.No one paid any attention to this lie.

[Hipcheck]

Why would any examiner wish to affect the polygraph results and by what method? The examiner and/or his bosses may have an agenda other than the truth and there are many ways this can be done.

There is a long history of abuse of the polygraph. Cases where people were subjected to hours of "third-degree" type interrogation and then immediately given a polygraph exam when their fear and anxiety were at their peak. Cases where shouts, threats, lies, and loud noises intimidated the subject during key questions in the exam.

Surely, you say, even if you fail a polygraph there is other evidence to consider. There may very well be other evidence if the authorities continue to look for it. A "deceptive" polygraph may stop the investigation with you. Many people have been convicted on circumstantial evidence alone and cleared by DNA evidence many [often 10 to 20] years later. A polygraph is a one-sided sword. If you fail, the investigation can stop with you. If you pass, you can not use it in court as a defense and it doesn't guarantee you won't be investigated and charged anyway. Surely the appeals system can undo an injustice? Consider that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has stated in a legal opinion that "... evidence of innocence is an insufficient cause for the reversal of a conviction." His position is that as long as no rules of procedure were violated and the evidence of innocence is not absolute, such reversals would cause a massive backlog in the courts and extreme inconvenience to the justice system. Once the justice system has invested in pursuing someone's guilt, it is reluctant to deflect that course.

A novice examiner who wishes to please his bosses (police, prosecutors, corporate bosses, etc) and demonstrate his ability to detect deception can even inadvertently taint an exam. My first experience with the polygraph was as a security officer, 30 years ago, at a large industrial plant. My rounds took an hour and 30 minutes to complete. One morning I found that an office had been broken into and valuable items had been stolen. I reported it to upper management and the police. A few days later I was asked by my boss to take a polygraph exam. At the time my knowledge of polygraph exams was no more than that of the average person. I agreed with no reservations or precautions. After the exam, my boss asked the examiner for the results in my presence. The examiner stated that I didn't lie directly when asked if I committed the burglary. But, he quickly added with the enthusiasm of a cat pouncing on a mouse, that the exam indicated that I had "guilty knowledge" of the crime. They both looked at me expectantly.

At that time those exam results would have been enough to get me fired and blackballed within the security community. I replied, "Of course I have knowledge of the crime. I discovered it first, examined the scene, reported it, and wrote a report that included an interview with the office's occupant to create an inventory of the stolen items." Fortunately, they were not yet deeply invested in me being the guilty party.

It is paradoxical, and hypocritical, that an exam to detect deception would depend heavily on deception in its execution. It is legally established that the police can lie to a suspect during an interrogation. Unofficially, polygraphers can and will do the same (unless they are police officers, then it is official lying).


http://www.crimemagazine.com/07/polygraph,0722-7.htm

Martin

I thought you were talking about yourself here but see you were not. I should pay more attention before I post.

Sorry about that.

[martin II]

I have a question for you. Did you or did you not take a polygraph test?

Here you say that you had never taken a polygraph test but in a later post you said you did so which is it. Did you or didn't you take one?

O.J. was given a polygraph by a private polygraph operator who Robert Shapiro used for his clients.

post the post number where i said i took a test.Please.

[tv]

There are many unqualified examiners giving these test.There seems to be no nationwide standard test procedures. Rarly does the client get to choose the examinor. The questions seem to be different depending on the reason for the test.
One thing is for sure most test take several hours and i cannot believe a examinor make a read on the first 4-5 questions.

If i take the test and my normal BP is 250 and i was asked a sensitive question and i told the truth my BP may go to 300 and the machine may say lie.

If your BP is 250 or 300 you need medical attention.

[martin II]

Martin

I thought you were talking about yourself here but see you were not. I should pay more attention before I post.

Sorry about that.

no problem.

[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.

William, we agree that Kaelin let the limo in after he returned from his first trip to the south path. You got that part right, what you can’t seem to get right is that after Park first saw Kaelin (come down the Ashford side path) and then saw Simpson walk up, enter his house, and lights come on, and then Park waited to be let in. When that didn’t happen he got out of the limo and went to the intercom again and this he spoke with Simpson on the intercom.

Where do you think Kaelin was when Park got out of his car and spoke with Simpson on the intercom and then went back to the limo and waited some more? Kaelin was at the south path. When Kaelin returned from the south path and saw the limo still waiting at the gate he decided to let him in.

The estimated time that past while Park was waiting to be let in was only a guess. Park never said the looked at the clock while he was waiting.

The lights Park saw and the lights that Kaelin saw do not change what Park said he did or when he first saw Kaelin. It seems you want to change the order that events happened that were testified to by relying on guess of what time it was by Kaelin, but when you change the order of these events you change the documented record of what the witness testified happened.

March 22, 1995 Kato Kaelin

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

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


Q ALL RIGHT. WHAT DID YOU SEE WHEN YOU WERE ON THAT PATH?
A ON THIS PATH?
Q YES.
A NOTHING. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING UNTIL I GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY.
Q WHEN YOU GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY AREA WHERE THE PATH MEETS THE DRIVEWAY?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A I SAW A LIMOUSINE.
Q WHERE WAS THAT LIMOUSINE?
A IT WAS RIGHT BEHIND THE GATE ON ASHFORD, (INDICATING).
Q WAS IT FACING INTO THAT ASHFORD GATE?
A YES.
Q COULD YOU SEE WHETHER ANYONE WAS INSIDE IT?
A NO.
Q DID YOU GO TO OPEN THE GATE FOR THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER?
A NO.

Q AND THE DRIVEWAY WAS BASICALLY IN DARKNESS?
A YES.
Q AND YOU INDICATED YOU DID NOT LET THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER IN?
A NO.
Q WHY NOT?
A I THOUGHT EVERYTHING WAS TAKEN CARE OF. I DIDN'T THINK OF -- OF LETTING HIM IN BECAUSE HE COULD GET A BUZZ IN.
Q WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS TAKEN CARE OF?
A WELL, I -- I -- MY PHONE DOESN'T RING TO THE GATE, SO I THOUGHT, IF ANYTHING, THE LIMO GUY WOULD KNOW WHAT TO DO, WHAT WAS GOING ON. I DIDN'T KNOW. I THOUGHT HE WAS IN.
Q DID YOU THINK THE DEFENDANT WAS GOING TO LET HIM IN?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.
THE WITNESS: YES

Q AND WHY DID YOU STOP ON THE PATHWAY WHERE YOU DID?
A I JUST DID. I COULDN'T SEE. I WAS -- I JUST STOPPED.
Q WHY?
A YOU KNOW, I WAS SCARED, BUT -- THAT IS IT.
Q YOU WERE SCARED?
A SCARED, YEAH..

Q BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY YOU DID NOT LET THE LIMO DRIVER IN?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q WHAT WERE YOU THINKING ABOUT? WHAT LED YOU NOT TO LET HIM IN?
A BECAUSE I THOUGHT SOMEONE HAD TALKED TO HIM AND THAT IS WHY HE WAS OUT THERE. THERE WAS A REASON THAT HE WAS WAITING THERE. I DIDN'T -- YOU KNOW, I -- I DIDN'T KNOW WHY HE WASN'T IN, BUT I DIDN'T QUESTION IT.
Q DID YOU EXPECT -- WHAT WERE YOU EXPECTING?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: GOES TO HIS SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT.
OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: OH, THERE IS A PHONE, SO IF THERE WAS A LIMO DRIVER THE GATE WOULD OPEN UP, HE WOULD BE BUZZED IN.
Q DID YOU THINK THE DEFENDANT WAS HOME?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. SHAPIRO: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: ANSWER.
A YES.

bobaugust

[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, Park was not mistaken you are mistaken.

The lights Park saw come on when Simpson entered the house were downstairs lights. Park saw that the curtains illuminate in the windows of the front office he was facing. Kaelin testified he was standing at the driveway looking at the limo and would not have seen those windows. Kaelin continued on to the south path passing by the front of the house and the downstairs would still appear to be dark.

March 28, 1995 Allan Park

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

bobaugust

[martin II]

If your BP is 250 or 300 you need medical attention.

You got that right.
I have a home machine but i usually run 120/70 and p 75 i keep a 30 day record and fax to my doctor.

[tv]

You got that right.
I have a home machine but i usually run 120/70 and p 75 i keep a 30 day record and fax to my doctor.

You're doing something right. :)

[martin II]

William, we agree that Kaelin let the limo in after he returned from his first trip to the south path. You got that part right, what you can’t seem to get right is that after Park first saw Kaelin (come down the Ashford side path) and then saw Simpson walk up, enter his house, and lights come on, and then Park waited to be let in. When that didn’t happen he got out of the limo and went to the intercom again and this he spoke with Simpson on the intercom.

Where do you think Kaelin was when Park got out of his car and spoke with Simpson on the intercom and then went back to the limo and waited some more? Kaelin was at the south path. When Kaelin returned from the south path and saw the limo still waiting at the gate he decided to let him in.

The estimated time that past while Park was waiting to be let in was only a guess. Park never said the looked at the clock while he was waiting.

The lights Park saw and the lights that Kaelin saw do not change what Park said he did or when he first saw Kaelin. It seems you want to change the order that events happened that were testified to by relying on guess of what time it was by Kaelin, but when you change the order of these events you change the documented record of what the witness testified happened.

March 22, 1995 Kato Kaelin

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

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


Q ALL RIGHT. WHAT DID YOU SEE WHEN YOU WERE ON THAT PATH?
A ON THIS PATH?
Q YES.
A NOTHING. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING UNTIL I GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY.
Q WHEN YOU GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY AREA WHERE THE PATH MEETS THE DRIVEWAY?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A I SAW A LIMOUSINE.
Q WHERE WAS THAT LIMOUSINE?
A IT WAS RIGHT BEHIND THE GATE ON ASHFORD, (INDICATING).
Q WAS IT FACING INTO THAT ASHFORD GATE?
A YES.
Q COULD YOU SEE WHETHER ANYONE WAS INSIDE IT?
A NO.
Q DID YOU GO TO OPEN THE GATE FOR THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER?
A NO.

Q AND THE DRIVEWAY WAS BASICALLY IN DARKNESS?
A YES.
Q AND YOU INDICATED YOU DID NOT LET THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER IN?
A NO.
Q WHY NOT?
A I THOUGHT EVERYTHING WAS TAKEN CARE OF. I DIDN'T THINK OF -- OF LETTING HIM IN BECAUSE HE COULD GET A BUZZ IN.
Q WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS TAKEN CARE OF?
A WELL, I -- I -- MY PHONE DOESN'T RING TO THE GATE, SO I THOUGHT, IF ANYTHING, THE LIMO GUY WOULD KNOW WHAT TO DO, WHAT WAS GOING ON. I DIDN'T KNOW. I THOUGHT HE WAS IN.
Q DID YOU THINK THE DEFENDANT WAS GOING TO LET HIM IN?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.
THE WITNESS: YES

Q AND WHY DID YOU STOP ON THE PATHWAY WHERE YOU DID?
A I JUST DID. I COULDN'T SEE. I WAS -- I JUST STOPPED.
Q WHY?
A YOU KNOW, I WAS SCARED, BUT -- THAT IS IT.
Q YOU WERE SCARED?
A SCARED, YEAH..

Q BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY YOU DID NOT LET THE LIMO DRIVER IN?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q WHAT WERE YOU THINKING ABOUT? WHAT LED YOU NOT TO LET HIM IN?
A BECAUSE I THOUGHT SOMEONE HAD TALKED TO HIM AND THAT IS WHY HE WAS OUT THERE. THERE WAS A REASON THAT HE WAS WAITING THERE. I DIDN'T -- YOU KNOW, I -- I DIDN'T KNOW WHY HE WASN'T IN, BUT I DIDN'T QUESTION IT.
Q DID YOU EXPECT -- WHAT WERE YOU EXPECTING?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: GOES TO HIS SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT.
OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: OH, THERE IS A PHONE, SO IF THERE WAS A LIMO DRIVER THE GATE WOULD OPEN UP, HE WOULD BE BUZZED IN.
Q DID YOU THINK THE DEFENDANT WAS HOME?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. SHAPIRO: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: ANSWER.
A YES.

bobaugust


Bob
Again
kato walked past the front door of the house and no coach lights were on.

when oj came down stairs he used the light from the chandlier to get to the inside front door.He dropped the two duffle bags at the porch ,walked to the yard and moved the golf bag to the park benches at the front door.No one said there were any lights on other than upstairs at that time.
Oj went back into the house and turned on the coach lights at the door and maby a first floor light i assume the switches are in the foyer.

Kato walked back pass the front door of the house and the coach lights were on because oj had just turned them on.
kato was in the south parkway when oj turned the lights on that park said he saw when he said "someone home." to Dale. So park thought he saw Kato at a time that he obviously didn't/couldn't. It is no problem as Park often times transfered events he learned after 6/12 form media stories or his mother to his testimony. I think most know this.

[martin II]

You're doing something right. :)

hell i do finger sticks daily usually it runs 70 to 100 if i don't drink milk.
i will tell you something dumb i used to do.the doctor told me to stop eating ice cream. so i started eating NO SUGAR icream. Doctor told me i was eating sugar in the milk.same when i was eating all that fruit.

[William Anthony]

William, we agree that Kaelin let the limo in after he returned from his first trip to the south path. You got that part right, what you can’t seem to get right is that after Park first saw Kaelin (come down the Ashford side path) and then saw Simpson walk up, enter his house, and lights come on, and then Park waited to be let in. When that didn’t happen he got out of the limo and went to the intercom again and this he spoke with Simpson on the intercom.

Where do you think Kaelin was when Park got out of his car and spoke with Simpson on the intercom and then went back to the limo and waited some more? Kaelin was at the south path. When Kaelin returned from the south path and saw the limo still waiting at the gate he decided to let him in.

The estimated time that past while Park was waiting to be let in was only a guess. Park never said the looked at the clock while he was waiting.

The lights Park saw and the lights that Kaelin saw do not change what Park said he did or when he first saw Kaelin. It seems you want to change the order that events happened that were testified to by relying on guess of what time it was by Kaelin, but when you change the order of these events you change the documented record of what the witness testified happened.

March 22, 1995 Kato Kaelin

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

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


Q ALL RIGHT. WHAT DID YOU SEE WHEN YOU WERE ON THAT PATH?
A ON THIS PATH?
Q YES.
A NOTHING. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING UNTIL I GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY.
Q WHEN YOU GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY AREA WHERE THE PATH MEETS THE DRIVEWAY?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A I SAW A LIMOUSINE.
Q WHERE WAS THAT LIMOUSINE?
A IT WAS RIGHT BEHIND THE GATE ON ASHFORD, (INDICATING).
Q WAS IT FACING INTO THAT ASHFORD GATE?
A YES.
Q COULD YOU SEE WHETHER ANYONE WAS INSIDE IT?
A NO.
Q DID YOU GO TO OPEN THE GATE FOR THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER?
A NO.

Q AND THE DRIVEWAY WAS BASICALLY IN DARKNESS?
A YES.
Q AND YOU INDICATED YOU DID NOT LET THE LIMOUSINE DRIVER IN?
A NO.
Q WHY NOT?
A I THOUGHT EVERYTHING WAS TAKEN CARE OF. I DIDN'T THINK OF -- OF LETTING HIM IN BECAUSE HE COULD GET A BUZZ IN.
Q WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS TAKEN CARE OF?
A WELL, I -- I -- MY PHONE DOESN'T RING TO THE GATE, SO I THOUGHT, IF ANYTHING, THE LIMO GUY WOULD KNOW WHAT TO DO, WHAT WAS GOING ON. I DIDN'T KNOW. I THOUGHT HE WAS IN.
Q DID YOU THINK THE DEFENDANT WAS GOING TO LET HIM IN?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION.
THE WITNESS: YES

Q AND WHY DID YOU STOP ON THE PATHWAY WHERE YOU DID?
A I JUST DID. I COULDN'T SEE. I WAS -- I JUST STOPPED.
Q WHY?
A YOU KNOW, I WAS SCARED, BUT -- THAT IS IT.
Q YOU WERE SCARED?
A SCARED, YEAH..

Q BY MS. CLARK: CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY YOU DID NOT LET THE LIMO DRIVER IN?
A (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
Q WHAT WERE YOU THINKING ABOUT? WHAT LED YOU NOT TO LET HIM IN?
A BECAUSE I THOUGHT SOMEONE HAD TALKED TO HIM AND THAT IS WHY HE WAS OUT THERE. THERE WAS A REASON THAT HE WAS WAITING THERE. I DIDN'T -- YOU KNOW, I -- I DIDN'T KNOW WHY HE WASN'T IN, BUT I DIDN'T QUESTION IT.
Q DID YOU EXPECT -- WHAT WERE YOU EXPECTING?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: GOES TO HIS SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT.
OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE WITNESS: OH, THERE IS A PHONE, SO IF THERE WAS A LIMO DRIVER THE GATE WOULD OPEN UP, HE WOULD BE BUZZED IN.
Q DID YOU THINK THE DEFENDANT WAS HOME?
MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. SHAPIRO: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Q BY MS. CLARK: ANSWER.
A YES.

bobaugust

Bobaugust,

Park tells us where Kato was when Park went to the intercom. It is not a question of when Kato first saw the Limo it is when Park first saw Kato by Park's testimony, which I will post in a following post, due to the length. Since you have agreed that Kato let Park in after finishing his first cursory search, then it is easy to determine when Park first saw Kato and what Kato was doing and I will highlight that portion of Park's testimony that blows any other theory out of the water and exposes Park's mistake. Park was never asked did he see Kato while Park went to the gate but he was asked did he see Kato and what was Kato doing.

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

"Q: WHAT WAS HE DOING WHEN YOU SAW HIM?

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

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

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

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

A: I WAS INSIDE THE CAR ON THE PHONE.

Q: TALKING TO YOUR BOSS?

A: YES.

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

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

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

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

Q: OKAY. ROUGHLY THAT AREA?

A: YEAH.

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

A: YES.

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

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: SIX FOOT, 200 POUNDS.

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

A: ALL DARK CLOTHING.

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

A: NO.

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

A: BLACK.

Q: OKAY. AND HOW -- IN RELATIONSHIP TO WHEN YOU SAW KATO KAELIN, WHEN DID YOU FIRST SEE THIS PERSON?

A: IT WAS JUST -- IT WAS ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY. IT WAS SECONDS AFTER I SAW HIM.

Q: AND THIS SIX-FOOT 200-POUND AFRICAN AMERICAN PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING, WAS THIS PERSON MOVING QUICKLY OR SLOWLY?

A: NOT QUICKLY, NOT SLOWLY, A GOOD PACE WALK IT SEEMED TO BE.

Q: AND MOVING IN WHAT DIRECTION, SIR?

A: INTO THE HOUSE OR TOWARD THE HOUSE.

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

A: NO.

Q: AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT PERSON, DID THAT PERSON WALK INTO THE ENTRANCE?

A: YES.

Q: AFTER THAT PERSON WALKED INTO THE ENTRANCE, WHAT DID YOU DO?

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

Q: HOW LONG AFTER YOU SAW THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING GO INTO THE HOUSE DID YOU CONTINUE TO TALK TO DALE ST. JOHN?

A: OH, IT WAS JUST ANYWHERE BETWEEN TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS. IT WASN'T VERY LONG.

Q: OKAY. SO ON THE PHONE BILL IN FRONT OF YOU, SIR, ON THAT LAST CALL WHERE IT INDICATES 10:52 AND 17 SECONDS, DOES IT INDICATE HOW LONG THE PHONE CALL WAS FOR, THE DURATION OF THE CALL?

A: UMM, YES, TWO MINUTES AND 55 SECONDS.

Q: OKAY. DOES THAT COMPORT WITH YOUR MEMORY OF THE LENGTH OF THE PHONE CALL?

A: YES.

Q: AND SO YOU WOULD HAVE HUNG UP WITH HIM AT 10:55 AND 12 SECONDS?

A: YES.

Q: AND IT WAS WITHIN THE LAST TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS OF THAT CALL AT 10 -- OF ENDING THAT CALL AT 10:55 THAT YOU SAW THIS SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON GO INTO THE ENTRANCE?

A: YES.

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

A: YES.

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHY WAS THAT?

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

MS. CLARK: THAT WAS FOUNDATIONAL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AFTER YOU -- YOU INDICATED THAT YOU SAT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS. WHY DID YOU SIT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS IN YOUR CAR AFTER YOU HUNG UP?

A: BECAUSE I WAS WAITING FOR THE GATE TO BE OPENED. I FIGURED SOMEBODY IS HOME, THEY SAW ME AND THEY ARE GOING TO LET ME IN.

Q: AND DID KATO KAELIN COME OVER TO LET YOU IN?

A: NO, HE DIDN'T.

Q: AND DID THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON DRESSED IN ALL DARK CLOTHING COME TO LET YOU IN?

A: NO.

Q: AND AFTER THIRTY SECONDS WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: THAT IS WHEN I GOT BACK UP AND OUT OF THE CAR AND RANG THE INTERCOM. THIS TIME THERE WAS AN ANSWER, WHICH WAS MR. SIMPSON. HE TOLD ME THAT HE OVERSLEPT AND HE JUST GOT OUT OF THE SHOWER AND HE WOULD BE DOWN IN A MINUTE.

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

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: CAN YOU REPEAT IT?

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

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

Q: AS SOON AS YOU RANG?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN HE SAID TO YOU --

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

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

A: MR. SIMPSON'S.

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

A: THAT HE OVERSLEPT --

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

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

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

A: YES.

Q: HOW HAD YOU HEARD IT BEFORE?

A: ON T.V. COMMENTARY, SPORTS.

Q: IS THAT HOW YOU RECOGNIZED IT?

A: YES.

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

A: NO, I COULDN'T.

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

A: NO.

Q: WHEN THAT PERSON WALKED INTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOUSE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY CHANGE IN THE LIGHTING IN THE HOUSE?

A: SOME LIGHTS CAME ON DOWNSTAIRS, YES.

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

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY.

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

A: JUST SECONDS.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHICH LIGHTS WENT ON?

A: NO. I JUST -- I JUST SAW -- YOU KNOW, FROM THE -- FROM THE WINDOWS AND THE CURTAINS THEY ILLUMINATED. I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHERE THE HEIGHTS CAME FROM, NO.

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

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

If someone is "still standing" it means they haven't moved from that sidewalk or fallen down on it, smile.

[martin II]

Bobaugust,

"Q: WHAT WAS HE DOING WHEN YOU SAW HIM?

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

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

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

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

A: I WAS INSIDE THE CAR ON THE PHONE.

Q: TALKING TO YOUR BOSS?

A: YES.

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

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

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

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

Q: OKAY. ROUGHLY THAT AREA?

A: YEAH.

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

A: YES.

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

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: SIX FOOT, 200 POUNDS.

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

A: ALL DARK CLOTHING.

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

A: NO.

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

A: BLACK.

Q: OKAY. AND HOW -- IN RELATIONSHIP TO WHEN YOU SAW KATO KAELIN, WHEN DID YOU FIRST SEE THIS PERSON?

A: IT WAS JUST -- IT WAS ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY. IT WAS SECONDS AFTER I SAW HIM.

Q: AND THIS SIX-FOOT 200-POUND AFRICAN AMERICAN PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING, WAS THIS PERSON MOVING QUICKLY OR SLOWLY?

A: NOT QUICKLY, NOT SLOWLY, A GOOD PACE WALK IT SEEMED TO BE.

Q: AND MOVING IN WHAT DIRECTION, SIR?

A: INTO THE HOUSE OR TOWARD THE HOUSE.

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

A: NO.

Q: AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT PERSON, DID THAT PERSON WALK INTO THE ENTRANCE?

A: YES.

Q: AFTER THAT PERSON WALKED INTO THE ENTRANCE, WHAT DID YOU DO?

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

Q: HOW LONG AFTER YOU SAW THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING GO INTO THE HOUSE DID YOU CONTINUE TO TALK TO DALE ST. JOHN?

A: OH, IT WAS JUST ANYWHERE BETWEEN TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS. IT WASN'T VERY LONG.

Q: OKAY. SO ON THE PHONE BILL IN FRONT OF YOU, SIR, ON THAT LAST CALL WHERE IT INDICATES 10:52 AND 17 SECONDS, DOES IT INDICATE HOW LONG THE PHONE CALL WAS FOR, THE DURATION OF THE CALL?

A: UMM, YES, TWO MINUTES AND 55 SECONDS.

Q: OKAY. DOES THAT COMPORT WITH YOUR MEMORY OF THE LENGTH OF THE PHONE CALL?

A: YES.

Q: AND SO YOU WOULD HAVE HUNG UP WITH HIM AT 10:55 AND 12 SECONDS?

A: YES.

Q: AND IT WAS WITHIN THE LAST TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS OF THAT CALL AT 10 -- OF ENDING THAT CALL AT 10:55 THAT YOU SAW THIS SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON GO INTO THE ENTRANCE?

A: YES.

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

A: YES.

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

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHY WAS THAT?

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

MS. CLARK: THAT WAS FOUNDATIONAL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AFTER YOU -- YOU INDICATED THAT YOU SAT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS. WHY DID YOU SIT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS IN YOUR CAR AFTER YOU HUNG UP?

A: BECAUSE I WAS WAITING FOR THE GATE TO BE OPENED. I FIGURED SOMEBODY IS HOME, THEY SAW ME AND THEY ARE GOING TO LET ME IN.

Q: AND DID KATO KAELIN COME OVER TO LET YOU IN?

A: NO, HE DIDN'T.

Q: AND DID THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON DRESSED IN ALL DARK CLOTHING COME TO LET YOU IN?

A: NO.

Q: AND AFTER THIRTY SECONDS WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: THAT IS WHEN I GOT BACK UP AND OUT OF THE CAR AND RANG THE INTERCOM. THIS TIME THERE WAS AN ANSWER, WHICH WAS MR. SIMPSON. HE TOLD ME THAT HE OVERSLEPT AND HE JUST GOT OUT OF THE SHOWER AND HE WOULD BE DOWN IN A MINUTE.

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

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: CAN YOU REPEAT IT?

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

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

Q: AS SOON AS YOU RANG?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN HE SAID TO YOU --

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

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

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

THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

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

A: MR. SIMPSON'S.

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

A: THAT HE OVERSLEPT --

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

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

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

A: YES.

Q: HOW HAD YOU HEARD IT BEFORE?

A: ON T.V. COMMENTARY, SPORTS.

Q: IS THAT HOW YOU RECOGNIZED IT?

A: YES.

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

A: NO, I COULDN'T.

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

A: NO.

Q: WHEN THAT PERSON WALKED INTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOUSE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY CHANGE IN THE LIGHTING IN THE HOUSE?

A: SOME LIGHTS CAME ON DOWNSTAIRS, YES.

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

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY.

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

A: JUST SECONDS.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHICH LIGHTS WENT ON?

A: NO. I JUST -- I JUST SAW -- YOU KNOW, FROM THE -- FROM THE WINDOWS AND THE CURTAINS THEY ILLUMINATED. I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHERE THE HEIGHTS CAME FROM, NO.

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

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

Parks testimony is wrong,from the below testimony Kato stood on the Ahsford SIDEWALK all the time he never moved.He never made the first search to the south walkway.

william is that what he is saying????

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.[/

[William Anthony]

Parks testimony is wrong,from the below testimony Kato stood on the Ahsford SIDEWALK all the time he never moved.He never made the first search to the south walkway.

william is that what he is saying????

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.[/

Yes, that is what he is saying, because that is the first time he saw Kato, which was after he finished his first cursory search and shortly before Kato let him in. Bobaugust now wants to say that Park wasn't looking at his watch when he estimated the seconds but in a previous post bobaugust said that the estimate for seconds over minutes was more reliable, smile. I had highlighted that testimony previously thinking bobaugust would pick up on it and let me drop it when I said end of story.

[martin II]

Martin, Park was not mistaken you are mistaken.

The lights Park saw come on when Simpson entered the house were downstairs lights.KATO TESTIFIED THAT SOME INTERIOR LIGHTS CAME ON AND THE DOOR COACH LIGHTS CAME ON. Park saw that the curtains illuminate in the windows of the front office he was facing. PARK NEVER TESTIFIED ABOUT NO CURTAINS ILLIMUNATIN NO WINDOW THAT IS YOU TALKING IF HE DID POST IT.Kaelin testified he was standing at the driveway looking at the limo and would not have seen those windows. KATO TESTIFIED THAT HE WALKED PAST THER DOOR AND THE LIGHTS WERE NOT ON MINUTES LATER HE WALKED BACK PASS THE FRONT DOOR AND THE LIGHTS WERE ON YET PARK SAID KATO WAS STILL STANDING ON THAT SIDEWALK WHERE HE WAS AT FIRST,NOT TRUEKaelin continued on to the south path passing by the front of the house and the downstairs would still appear to be dark.

March 28, 1995 Allan Park

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

bobaugust

I see you are doing a little editing and a few additions on your own.

[martin II]

Yes, that is what he is saying, because that is the first time he saw Kato, which was after he finished his first cursory search and shortly before Kato let him in. Bobaugust now wants to say that Park wasn't looking at his watch when he estimated the seconds but in a previous post bobaugust said that the estimate for seconds over minutes was more reliable, smile. I had highlighted that testimony previously thinking bobaugust would pick up on it and let me drop it when I said end of story.

i have never read any park testimony where he saw some light illimunation off of some curtains in a window.

So Kato one was standing on that sidewalk all the time while Kato two walked to the south walkway to do his search.Park never saw Kato two do the search But saw Kato one still stand on the sidewalk as still as ever until he walked over and opened the gate,

[William Anthony]

i have never read any park testimony where he saw some light illimunation off of some curtains in a window.

So Kato one was standing on that sidewalk all the time while Kato two walked to the south walkway to do his search.Park never saw Kato two do the search But saw Kato one still stand on the sidewalk as still as ever until he walked over and opened the gate,

Park-March 28th

"Q: COULD YOU TELL WHICH LIGHTS WENT ON?

A: NO. I JUST -- I JUST SAW -- YOU KNOW, FROM THE -- FROM THE WINDOWS AND THE CURTAINS THEY ILLUMINATED. I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHERE THE HEIGHTS CAME FROM, NO. "

Park saw that the curtains illuminate in the windows of the front office he was facing. bobaugust's quote.

He just took a slight liberty, :).

[William Anthony]

Obviously, Park was laboring under the power of suggestion or a lack of sleep, when he claimed he saw Kato come down the north walkway as Kato described that he came up the driveway going north toward the Ashford gate after he finished his first cursory search.

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

Your statement,

It seems you want to change the order that events happened that were testified to by relying on guess of what time it was by Kaelin, but when you change the order of these events you change the documented record of what the witness testified happened.

I am accepting apologies, today.:)

[bobaugust]

Bob
Again
kato walked past the front door of the house and no coach lights were on.

when oj came down stairs he used the light from the chandlier to get to the inside front door.He dropped the two duffle bags at the porch ,walked to the yard and moved the golf bag to the park benches at the front door.No one said there were any lights on other than upstairs at that time.
Oj went back into the house and turned on the coach lights at the door and maby a first floor light i assume the switches are in the foyer.

Kato walked back pass the front door of the house and the coach lights were on because oj had just turned them on.
kato was in the south parkway when oj turned the lights on that park said he saw when he said "someone home." to Dale. So park thought he saw Kato at a time that he obviously didn't/couldn't. It is no problem as Park often times transfered events he learned after 6/12 form media stories or his mother to his testimony. I think most know this.

Martin, the coach lights had nothing to do with the front entry of Simpson’s house. When Allan Park first parked his limo at the Ashford gate he testified that there were two lights on outside, one was the front entry light and the other was a light on above the garage. Seconds after Park first saw Kaelin come down the Ashford side path he saw Simpson come from the driveway into the light of the front entrance walk up and enter his house.
When Kaelin continued onto the south path and past the front of the house the front entry light was on and the light on the garage was on.

Park was very clear when he first saw Kaelin on the Ashford side path and then saw Simpson enter his house, and DOWNSTAIRS lights come on. You are mistaken not Park. What you are claiming is contradicted by the court record.

March 28, 1995 Allan Park

Q SO YOU WERE -- WERE YOU FACING IN THROUGH THE GATE?
A YES.
Q AND AS YOU SPOKE TO DALE ST. JOHN ON THE TELEPHONE, WERE YOU LOOKING AT THE DRIVEWAY AREA?
A MOST OF THE TIME, YEAH. I MIGHT HAVE LOOKED AT THE DASHBOARD OR SOMETHING HERE OR THERE.

Q CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE LIGHTING WAS LIKE IN THE DRIVEWAY AREA THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO SEE?
A THE LIGHTING? IT WASN'T -- IT WASN'T THAT BRIGHT. IT DIDN'T OFFER MUCH LIGHT AT ALL. I REMEMBER A LIGHT ON THE -- IN THE ENTRANCEWAY BY THE FRONT DOOR, AND FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, I THINK THERE WAS A LIGHT ABOVE THE GARAGE THAT DIDN'T OFFER MUCH LIGHT.

Q AND WHAT WAS THE LIGHTING LIKE FOR THE BALANCE OF THE DRIVEWAY THAT YOU COULD SEE?
A IT WASN'T VERY BRIGHT AT ALL. THERE WAS SOME LIGHTING, BUT IT -- IT WAS -- YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T A VERY BRIGHT LIGHT, LIKE I SAID. THE BRIGHTEST LIGHT CAME FROM THIS AREA, (INDICATING).
Q FROM THE ENTRANCE AREA?
A UH-HUH.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Bobaugust,


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.

If someone is "still standing" it means they haven't moved from that sidewalk or fallen down on it, smile.

What you posted is correct, what you can’t seem to grasp is where Kaelin was standing. He was standing on the end of the Ashford side path (the sidewalk) where it meets the driveway. Kaelin was in no position to see Simpson. Kaelin was facing the limousine and did not see the curtains illuminate in the office windows behind him. Kaelin continued his walk to the south path after Simpson entered his house, and downstairs lights come on. Kaelin never saw Simpson enter his house, never saw the downstairs lights come on, and never saw Park get out of his car and talk to Simpson on the intercom. When Kaelin returned from his first trip to the south path he opened the gate for Park.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Obviously, Park was laboring under the power of suggestion or a lack of sleep, when he claimed he saw Kato come down the north walkway as Kato described that he came up the driveway going north toward the Ashford gate after he finished his first cursory search.

So Kato was not STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK as park though he was before Kato opened the gate.I was wonder why would Kato go over to the sidewalk when he was on the driveway that led directly to the gate.Bob didn't notice that.

[martin II]

Park-March 28th

"Q: COULD YOU TELL WHICH LIGHTS WENT ON?

A: NO. I JUST -- I JUST SAW -- YOU KNOW, FROM THE uSUALLY WHEN PEOPLE STSTTER LIKE THIS THEY NEED TIME TO LIE-- FROM THE WINDOWS AND THE CURTAINS THEY ILLUMINATED. I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHERE THE HEIGHTS CAME FROM, NO. "

bobaugust's quote.

He just took a slight liberty, :).

Park was at the ashford gate on the north of the lot looking due south,down the driveway.
He could not see the front of the house as the house ran north to south and the front of the house faced west.
unless he could see around corners.

[William Anthony]

What you posted is correct, what you can’t seem to grasp is where Kaelin was standing. He was standing on the end of the Ashford side path (the sidewalk) where it meets the driveway. Kaelin was in no position to see Simpson. Kaelin was facing the limousine and did not see the curtains illuminate in the office windows behind him. Kaelin continued his walk to the south path after Simpson entered his house, and downstairs lights come on. Kaelin never saw Simpson enter his house, never saw the downstairs lights come on, and never saw Park get out of his car and talk to Simpson on the intercom. When Kaelin returned from his first trip to the south path he opened the gate for Park.

bobaugust

What you don't grasp and why you now want to deny Park's estimates is because twenty to thirty seconds after Park talked to Simpson Kato let the limo in. This would mean that 30 seconds after Park saw simultaneously Kato and Simpson Kato would have had to walk down the driveway, perform a cursory search, back out walk back up the driveway to the spot that Park said he saw Kato "still standing". I have never seen the movie where Brad Pitt plays a vampire I have been told about the opening scene. Kato would have to have been faster than Mr. Pitt. :) Kato was never asked, IIRC, if he saw Park standing at the gate. But we do know that Park saw Kato "still standing" in the same spot. Kato was going to ask Park if he had a stronger flashlight, stood there for a moment, saw that Park had not been buzzed in, walked over and buzzed him in. Why would Kato have hesitated? He would have hesitated, because he saw him at the gate waiting to be buzzed in and when park wasn't he did it. The obvious explanation for Park's testimony is that he had been rehearsed and it was suggested that he saw Kato walking in the north walkway. However, as I have said the devil is in the details. I can hear the DA during the rehearsal-so when you saw Kato standing in the area on the north pathway near the driveway with a flashlight, you had seen him come from the back of the house-is that how you remember it. However, we now know from the details of park's testimony that was impossible. :)

[William Anthony]

So Kato was not STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK as park though he was before Kato opened the gate.I was wonder why would Kato go over to the sidewalk when he was on the driveway that led directly to the gate.Bob didn't notice that.

That is easy. He saw Park at the gate and was going to ask him for a flashlight, hesitated expecting Park would be buzzed in. When he wasn't he went and buzzed him in and then asked about a stronger flashlight.

[William Anthony]

What you posted is correct, what you can’t seem to grasp is where Kaelin was standing. He was standing on the end of the Ashford side path (the sidewalk) where it meets the driveway. Kaelin was in no position to see Simpson. Kaelin was facing the limousine and did not see the curtains illuminate in the office windows behind him. Kaelin continued his walk to the south path after Simpson entered his house, and downstairs lights come on. Kaelin never saw Simpson enter his house, never saw the downstairs lights come on, and never saw Park get out of his car and talk to Simpson on the intercom. When Kaelin returned from his first trip to the south path he opened the gate for Park.

bobaugust

What you can't seem to grasp is this, Kato was still standing". Kato couldn't have been still standing as you and I have both agreed that Kato did not buzz Park in until Kato had finished his first cursory search. Hence, the only time Park could have seen Kato still standing was after Kato had finished that first cursory search before he buzzed Park in and before his second cursory search. :)

[martin II]

What you posted is correct, what you can’t seem to grasp is where Kaelin was standing. He was standing on the end of the Ashford side path (the sidewalk) where it meets the driveway. Kaelin was in no position to see Simpson. Kaelin was facing the limousine PARK SAID KATO WAS STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK LOOKIMG INTO SPACE.and did not see the curtains illuminate in the office windows behind him. Kaelin continued his walk to the south path after Simpson entered his houseKATO PASSED THE FRONT DOOR BEFORE SIMPSON ENTERED THE HOUSE WHICH IS WHY SOME BELIEVE KATO PASSED AT THE MOMENT OJ WALKED IN THE YARD TO MOVE THE GOLF BAG. THEY WERE IN THE SAME AREA BUT IT WAS TOO DARK AND OJ WAS IN THE YARD AND KATO WAS WALKING ON THE DRIVEWAY and downstairs lights come on. Kaelin never saw Simpson enter his house, never saw the downstairs lights come on, and never saw Park get out of his car and talk to Simpson on the intercom. When Kaelin returned from his first trip to the south path he SAW THE LIGHTS WERE NOW ON WHICH OJ HAD JUST TURNED ON. HE WALKED UP THE DRIVEWAY STOOD ON THE DRIVEWAY,NOT ON THE SIDEWALK AS PARK SAID, AND KATO WALKED FROM THE DRIVEWAY TO THE GATE BOXopened the gate for Park.

bobaugust

I Hope you now understand.

[martin II]

What you can't seem to grasp is this, Kato was still standing". Kato couldn't have been still standing as you and I have both agreed that Kato did not buzz Park in until Kato had finished his first cursory search. Hence, the only time Park could have seen Kato still standing was after Kato had finished that first cursory search before he buzzed Park in and before his second cursory search. :)

Bob may be searching through parks various different testimonies and doing a patch job trying to put togeather a story.but katp was STILL STAND ON THE SIDEWALK ALL THE TIME,

[William Anthony]

Bob may be searching through parks various different testimonies and doing a patch job trying to put togeather a story.but katp was STILL STAND ON THE SIDEWALK ALL THE TIME,

The testimonies are what they are and Park will STAND STILL ON HIS.:)

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

I reiterate that I am not saying your version is wrong. I am pointing to what the jury may have considered as to the reason they felt there was reasonable doubt. Just because they may have agreed or saw things like me and Martin see them isn't enough to establish reasonable doubt on the entire case. However, when you consider our view in connection with the the lack of evidence of anyone being behind the quarters before MF and the evidence of MF's motive, means and opportunity to have planted the glove and that the gloves did not fit and evidence in regard to the receipt for the gloves and the unidentified Caucasian hair, it provides a rather strong argument for reasonable doubt on the issue of that Rockingham glove, being left there by Simpson.

[martin II]

Kato hears noise at 10;45 stays on phone for 2-3 minutes and hangs up gets flashlight and leaves 1 minute, walks to ashford side 1 minute
arrives at ashford 10;50 sees limo
Startscwalking past front door no lights goes south walkway. oj comes downwith two duffle bags go top yard and moves golf bag to door bench and goes back into house and turns lights on.
Kato is walking back pass the front door lights now on.
Kato continues up driveway. stops looks at limo decides to walk on up driveway to ashford gate and opens for park. park drives in to the front door gets out where he sees the two duffle bags oj put on the porch when he camr down from the house a few minutes earlier.OJ comes down with the lv garmet bag and drops it on the ground, Kato and park start the comedy routine of loading the bags into the limo.

[martin II]

Bobaugust,

I reiterate that I am not saying your version is wrong. I am pointing to what the jury may have considered as to the reason they felt there was reasonable doubt. Just because they may have agreed or saw things like me and Martin see them isn't enough to establish reasonable doubt on the entire case. However, when you consider our view in connection with the the lack of evidence of anyone being behind the quarters before MF and the evidence of MF's motive, means and opportunity to have planted the glove and that the gloves did not fit and evidence in regard to the receipt for the gloves and the unidentified Caucasian hair, it provides a rather strong argument for reasonable doubt on the issue of that Rockingham glove, being left there by Simpson.

That by no measn is all of the reasonable doubt but that will do for now.

[William Anthony]

That by no measn is all of the reasonable doubt but that will do for now.

I agree, as I am also watching the Final Four.

[GreenIce]

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?

TV,

I know that the prosecution does not legally have to present a motive, however, I can't for the life of me figure out how this rule or whatever is called came about.

IMO, the DA's, perhaps would have had a stronger presentation if they used the crime of passion motive. However, just like they did not use Simpson's statement to police, did not use the Bronco chase, etc., they must have weighed the pros and cons of each motive. If they used the crime of passion, then Nicole's and Ron's relationship would have gone under the microscope. I believe that there was much more evidence that the DA's could have used to lay a foundation as a crime of a passion.

[martin II]

I agree, as I am also watching the Final Four.

Bob may appreciate the rest also.

[GreenIce]

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,

Thanks. I didn't realize that you had the book as well. I know there are some people who do believe that Simpson is guilty but he has blacked it out. (Nothing to do race!)

[martin II]

TV,

I know that the prosecution does not legally have to present a motive, however, I can't for the life of me figure out how this rule or whatever is called came about.

IMO, the DA's, perhaps would have had a stronger presentation if they used the crime of passion motive. However, just like they did not use Simpson's statement to police, did not use the Bronco chase, etc., they must have weighed the pros and cons of each motive. If they used the crime of passion, then Nicole's and Ron's relationship would have gone under the microscope. I believe that there was much more evidence that the DA's could have used to lay a foundation as a crime of a passion.

i think the law giving the prosecution the option on motive is just another legislative assistance to them.Giving a motice comes with the requirement to prove that motive. Prosecutors with strong cases may use it more than those with weak cases.

With Ron making clear passes to Nicole, that passion would have been open for discussion. They knew past abuse would not work because the last on record of this was in 1989 and oj was not convicted.All the other stuff was just friends and second hand claims or rummors.Clarke had Darden make a stabb at it but it was just that.

A weak murder case was all they could try for.I will give them credit as they did not do what the Vegas prosecutor did and that was toss everything on the books at oj.But i guess this was arranged with the cooperation of the Vegas judge Jackie Glass.imo

[GreenIce]

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?

TV,

These are the problems with the DA's using DV as motive. Simpson did plead no contest to the 1989 incident---both he and Nicole were drunk. The incidents that Denise Brown relayed--again, both were drinking and drunk. There was another witness that event and I think the DA's knew, as well as the defense knew that his version of events might a be just a tad different.

There was Nicole on the tape saying it only happened once. This was a big problem for the DA's the only way they could have explained why Nicole may have been lying, etc. was to call a DV expert. They didn't call a DV expert.

I completely understand the questions that are asked about a woman who stays with a spouse that either physically or emotionally beats her. It is really easy to say that if that was me, I would have left him, I would have moved so far away, etc. However, they needed an expert to explain this to the jury, IMO.

[martin II]

TV,

Thanks. I didn't realize that you had the book as well. I know there are some people who do believe that Simpson is guilty but he has blacked it out. (Nothing to do race!)

I doubt that is really possible for anyone to do.Plus Petrocelli looking at that Santa Monica jury
and the judges decisions to cut the defence argumants, why would he take a chance on oj passing the lie test. It would only still be a took for negoiations and based on the above there was nothing to negoiate.Petrocelli had won the case at start.

[GreenIce]

i think the law giving the prosecution the option on motive is just another legislative assistance to them.Giving a motice comes with the requirement to prove that motive. Prosecutors with strong cases may use it more than those with weak cases.

With Ron making clear passes to Nicole, that passion would have been open for discussion. They knew past abuse would not work because the last on record of this was in 1989 and oj was not convicted.All the other stuff was just friends and second hand claims or rummors.Clarke had Darden make a stabb at it but it was just that.

A weak murder case was all they could try for.I will give them credit as they did not do what the Vegas prosecutor did and that was toss everything on the books at oj.But i guess this was arranged with the cooperation of the Vegas judge Jackie Glass.imo

Martin,

IMO, I think the DA's were just as afraid of Ron's personal life as they were Nicole's. We know that she was being stalked and it wasn't OJ Simpson. We know she was getting obscene phone calls and it wasn't OJ Simpson. We know that she was being followed and it wasn't by OJ Simpson. If Nicole was being watched alike hawk, then I believe it is very likely that Ron Goldman was as well. IMO. Nicole may have know she was but Ron might not have know he was being watched, IMO.

[GreenIce]

I doubt that is really possible for anyone to do.Plus Petrocelli looking at that Santa Monica jury
and the judges decisions to cut the defence argumants, why would he take a chance on oj passing the lie test. It would only still be a took for negoiations and based on the above there was nothing to negoiate.Petrocelli had won the case at start.

Martin,

Simpson was asked this very question, is it possible that he could block something like this out and he was pretty sure he would remember. I do not believe the reason why Petrocelli would not consent to a another lie detector test. If he did, then it would come out that the first test was flawed, it was never finished and the questions would have been revealed.

Also, Petrocelli may not have wanted to risk the examiner taking the stand.

[martin II]

TV,

These are the problems with the DA's using DV as motive. Simpson did plead no contest to the 1989 incident---both he and Nicole were drunk. The incidents that Denise Brown relayed--again, both were drinking and drunk. There was another witness that event and I think the DA's knew, as well as the defense knew that his version of events might a be just a tad different.

There was Nicole on the tape saying it only happened once. This was a big problem for the DA's the only way they could have explained why Nicole may have been lying, etc. was to call a DV expert. They didn't call a DV expert.

I completely understand the questions that are asked about a woman who stays with a spouse that either physically or emotionally beats her. It is really easy to say that if that was me, I would have left him, I would have moved so far away, etc. However, they needed an expert to explain this to the jury, IMO.

Your last sentence has always puzzeled me. Some have put forth the argument that Nicole got the divoice because of Oj constant abuse, Yet when the divoice was final she received a very large cash award $10,000 monthly child support health insurance for the kids paid for by oj. some kind
of insurance on that car he gave her and that $500,000 SF condo he gave her that i think initially gave her rental income. She had the ability to move
as far as a moving van could take her. Yet what did she do.moved several blocks about 3 minutes from him. She still visited him at Rockingham and he visited her at GG. She had no credit so her friend asked oj to sign for the GG lease and he did. I have always believed that her letter asking him to let her come home Rockingham and have her family was a first effort to play him,remarry and possibly have a shot at another divoice and end up with the rockingham home in her name. Oj didn't go for it.

So my question is was the divoice about abuse or was it about getting some money and still continue some kind of relationship she continued to have with him.
moving a few minutes away does not seem like she was finished with him.

[GreenIce]

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?

Old Soul,

Mark Klass did not jumpt into the chair. He was beyond angry and insulted that he was asked to take one. It was John Walsh who told him to do it. Basically he said it was their job to ask and the quicker they could rule him out as suspect.

As I have posted before, Shapiro did make an offer to the DA's, they could Simpson a lie detector test but these results would have to be entered into evidence. I can't imagine he would do that unless he was confident of the results of another test. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Your last sentence has always puzzeled me. Some have put forth the argument that Nicole got the divoice because of Oj constant abuse, Yet when the divoice was final she received a very large cash award $10,000 monthly child support health insurance for the kids paid for by oj. some kind
of insurance on that car he gave her and that $500,000 SF condo he gave her that i think initially gave her rental income. She had the ability to move
as far as a moving van could take her. Yet what did she do.moved several blocks about 3 minutes from him. She still visited him at Rockingham and he visited her at GG. She had no credit so her friend asked oj to sign for the GG lease and he did. I have always believed that her letter asking him to let her come home Rockingham and have her family was a first effort to play him,remarry and possibly have a shot at another divoice and end up with the rockingham home in her name. Oj didn't go for it.

So my question is was the divoice about abuse or was it about getting some money and still continue some kind of relationship she continued to have with him.
moving a few minutes away does not seem like she was finished with him.

Martin,


Nicole and OJ has pre-nup, there was no way Nicole ever could have gotten Rockingham. However, OJ did write in his letter that if ever laid another hand on her, he would rip it up. IMO, if he was a chronic abuser, no piece of paper was going to stop him. He was told her the cops warned him what would happen the next time.

In regards to why she didn't move further way and this was another sign of DV--then the DA's should have called an expert to explain this.

[martin II]

Martin,

Simpson was asked this very question, is it possible that he could block something like this out and he was pretty sure he would remember. I do not believe the reason why Petrocelli would not consent to a another lie detector test. If he did, then it would come out that the first test was flawed, it was never finished and the questions would have been revealed.

Also, Petrocelli may not have wanted to risk the examiner taking the stand.

Your last sentance is correct. That science has not been proven and it seems that just anyone with a few hours training can get a license but this does not mean that all operate within any set standard.
Murder is not easily forgotton even by great actors. Many people that were not convicted of murder have confessed on their own many years after.I remember the central Park murder case.The kids were wrongly convicted and served years in jail and one day the killer in jail for another conviction confessed.

[martin II]

Martin,


Nicole and OJ has pre-nup, there was no way Nicole ever could have gotten Rockingham. However, OJ did write in his letter that if ever laid another hand on her, he would rip it up. IMO, if he was a chronic abuser, no piece of paper was going to stop him. He was told her the cops warned him what would happen the next time.

In regards to why she didn't move further way and this was another sign of DV--then the DA's should have called an expert to explain this.

Maby that was why there was never any next time although one poster here believes he was beating her 3 times a day.

[GreenIce]

Maby that was why there was never any next time although one poster here believes he was beating her 3 times a day.

Martin,

IMO, the 911 tapes hurt the DA's case more then it helped. We hear Simpson ranting and raving but never does he approach Nicole or even threaten her for that matter.

I don't think that Nicole was playing Simpson, I do believe she wanted to try again.

However, there have posts about the Browns knowing about the abuse but wanted her stay married for the money. Well, if that was the case, she never would have divorced him. Or her family would have encouraged to keep having a relationship with Simpson. I have no evidence to support that the Browns did encourage Nicole to try again.

[martin II]

Old Soul,

Mark Klass did not jumpt into the chair. He was beyond angry and insulted that he was asked to take one. It was John Walsh who told him to do it. Basically he said it was their job to ask and the quicker they could rule him out as suspect.

As I have posted before, Shapiro did make an offer to the DA's, they could Simpson a lie detector test but these results would have to be entered into evidence. I can't imagine he would do that unless he was confident of the results of another test. IMO.

I don't see what Mark Klass has to do with oj. I believe that all people are unique and that personality and personal make up may contribute to one person failing and one passing along with the quality of the examiner.
Some oj haters believe oj and Jeffery Darmer compared alike.

[GreenIce]

I don't see what Mark Klass has to do with oj. I believe that all people are unique and that personality and personal make up may contribute to one person failing and one passing along with the quality of the examiner.
Some oj haters believe oj and Jeffery Darmer compared alike.

Martin,

I understand Old Soul's comments about Mark Klaas. She was using him as an example.

[GreenIce]

Your last sentence has always puzzeled me. Some have put forth the argument that Nicole got the divoice because of Oj constant abuse, Yet when the divoice was final she received a very large cash award $10,000 monthly child support health insurance for the kids paid for by oj. some kind
of insurance on that car he gave her and that $500,000 SF condo he gave her that i think initially gave her rental income. She had the ability to move
as far as a moving van could take her. Yet what did she do.moved several blocks about 3 minutes from him. She still visited him at Rockingham and he visited her at GG. She had no credit so her friend asked oj to sign for the GG lease and he did. I have always believed that her letter asking him to let her come home Rockingham and have her family was a first effort to play him,remarry and possibly have a shot at another divoice and end up with the rockingham home in her name. Oj didn't go for it.

So my question is was the divoice about abuse or was it about getting some money and still continue some kind of relationship she continued to have with him.
moving a few minutes away does not seem like she was finished with him.

Martin,

Nicole did not have to have a relationship OJ just to get more money. She can petition the court and ask for raise of child support.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, the 911 tapes hurt the DA's case more then it helped. We hear Simpson ranting and raving but never does he approach Nicole or even threaten her for that matter.

I don't think that Nicole was playing Simpson, I do believe she wanted to try again.

However, there have posts about the Browns knowing about the abuse but wanted her stay married for the money. Well, if that was the case, she never would have divorced him. Or her family would have encouraged to keep having a relationship with Simpson. I have no evidence to support that the Browns did encourage Nicole to try again.


Look nicole knew which side her bread was buttered on.At 18 servine burgers she was lucky enough to catch oj wondering eye. Played the role of the set up other woman to a guy much older than she who was married and at some point took oj to meet her parents.I don't know what they thought about the age and the fact that he was married. But i am sure it did not take them long to understand that he was also wealthy. I have read any comments by Denise



or any other family members relative to Nicoles parents approving this affair
but i never read about any resistance either.

Oj was a very generous person as he was with the browns as their life style and overall financial situation improved because of ojs gifts to all of them.

If Nicole reported any abuse to them they may have encouraged her to stick it out to save their home and keep their finances togeather.i can see that decision being made.

And nicole may not have been prepared to walk away from the financial and other support oj brought to the table.

[martin II]

Martin,

Nicole did not have to have a relationship OJ just to get more money. She can petition the court and ask for raise of child support.

Tru dat

[William Anthony]

Perhaps, the strongest evidence of motive was that of MF's hatred of interracial couples.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, the 911 tapes hurt the DA's case more then it helped. We hear Simpson ranting and raving but never does he approach Nicole or even threaten her for that matter.

I don't think that Nicole was playing Simpson, I do believe she wanted to try again.

However, there have posts about the Browns knowing about the abuse but wanted her stay married for the money. Well, if that was the case, she never would have divorced him. Or her family would have encouraged to keep having a relationship with Simpson. I have no evidence to support that the Browns did encourage Nicole to try again.


Nicole did seem to be more excited and or afraid than Simpsons actions called for her to be. It may be that the whole issue of why he was angry, that party,may have caused her to have some level of guilt and that he did have a point although she felt that she had done nothing unsafe for the kids.

This may be why after he left the first time she called and asked him to coma back so she could explain or talk about it. He just came back more excited than was called for. There was the message board comment that maby her boyfriend was in one of the upstairs bedrooms during the 911 call.

I would call it verbal abuse or a heated argument but you are right oj never threatned or hit her and she told the cops this and they must have considered it to be so as oj was ot charged and they left.

[martin II]

Perhaps, the strongest evidence of motive was that of MF's hatred of interracial couples.

Well based on some female witnesses testimony he had absolutely no problem with making his hatred known even to complete strangers.

[William Anthony]

Well based on some female witnesses testimony he had absolutely no problem with making his hatred known even to complete strangers.

Yes, one could say he was telling those females, if you have anything to do with a Black man, I have no use for you.

[William Anthony]

Well based on some female witnesses testimony he had absolutely no problem with making his hatred known even to complete strangers.

I wonder how MF feels about President and First Lady Obama.

[bobaugust]

What you don't grasp and why you now want to deny Park's estimates is because twenty to thirty seconds after Park talked to Simpson Kato let the limo in. This would mean that 30 seconds after Park saw simultaneously Kato and Simpson Kato would have had to walk down the driveway, perform a cursory search, back out walk back up the driveway to the spot that Park said he saw Kato "still standing". I have never seen the movie where Brad Pitt plays a vampire I have been told about the opening scene. Kato would have to have been faster than Mr. Pitt. :) Kato was never asked, IIRC, if he saw Park standing at the gate. But we do know that Park saw Kato "still standing" in the same spot. Kato was going to ask Park if he had a stronger flashlight, stood there for a moment, saw that Park had not been buzzed in, walked over and buzzed him in. Why would Kato have hesitated? He would have hesitated, because he saw him at the gate waiting to be buzzed in and when park wasn't he did it. The obvious explanation for Park's testimony is that he had been rehearsed and it was suggested that he saw Kato walking in the north walkway. However, as I have said the devil is in the details. I can hear the DA during the rehearsal-so when you saw Kato standing in the area on the north pathway near the driveway with a flashlight, you had seen him come from the back of the house-is that how you remember it. However, we now know from the details of park's testimony that was impossible. :)

We keep going in circles about this because you fail to accept the fact that Park consistently testified he first saw Kato Kaelin that night when he saw a white male with blond hair come down the Ashford side path with a flashlight. There is no doubt that Park saw Kaelin when Kaelin was coming from his room after hearing the noises. That is the only time Kaelin was on the Ashford side path until he later went back to his room after Simpson left for the airport.

Kaelin was in no position to see Simpson when he stopped on the side path where it met the driveway. Because of the hedges on the Ashford side of the house unless you are in the front of the gate, the view of the front of the house is pretty much blocked. Kaelin never saw Simpson after Kaelin left his room until after Simpson came out of the house to load the limousine.

How do we know that after Park first saw Kaelin and then Simpson that Kaelin continued on to the south path? Because Kaelin testified that is what he did and when he returned he opened the gate and let Park in. No matter how you want to spin Park’s estimations as to how long he waited to be let in does not change the fact that Park saw Kaelin for the second time that night when Kaelin came down the driveway and opened the gate to let him in.

Your imagined dialog of Clark supposedly rehearsing Park as what to say is only in your imagination. Clark wrote in her book that before she had even talked to Park she read the police interview with the limo driver who took Simpson to the airport and Park had told the police when he was on the phone with his boss he saw a white male walk from the back of the house carrying a flashlight. And simultaneously he saw a black male he believed to be O.J. Simpson walk quickly from the far side of the driveway to the front door.

Kaelin never asked Park if he had a better flashlight until shortly before Park and Simpson left for the airport.

You can call Park mistaken, a liar, and rehearsed all you want, but I’m sorry to say that your accusations are as unsupported as your imagined scenario is contradicted by both Park and Kaelin’s testimony.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

What you can't seem to grasp is this, Kato was still standing". Kato couldn't have been still standing as you and I have both agreed that Kato did not buzz Park in until Kato had finished his first cursory search. Hence, the only time Park could have seen Kato still standing was after Kato had finished that first cursory search before he buzzed Park in and before his second cursory search. :)

After Park saw Simpson walk up and enter his house Park didn’t see Kaelin again until some time after he spoke with Simpson over the intercom. If Kaelin was still standing on the driveway, as you claim, instead of using the intercom to call Simpson Park could have simply asked Kaelin to open the gate. He didn’t ask Kaelin because Kaelin wasn’t there; he was on the south path making his first “cursory” search.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I Hope you now understand.

What I understand is that your comments are completely ridiculous.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

After Park saw Simpson walk up and enter his house Park didn’t see Kaelin again until some time after he spoke with Simpson over the intercom. If Kaelin was still standing on the driveway, as you claim, instead of using the intercom to call Simpson Park could have simply asked Kaelin to open the gate. He didn’t ask Kaelin because Kaelin wasn’t there; he was on the south path making his first “cursory” search.

bobaugust

I am surprised at this response from you. Are you now saying that Park made human error and mistakes? His testimony is what it is or pardon my Latin, if you will, res ipsa loquitor. He saw Kato still standing and Simpson answered immediately so there was no need to ask Kato as he thought, just as Kato did when he was still standing there that Simpson was going to buzz him in. You are now acting like the prosecution by narrowing the time line by only allowing Kato twenty to thirty seconds to finish his first cursory search, back out, return from the south walkway, walk up the drive and still stand there, gesture to Park, walk to the box and buzz Park in.:)
Of course, you may be right and Kato was a vampire, faster than Superman able to move great distances with a single bound.:)

[William Anthony]

What I understand is that your comments are completely ridiculous.

bobaugust

Bobaugust,

I hope your civility extends to Martin as well as to me.

[William Anthony]

We keep going in circles about this because you fail to accept the fact that Park consistently testified he first saw Kato Kaelin that night when he saw a white male with blond hair come down the Ashford side path with a flashlight. There is no doubt that Park saw Kaelin when Kaelin was coming from his room after hearing the noises. That is the only time Kaelin was on the Ashford side path until he later went back to his room after Simpson left for the airport.-bobaugust

You keep going in circles because you want to deny the testimony and accept only the parts that support your conclusion. Remember the math I did for you that verified the time that kato would have heard the thumps as ten forty five.:)

[William Anthony]

Kaelin was in no position to see Simpson when he stopped on the side path where it met the driveway. Because of the hedges on the Ashford side of the house unless you are in the front of the gate, the view of the front of the house is pretty much blocked. Kaelin never saw Simpson after Kaelin left his room until after Simpson came out of the house to load the limousine. bobaugust

Wth? It was Park that testified to seeing Simpson at the same time that he saw Kato.:shrug:

[William Anthony]

How do we know that after Park first saw Kaelin and then Simpson that Kaelin continued on to the south path? Because Kaelin testified that is what he did and when he returned he opened the gate and let Park in. No matter how you want to spin Park’s estimations as to how long he waited to be let in does not change the fact that Park saw Kaelin for the second time that night when Kaelin came down the driveway and opened the gate to let him in. bobaugust

Please, provide the date of the testimony where Kato said he continued down to the south path after Park saw Simpson?:) I am not spinning anything. The testimony is what it is or pardon my Latin, if you will, res ipsa loquitor. :) Please, post the testimony where Park said he saw Kato for a second time?:)

[martin II]

Some issues from another site

In the shower, Simpson hears the distinctive ring of the phone -- indicating the Limousine has arrived. Assuming that it is his regular driver, he completes his shower, gets partially dressed, puts on a dark robe, and does his last minute packing.

Backing up, past Ashford, Park drives back to the Ashford Gate. [Time: 10:43] Once again, he rings the communication button as if it were a buzzer -- expecting each press of the button to cause a distinct ringing inside -- still no response from the house. [Time: 10:47]

Increasingly nervous, and somewhat agitated, certainly scared, Kaelin decides to investigate the "earthquake". Continuing his conversation with Farrara, he comes back to the earthquake several times before finally taking a penlite flashlight and going to investigate. [Time: 10:48]

At 10:48:40, Allan Park calls his mother -- he needs his boss' home number. At 10:49:07, Park calls Dale St. John at home -- no answer. He again tries the Ashford Gate buzzer.

Simpson is now gathering the final items for his trip; and again, believing it's his regular driver, ignors the phone. In the house, at approximately 10:50, OJ Simpson has just finished showering. He had called his daughter, Sydney, prior to going to McDonald's; he had also made several other calls at that time. At 10:03 -- using his cellphone -- he had tried to reach Paula... probably to square things for not taking her to Sydney's recital. The facts being, he didn't want to chance a scene between Nicole and Paula. Especially not one that would cast a cloud on Sydney's Day.

At approximately the same time, 10:48, Kaelin, having located the penlight in the drawer, proceeds west along a path that parallels Ashford; entering onto the driveway at 10:50, he sees the Limousine -- but not the driver. Kaelin -- notices a light in the master bedroom -- as he passes the front door, the area is dark. There is no light coming through the entry door glass. The Coach Lights, on either side of the door, are off. The only light is from several dim edging -- Mushroom -- lights along the driveway. Kaelin proceeds to the south pathway. He lifts the broken gate and swings it out of the way. He heads east. Scared, he stops five to fifteen feet down the south pathway.

At 10:52:17, Allan Park, responding to the car phone, returned to the Limo. Glancing south -- toward the Simpson house -- Park saw the Mushroom lights along the driveway and informed Dale St. John that the house was otherwise dark. A minute or two later, he notes that the brightest light is now at the entrance to the house. Illumination that had not been been on when Kaelin passed, or prior to the carphone ringing.


The area behind the garage is very dark - the penlight provides no useful illumination. His sense of trepidation growing, Kaelin is unsure of what he is seeking, and what he might find. He cautiously retreats to the safety of the driveway, where he and Simpson are seen by Allan Park.

Allan Park establishes the time - approximately 10:54:42 - thirty seconds before his phone conversation ends. He sees Kaelin look west -- in the direction of the Rockingham driveway and gate. Kaelin sees the Limousine is still outside. He also states that the Rockingham Gate was not opened while he was out there, and that there was only one car -- the Bentley -- parked in the niche. Park then sees Simpson -- who has just placed his golf bag, near the driveway, by an entry bench -- returning into the house for the rest of his bags.

[William Anthony]

Your imagined dialog of Clark supposedly rehearsing Park as what to say is only in your imagination. Clark wrote in her book that before she had even talked to Park she read the police interview with the limo driver who took Simpson to the airport and Park had told the police when he was on the phone with his boss he saw a white male walk from the back of the house carrying a flashlight. And simultaneously he saw a black male he believed to be O.J. Simpson walk quickly from the far side of the driveway to the front door. bobaugust

I hope you realize that police reports are inherently unreliable and not admitted into evidence unless that officer is called to testify. What Ms. Clark wrote in her work of fiction is not evidence. Please, post the testimony where Park said he saw Simpson walk from the far side of the driveway into the house?:) The fact that Ms. Clark read that in a police report is all the more reason for me to say she probably suggested that to Park during his rehearsal, thanks.:)

[William Anthony]

Kaelin never asked Park if he had a better flashlight until shortly before Park and Simpson left for the airport. bobaugust

I never said the Kato asked him for a flashlight at the time he thought of asking Park for one.

[martin II]

What I understand is that your comments are completely ridiculous.

bobaugust

BOB

I have posted testimony and what happened as a result of this testimony.If i were in your posiiton i may have the same comments towards you but testimony backs up my position so no need for me to comment on your opinions i will let the testimony back me.You are taking conflicting claims in your post to william.

[William Anthony]

You can call Park mistaken, a liar, and rehearsed all you want, but I’m sorry to say that your accusations are as unsupported as your imagined scenario is contradicted by both Park and Kaelin’s testimony. bobaugust

I have never called Park a liar, because that is a word that you reserve for those who think there is reasonable doubt or defend Simpson in some manner. Both the testimonies of Kato and Park are consistent with my plausible scenario and directly contradict your assumed to be correct scenario. :) The testimonies are what they are or pardon my Latin, if you wil, res ipsa loquitor.

[martin II]

Wth? It was Park that testified to seeing Simpson at the same time that he saw Kato.:shrug:

Park did say he saw Kato and oj at the same time but his comments to Dale about the lights comming on and SOMEONE HOME points that he was referring to oj as he made no comments to Dale about seeing Kato.

[William Anthony]

BOB

I have posted testimony and what happened as a result of this testimony.If i were in your posiiton i may have the same comments towards you but testimony backs up my position so no need for me to comment on your opinions i will let the testimony back me.You are taking conflicting claims in your post to william.

Sort of like a person saying he is never wrong, because he says he is always right. Therefore, even if the person is wrong, he is not because he says he is right.:)

[martin II]

After Park saw Simpson walk up and enter his house Park didn’t see Kaelin again until some time after he spoke with Simpson over the intercom. If Kaelin was still standing on the driveway, as you claim, instead of using the intercom to call Simpson Park could have simply asked Kaelin to open the gate. He didn’t ask Kaelin because Kaelin wasn’t there; he was on the south path making his first “cursory” search.

bobaugust

Bob
Park testified that Kato was STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK now are you attempting to toss his testimony on this because it does not support what you claim.You can try to be selective on which testimony you accept but testimony is testimony.We cannot just drop parts of Parks testimony and accept other parts. Don't you think

[William Anthony]

Park did say he saw Kato and oj at the same time but his comments to Dale about the lights comming on and SOMEONE HOME points that he was referring to oj as he made no comments to Dale about seeing Kato.

I understand. I just did not understand the relevance of bobaugust's post.

[martin II]

One thing is now clear Kato left his room at 10:48 after hearing the 10:45 noise.
After arriving at the sidewalk he saw the limo but knowing it was there for oj and knowing oj would
open the gate he continued his non stop walk down the driveway to the south walkway in the dark.
This was not the first time Kato had seen a limo come for oj so it was no reason to pay any special attention to it.imo

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

I have asked you now on two separate occasions to provide the testimony, which supports your claim that Park testified to seeing Kato for a second time at Rockingham on the night or evening of June 12th, 1994, as opposed to testifying that he saw Kato "still standing".:)

[William Anthony]

BOB

I have posted testimony and what happened as a result of this testimony.If i were in your posiiton i may have the same comments towards you but testimony backs up my position so no need for me to comment on your opinions i will let the testimony back me.You are taking conflicting claims in your post to william.

Sort of like the prosecution saying we say that Simpson dropped the glove behind Kato's quarters, because we say it it must be true. Therefore, you should not consider that we can produce no evidence of Simpson being behind Kato's quarters, because we have said Simpson was back there and hence, it must be true because we said it.

[martin II]

I understand. I just did not understand the relevance of bobaugust's post.

Bob May not be paying attention to his conflicting claims as he tries to explain
or support his position using conflicting claims on some issues testified to by Kato and PARK.Park testified that Kato was STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK WHEN HE SAW HIM JUST BEFORE KATO OPENED THE GATE FOR HIM.This would mean that Kato never left the Ashford sidewalk. But he refuses to admit that Park gave conflicting testimony from time to time.

[William Anthony]

Bob May not be paying attention to his conflicting claims as he tries to explain
or support his position using conflicting claims on some issues testified to by Kato and PARK.Park testified that Kato was STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK WHEN HE SAW HIM JUST BEFORE KATO OPENED THE GATE FOR HIM.This would mean that Kato never left the Ashford sidewalk. But he refuses to admit that Park gave conflicting testimony from time to time.

Bobaugust also made another claim that is contradicted by the testimony. He wants to have Kato in the south walkway at the time the lights come on. However, the magnificent one further shows his magnificence on his cross of Park on March 28th.

"Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU SEE SOME LIGHT EMANATING FROM INSIDE THE RESIDENCE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AT THAT POINT, YOU DIDN'T SEE MR. SIMPSON; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU SEE KATO KAELIN AT THAT POINT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS KATO KAELIN SOMEWHERE OUT ON THAT DRIVEWAY AREA THERE?

A: YES, HE WAS.

Q: AT THAT TIME?

A: YES.

[martin II]

[Mutually exclusive events: Dispelling prosecution myth, we know that Simpson could not have reached the entrance without Kaelin seeing him on the driveway. And certainly, he could not have opened the Rockingham gate to affect entry, without alerting Kaelin. Futher, we know that, had he entered at this time -- that is, had he returned from Bundy at this time -- it would have been impossible for him to be associated with either Kaelin's earthquake, or the glove that was found behind Kaelin's room. Even more impossible, had Simpson just arrived, he could not have turned on the entry light, which had been off when Kaelin passed three minutes earlier.]
Not knowing that Simpson, and another person, were in residence, Park informed his boss, Dale St. John -- to who he's been talking since 10:52:17 -- that, "Somebody's here." To which St.John replies, "Fine. Finish the job, take him to the airport and I will see you tomorrow." [Time: 10:55:12]

Hanging up, Park waits another thirty seconds, or so, before getting out of the car and buzzing the house again. This time, Simpson responds, "I overslept. Just got out of the shower. Be down in a minute." [Time: 10:57]

Simpson denies saying, "I overslept." Stating that he went inside, responded to the phone, removed his robe, went to get his coat, gathered his any other items, and exited the house.

In the mean time, Kaelin has crossed the door yard to the Gate Control and opened the Ashford Gate.

Park drives in, not noticing the Simpson dog, Chachi. Kaelin, seeing the dog laying near the box, realized it could have be hit, and yells to the dog, "Chachi! Move! Move!". The dog goes to lie on the grass near the path on the Ashford side lawn. The Limousine pulls in with the drivers window parallel to the front entrance. He sees several duffle bags on the porch, one of which is unzipped. [Time: 10:58]

[tv]

Nicole did seem to be more excited and or afraid than Simpsons actions called for her to be. It may be that the whole issue of why he was angry, that party,may have caused her to have some level of guilt and that he did have a point although she felt that she had done nothing unsafe for the kids.

This may be why after he left the first time she called and asked him to coma back so she could explain or talk about it. He just came back more excited than was called for. There was the message board comment that maby her boyfriend was in one of the upstairs bedrooms during the 911 call.

I would call it verbal abuse or a heated argument but you are right oj never threatned or hit her and she told the cops this and they must have considered it to be so as oj was ot charged and they left.

I just listened to the 1993 911 call again. I would call breaking her door down very threatening. In the background you can hear him ranting and raving -- it's god***n out of his mouth few seconds. Nicole tells the 911 operator that she's afraid he's going to beat the sh*t out of her. She told him over and over to be quiet because the kids are sleeping and she tells the operator she doesn't want anything to happen with the kids there. She's crying and it's obvious she's terrified. How can you say she wasn't threatened? If anyone broke my door down I'd definitely take that as a threat. I can't believe you're blaming this whole incident on Nicole. Does he ever do anything wrong in your eyes?

[tv]

Old Soul,

Mark Klass did not jumpt into the chair. He was beyond angry and insulted that he was asked to take one. It was John Walsh who told him to do it. Basically he said it was their job to ask and the quicker they could rule him out as suspect.

As I have posted before, Shapiro did make an offer to the DA's, they could Simpson a lie detector test but these results would have to be entered into evidence. I can't imagine he would do that unless he was confident of the results of another test. IMO.

Please tell me the source of this information.

[William Anthony]

[Mutually exclusive events: Dispelling prosecution myth, we know that Simpson could not have reached the entrance without Kaelin seeing him on the driveway. And certainly, he could not have opened the Rockingham gate to affect entry, without alerting Kaelin. Futher, we know that, had he entered at this time -- that is, had he returned from Bundy at this time -- it would have been impossible for him to be associated with either Kaelin's earthquake, or the glove that was found behind Kaelin's room. Even more impossible, had Simpson just arrived, he could not have turned on the entry light, which had been off when Kaelin passed three minutes earlier.]
Not knowing that Simpson, and another person, were in residence, Park informed his boss, Dale St. John -- to who he's been talking since 10:52:17 -- that, "Somebody's here." To which St.John replies, "Fine. Finish the job, take him to the airport and I will see you tomorrow." [Time: 10:55:12]

Hanging up, Park waits another thirty seconds, or so, before getting out of the car and buzzing the house again. This time, Simpson responds, "I overslept. Just got out of the shower. Be down in a minute." [Time: 10:57]

Simpson denies saying, "I overslept." Stating that he went inside, responded to the phone, removed his robe, went to get his coat, gathered his any other items, and exited the house.

In the mean time, Kaelin has crossed the door yard to the Gate Control and opened the Ashford Gate.

Park drives in, not noticing the Simpson dog, Chachi. Kaelin, seeing the dog laying near the box, realized it could have be hit, and yells to the dog, "Chachi! Move! Move!". The dog goes to lie on the grass near the path on the Ashford side lawn. The Limousine pulls in with the drivers window parallel to the front entrance. He sees several duffle bags on the porch, one of which is unzipped. [Time: 10:58]

The devil is in the details.:)

[William Anthony]

I just listened to the 1993 911 call again. I would call breaking her door down very threatening. In the background you can hear him ranting and raving -- it's god***n out of his mouth few seconds. Nicole tells the 911 operator that she's afraid he's going to beat the sh*t out of her. She told him over and over to be quiet because the kids are sleeping and she tells the operator she doesn't want anything to happen with the kids there. She's crying and it's obvious she's terrified. How can you say she wasn't threatened? If anyone broke my door down I'd definitely take that as a threat. I can't believe you're blaming this whole incident on Nicole. Does he ever do anything wrong in your eyes?

Good morning, Ms. Tvdinner,

I did not read Martin's post as saying that Ms. NBS didn't feel threatened. I read it as saying Simpson did not threaten to hit and didn't hit her.

[tv]

Martin,

IMO, the 911 tapes hurt the DA's case more then it helped. We hear Simpson ranting and raving but never does he approach Nicole or even threaten her for that matter.

I don't think that Nicole was playing Simpson, I do believe she wanted to try again.

However, there have posts about the Browns knowing about the abuse but wanted her stay married for the money. Well, if that was the case, she never would have divorced him. Or her family would have encouraged to keep having a relationship with Simpson. I have no evidence to support that the Browns did encourage Nicole to try again.
GreenIce, if you don't think breaking down someone's door is a threat then what would you call it?

[tv]

Good morning, Ms. Tvdinner,

I did not read Martin's post as saying that Ms. NBS didn't feel threatened. I read it as saying Simpson did not threaten to hit and didn't hit her.

Good morning, William. By her own words to the 911 operator she was afraid he was going to beat her which tells me she had been through this with him enough to know what he was capable of doing.

[martin II]

Park also notices the small bag -- behind the second dark car -- in the middle of the radius joining the Ashford and Rockingham driveways. He says, "Is that going?" and moves to retreive it. Simpson responds, "I'll get it." and Park finishes to loading the luggage into the Limousine. Kaelin also states he noticed the bag, and that the "I'll get it," comment was directed to him.

Heading towards the kitchen area, Simpson notices the time, and says, "Is it that late? We don't have time to check. I have to catch my flight." Returning outside, Kaelin goes to open the Rockingham gate while Simpson and Park get in the Limousine. [Time: 11:04]

Brian Kaelin then goes back inside his room, and again calls Rachel Farrara. Time -- 11:05.

About 11:35 {The precise time of the call was not entered into evidence -- the depositions indicate it was made from a pay phone at LAX}: Kaelin's conversation with Farrara is interupted by call-waiting. It's Simpson, in his hurry to leave, he forgot to set the house alarm, would Kaelin do it? Simpson gives Kaelin the security code, Kaelin tells Farrara what he has to do, and goes to set the alarm. Kaelin then calls Farrara back, and they talk until (about) 1:00 AM. Prior to falling asleep, Kaelin hears Arnell Simpson return home. [Time: 1:00 AM]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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


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

Back to TimeLine

[tv]

TV,

I know that the prosecution does not legally have to present a motive, however, I can't for the life of me figure out how this rule or whatever is called came about.

IMO, the DA's, perhaps would have had a stronger presentation if they used the crime of passion motive. However, just like they did not use Simpson's statement to police, did not use the Bronco chase, etc., they must have weighed the pros and cons of each motive. If they used the crime of passion, then Nicole's and Ron's relationship would have gone under the microscope. I believe that there was much more evidence that the DA's could have used to lay a foundation as a crime of a passion.
GreenIce, it would have all come back to the their volatile relationship and the domestic abuse. Each time he lost control and beat Nicole it was a crime of passion. That doesn't mean it wasn't also domestic abuse.

[William Anthony]

Good morning, William. By her own words to the 911 operator she was afraid he was going to beat her which tells me she had been through this with him enough to know what he was capable of doing.

I am not disputing what was in Ms. NBS's mind and you may be correct as to prior altercations. I was just saying that this 911 call did not support that Simpson threatened to hit or hit her.

[tv]

I am not disputing what was in Ms. NBS's mind and you may be correct as to prior altercations. I was just saying that this 911 call did not support that Simpson threatened to hit or hit her.Would you take it as a threat if somone broke down your door and came into your home yelling and screaming and using profanity? It's a yes or no question. :)

[martin II]

I just listened to the 1993 911 call again. I would call breaking her door down very threatening. In the background you can hear him ranting and raving -- it's god***n out of his mouth few seconds. Nicole tells the 911 operator that she's afraid he's going to beat the sh*t out of her. She told him over and over to be quiet because the kids are sleeping and she tells the operator she doesn't want anything to happen with the kids there. She's crying and it's obvious she's terrified. How can you say she wasn't threatened? If anyone broke my door down I'd definitely take that as a threat. I can't believe you're blaming this whole incident on Nicole. Does he ever do anything wrong in your eyes?

TV
Back up a moment
The french doors were broken before oj arrived and had been broken earlier.But he did kick them and maby caused more damage.I think Kato said it was previously broken.Off the hinges or something like that. So to be fair he did not break the door down.The door was still standing. He was yelling and ranting but most of the time he was standing in the back yard with Kato while yelling. he did come to the door but backed off to the yard.she was crying and very upset maby trerrified
But he did not walk up to her personally like invading her personal space.he kept his distance.If you want to call it threatening ok.

I am not blamming everything on Nicole. I blame oj for comming back to the house while he was going bonkers. She asked him to return but he should have allowed her to talk it out on the phone rather than go back to her house all steamed up.

Now if nicole had not had that party at her house with the drug users and prostitutes present and her children in the house and if her friend had not told oj about it, oj would not have known and there would not have been at her house and there would not have been a 911 phone call. I don't know why her girl friend told oj about the party but she did.Nicole should have slapped the girlfriends face as she was the one that caused all of this to happen.imo

[William Anthony]

Would you take it as a threat if somone broke down your door and came into your home yelling and screaming and using profanity? It's a yes or no question. :)

Yes. However, I need to explain the answer.:) I wouldn't tell the operator that he hit me or threatened to hit me if he had not. I might tell them that I am afraid he is going to hit me.

[tv]

Yes. However, I need to explain the answer.:) I wouldn't tell the operator that he hit me or threatened to hit me if he had not. I might tell them that I am afraid he is going to hit me.

That's exactly what she said. She told the operator he hadn't hit her but she was afraid he was going to. I knew you would turn it into an essay question.

[martin II]

Would you take it as a threat if somone broke down your door and came into your home yelling and screaming and using profanity? It's a yes or no question. :)

When you say broke down the door i see a door off the hinges and on the floor.That did not happen. The door war partly off the hinges oj kicked a part of it and maby damaged it more but the door was still standing in place.
In order for oj to harm nicole he would have to get up in her space and he NEVER did that. He never came closer to her than the door.He stood in the back yard and most of his comments were directed against her but to Kato.

[William Anthony]

That's exactly what she said. She told the operator he hadn't hit her but she was afraid he was going to. I knew you would turn it into an essay question.

Then Martin was correct in that he did not threaten to hit her nor did he hit her. you do realize that a witness is given the opportunity to explain his answer if needed?:)

On a lighter note, I would have called 911 to tell them to send an ambulance for the person that ran into my home yelling and screaming with a gunshot wound that he got before he got to my home and whom my dogs were now feasting on. :)

[tv]

When you say broke down the door i see a door off the hinges and on the floor.That did not happen. The door war partly off the hinges oj kicked a part of it and maby damaged it more but the door was still standing in place.
In order for oj to harm nicole he would have to get up in her space and he NEVER did that. He never came closer to her than the door.He stood in the back yard and most of his comments were directed against her but to Kato.

martin, I have always thought he broke the dooor off the hinges but you don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter. Even if he'd only pounded on the door or kicked it he was being violent and there is no excuse you can give for that. You seem to think that if the door wasn't off the hinges it doesn't count.

[tv]

Then Martin was correct in that he did not threaten to hit her nor did he hit her. you do realize that a witness is given the opportunity to explain his answer if needed?:)

On a lighter note, I would have called 911 to tell them to send an ambulance for the person that ran into my home yelling and screaming with a gunshot wound that he got before he got to my home and whom my dogs were now feasting on. :)

I'm not sure that he didn't threaten to hit her. It's hard to understand everything he's saying in the background. He was being violent and threatening; there's no other way to characterize it and you know it, William.

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure that he didn't threaten to hit her. It's hard to understand everything he's saying in the background. He was being violent and threatening; there's no other way to characterize it and you know it, William.

I haven't disputed any of that and was only commenting on what I took Martin's post to mean-that he didn't threaten to or hit.

[tv]

I haven't disputed any of that and was only commenting on what I took Martin's post to mean-that he didn't threaten to or hit.

Okay. :)

[martin II]

That's exactly what she said. She told the operator he hadn't hit her but she was afraid he was going to. I knew you would turn it into an essay question.

oK
Nicole thought he was going to give it to her but he didn't. Never touched her. You think she had another one of those type parties at her home soon after?

[GreenIce]

Please tell me the source of this information.

TV,

Both men were on Larry King Live and Welsh explained why he told Klaas to take the test.

[martin II]

martin, I have always thought he broke the dooor off the hinges but you don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter. Even if he'd only pounded on the door or kicked it he was being violent and there is no excuse you can give for that. You seem to think that if the door wasn't off the hinges it doesn't count.

I have said oj was out of order,
He left the first time and she called him by phone and asked him to come back. He should have ignored her request and stayed home until he had simmered down or he could have talked to her on the phone.But he agreed to come back at her request. Regardless of what she may have feared he never invaded her personal space and he never hit, pushed or kicked her and she told the cops that.imo

Since it was ojs name that was on the lease where she was living ,one could say he kicked in his own door.smile

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, it would have all come back to the their volatile relationship and the domestic abuse. Each time he lost control and beat Nicole it was a crime of passion. That doesn't mean it wasn't also domestic abuse.

TV,

There was only one incident of DV that involved physical contact that was entered into evidence.

Any one listening to that tape can tell Simpson is beside himself, he is beyond angry having to read something in the National Enquirer and I can't blame Nicole for being terrified---however, the fact is she did not say nor was it heard that Simpson threatened her with phyical violence. From what I remember of the tape she never said that Simpson came any where near her.

The point is, Simpson was enraged but he never lost control of his hands. His mouth, yes, his hands no. His feet of rebreaking of the door, yes, his hands no. He also stayed and waited for the police. He learned from the last time. It is clear to me that there is much more evidence that Simpson did learn from the 1989 evidence, did believe he would go to jail if he ever laid another hand on her.

The officer who spoke to Nicole after that incident had taped Nicole's interview, we don't know the whole contents of the tape but Nicole does say it only happend one time. IMO, the DA's should have put on DV expert to explain why Nicole would lie about this or why she felt Simpson would beat her up. All we have when it comes to DV is once incident and Nicole confirmed that it was only once.

[martin II]

GreenIce, it would have all come back to the their volatile relationship and the domestic abuse. Each time he lost control and beat Nicole it was a crime of passion. That doesn't mean it wasn't also domestic abuse.

The ony time i know he beat her was the 1998 incedent when she thought he had baugfht some diamonds for her and she demanded that he give them to her.i think that is correct.

[martin II]

Would you take it as a threat if somone broke down your door and came into your home yelling and screaming and using profanity? It's a yes or no question. :)

If he got inside my house i would shoot him.

[GreenIce]

martin, I have always thought he broke the dooor off the hinges but you don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter. Even if he'd only pounded on the door or kicked it he was being violent and there is no excuse you can give for that. You seem to think that if the door wasn't off the hinges it doesn't count.

TV,

Simpson kicking in the door was of course wrong, however, do you think he is the only person in the world who has ever kicked a door out of anger? People slamming doors, kicking doors, punching walls, etc., is not that uncommon when someone is beyond angry.

Nicole struck a maid and knocked her down because she was angry. She knew it was wrong and she said she couldn't control it. DV is DV, doesn't matter or is not restricted to couples only. IMO.

I remember when it came out about Nicole striking out at Simpson and the media just gave the clear impression it didn't matter because he was bigger then her and she couldn't hurt him. I find that just totally bizarre because when you go to strike someone, just because it didn't hurt doesn't mean that it doesn't count. IMO.

[martin II]

TV,

There was only one incident of DV that involved physical contact that was entered into evidence.

Any one listening to that tape can tell Simpson is beside himself, he is beyond angry having to read something in the National Enquirer and I can't blame Nicole for being terrified---however, the fact is she did not say nor was it heard that Simpson threatened her with phyical violence. From what I remember of the tape she never said that Simpson came any where near her.

The point is, Simpson was enraged but he never lost control of his hands. His mouth, yes, his hands no. His feet of rebreaking of the door, yes, his hands no. He also stayed and waited for the police. He learned from the last time. It is clear to me that there is much more evidence that Simpson did learn from the 1989 evidence, did believe he would go to jail if he ever laid another hand on her.

The officer who spoke to Nicole after that incident had taped Nicole's interview, we don't know the whole contents of the tape but Nicole does say it only happend one time. IMO, the DA's should have put on DV expert to explain why Nicole would lie about this or why she felt Simpson would beat her up. All we have when it comes to DV is once incident and Nicole confirmed that it was only once.


GI
Thanks for this post. Although we have Nicole saying he only beat her once there is a poster that continues to say he beat her multiple times.Not talking about you tv.

[GreenIce]

Martin,

In Clark's closing arguments, she says that Simpson ran into the AC unit so hard that he crashed into the wall, hence dropping the glove. This makes no sense. If he did drop the glove, then he was running further into the alley and not out of it. If he was running out of the alley then the glove should have been on the other side of the AC unit--??? Any comments on this?

[GreenIce]

oK
Nicole thought he was going to give it to her but he didn't. Never touched her. You think she had another one of those type parties at her home soon after?

Martin,

IMO, I don't think it is quite fair to say anything about what type of parties Nicole had at her home. If there was no illegal activties going on inside the home, then she should not be judge by this. Some of Simpson's friends probably walked on the "wild side" as well. To me, this is just another sign how women are not treated fairly when it comes to these issues.

It has be rumoured that Simpson had ties to the underworld, he was never questioned about putting his children into danger.

I do think Simpson was probably angry at Nicole because she was getting in over head and that some of these people she called friends, were not really friends. IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

In Clark's closing arguments, she says that Simpson ran into the AC unit so hard that he crashed into the wall, hence dropping the glove. This makes no sense. If he did drop the glove, then he was running further into the alley and not out of it. If he was running out of the alley then the glove should have been on the other side of the AC unit--??? Any comments on this?

As i look at the pictures of the alley, if oj dropped the glove at the spot where it was found then he did not bump into the air conditioner as the air condiitoner was located on the wall some feet east of the glove.
If he did bump into the air conditioner then he did not drop the glove when he did because the glove was found some l feet west of the air condiitoner.

The picture inside Katos room was not located on the internal part of the airconditioner. so the picture must have been hung at some place west of the air conditioner.

However the unanswered question is how does a person falling from the fence
and his body hits the wall and make three seperate hits against the wall.It seems his body would hit the wall and he would fall to the ground but that is not how Kato expressed it.

Now if one wants to guess a bit i think about someone at Bundy that knew Nicole was ojs ex and she had been killed and wanted to implicate oj in the killings could take that glove from Bundy to Rockingham walked down the walkway dropped the glove at Katos wall banged on the wall three times to alert Kato that someone was back there and cause Kato to investigate and find the glove.Then just return to Bundy.This person would have had to have some knowledge of the Rockingham living quarters of Kato but i think that was general knowledge.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, I don't think it is quite fair to say anything about what type of parties Nicole had at her home. If there was no illegal activties going on inside the home, then she should not be judge by this. Some of Simpson's friends probably walked on the "wild side" as well. To me, this is just another sign how women are not treated fairly when it comes to these issues.

It has be rumoured that Simpson had ties to the underworld, he was never questioned about putting his children into danger.

I do think Simpson was probably angry at Nicole because she was getting in over head and that some of these people she called friends, were not really friends. IMO.

i agree with that. i think ojs anger was fueled by what and the way Nicoles friend told him about the party. This nicole friend must have had some kind of motive to even tell oj about the party. Maby she described the party as beeing a little more active than it actually was and caused oj to think stuff was going on that was not going on.She must have known oj would not be pleased with the party news.

I think there is a lot of truth that oj felt Nicole was getting in over her head with some of her new friends and it may have bothered him that she was having multiple short dating partners some of which she told him about.

[weezer]

Sort of like the prosecution saying we say that Simpson dropped the glove behind Kato's quarters, because we say it it must be true. Therefore, you should not consider that we can produce no evidence of Simpson being behind Kato's quarters, because we have said Simpson was back there and hence, it must be true because we said it.

proof please that anyone other than orenthal dropped the glove behind kato's quarters. not your unsupported theory -- concrete proof. you know. the stuff you keep insisting isn't there for orenthal's guilt. proof.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, I don't think it is quite fair to say anything about what type of parties Nicole had at her home. If there was no illegal activties going on inside the home, then she should not be judge by this. Some of Simpson's friends probably walked on the "wild side" as well. To me, this is just another sign how women are not treated fairly when it comes to these issues.

It has be rumoured that Simpson had ties to the underworld, he was never questioned about putting his children into danger.

I do think Simpson was probably angry at Nicole because she was getting in over head and that some of these people she called friends, were not really friends. IMO.

i think that most people like oj and nicole that enjoy large friendship groups of people some turn out to be duds. my friendship group is not based on what nicoles and ojs was but i have a couple of duds myself.imo

[weezer]

Your last sentence has always puzzeled me. Some have put forth the argument that Nicole got the divoice because of Oj constant abuse, Yet when the divoice was final she received a very large cash award $10,000 monthly child support health insurance for the kids paid for by oj. some kind
of insurance on that car he gave her and that $500,000 SF condo he gave her that i think initially gave her rental income. She had the ability to move
as far as a moving van could take her. Yet what did she do.moved several blocks about 3 minutes from him. She still visited him at Rockingham and he visited her at GG. She had no credit so her friend asked oj to sign for the GG lease and he did. I have always believed that her letter asking him to let her come home Rockingham and have her family was a first effort to play him,remarry and possibly have a shot at another divoice and end up with the rockingham home in her name. Oj didn't go for it.

So my question is was the divoice about abuse or was it about getting some money and still continue some kind of relationship she continued to have with him.
moving a few minutes away does not seem like she was finished with him.

martin -- the SF condo was Nicole's before the '89 beating and before the divorce. remember? that's what orenthal was threatening her with the IRS over.

in most divorces, the parent is responsible for support and in almost all cases, insurance for the children.

Nicole wanted to keep her children in the same schools and around the same friends they'd had all their lives. and, I would imagine, it meant that WHEN and IF their absentee dad wanted to see them, he could not use distance as an excuse.

[martin II]

proof please that anyone other than orenthal dropped the glove behind kato's quarters. not your unsupported theory -- concrete proof. you know. the stuff you keep insisting isn't there for orenthal's guilt. proof.

WEEZER

There is no proof that oj was even in the south walkway on 6/12 or any recent time before that so it goes that there is no proof that he dropped any glove there.Your request seems to start with the idea that there was proof that he did drop the glove there. So maby you can prove that.

[weezer]

SNIPPED*** ". . .Nicole and OJ has pre-nup, there was no way Nicole ever could have gotten Rockingham. However, OJ did write in his letter that if ever laid another hand on her, he would rip it up. IMO, if he was a chronic abuser, no piece of paper was going to stop him. . ."

sounds like a motive to me. anyone else? we do know how orenthal feels about his 'stuff' don't we?

[martin II]

TV
i am not sure you gave me your opinion or that i even asked, but does the pictures i posted showing the thick and tall growth at the fence at the South walkway give you an idea as to whether anyone jumped the fence in that area?

[weezer]

The ony time i know he beat her was the 1998 incedent when she thought he had baugfht some diamonds for her and she demanded that he give them to her.i think that is correct.

martin, orenthal had already killed her by 1998. and as usual you are completely incorrect in your thinking. not even your hero ms orenthal simpson claimed she was demanding he give her the earrings.

[weezer]

TV,

Simpson kicking in the door was of course wrong, however, do you think he is the only person in the world who has ever kicked a door out of anger? People slamming doors, kicking doors, punching walls, etc., is not that uncommon when someone is beyond angry.

Nicole struck a maid and knocked her down because she was angry. She knew it was wrong and she said she couldn't control it. DV is DV, doesn't matter or is not restricted to couples only. IMO.

I remember when it came out about Nicole striking out at Simpson and the media just gave the clear impression it didn't matter because he was bigger then her and she couldn't hurt him. I find that just totally bizarre because when you go to strike someone, just because it didn't hurt doesn't mean that it doesn't count. IMO.

IF Nicole ever struck the maid, it would have been when the maid tried to block Nicole getting out of the room and away from orenthal's abuse. this was the same maid that went out to the police car and tried to talk Nicole into coming back into the house isn't it?

[weezer]

GI
Thanks for this post. Although we have Nicole saying he only beat her once there is a poster that continues to say he beat her multiple times.Not talking about you tv.

I'm sure you meant to say that Nicole, ac, and others said orenthal beat her multiple times.

[weezer]

WEEZER

There is no proof that oj was even in the south walkway on 6/12 or any recent time before that so it goes that there is no proof that he dropped any glove there.Your request seems to start with the idea that there was proof that he did drop the glove there. So maby you can prove that.

william and you are the folks saying the glove was planted. all either of you need to do is show concrete proof that that happened. not your theories. proof.

[weezer]

I have said oj was out of order,
He left the first time and she called him by phone and asked him to come back. He should have ignored her request and stayed home until he had simmered down or he could have talked to her on the phone.But he agreed to come back at her request. Regardless of what she may have feared he never invaded her personal space and he never hit, pushed or kicked her and she told the cops that.imo

Since it was ojs name that was on the lease where she was living ,one could say he kicked in his own door.smile

odd how that would happen don't you think? I mean, she was on the phone with the police when he was in the background screaming......hmmmm

[martin II]

martin -- the SF condo was Nicole's before the '89 beating and before the divorce. remember? that's what orenthal was threatening her with the IRS over.

in most divorces, the parent is responsible for support and in almost all cases, insurance for the children.

Nicole wanted to keep her children in the same schools and around the same friends they'd had all their lives. and, I would imagine, it meant that WHEN and IF their absentee dad wanted to see them, he could not use distance as an excuse.

Weezer

Not really true
Oj GAVE the SF condo to nicole because he wanted her to have some seperate personal rental income.

She had mismanaged her divoice money she got from oj and was down to some small money. she wanted to sell the Bundy condo but wanted to evade the capital gains tax to the IRS and thought she could do this by telling them she lived at Rockingham again. Oj talked it over with his lawyer and the lawyer advised him against participating in her fraud.The lawyer wrote her the
leter telling her of oj decision. She complained that oj was going to make her broke etc and blamed her financial situation on him.
That was a clear signal from oj that he had moved on and that he was no longer responsible or willing to come to her financial rescue.

I understand trhe parents must pay the childrens insurances but it would be fair if Nicole and Oj paid a equal amount but he volunteered to pay all.He was generous you know especially where his kids were concerned.

Most women that believe their ex is going to kill them would not be thinking about what school the kids go to. She could have moved to Data Point near her parents. That is if she felt it was true as you do that he was going to kill her. She did not have to move to Mexico or MA. Ca is a big state. Moving 3 minutes from Rockingham means she wanted to make sure she was not too far from oj. She had many options other than a walk away.imo

It looks like the idea that she was afraid of oj harming her was more rummor that fact based on the fact that she did not go too far.

[weezer]

TV
Back up a moment
The french doors were broken before oj arrived and had been broken earlier.But he did kick them and maby caused more damage.I think Kato said it was previously broken.Off the hinges or something like that. So to be fair he did not break the door down.The door was still standing. He was yelling and ranting but most of the time he was standing in the back yard with Kato while yelling. he did come to the door but backed off to the yard.she was crying and very upset maby trerrified
But he did not walk up to her personally like invading her personal space.he kept his distance.If you want to call it threatening ok.

I am not blamming everything on Nicole. I blame oj for comming back to the house while he was going bonkers. She asked him to return but he should have allowed her to talk it out on the phone rather than go back to her house all steamed up.

Now if nicole had not had that party at her house with the drug users and prostitutes present and her children in the house and if her friend had not told oj about it, oj would not have known and there would not have been at her house and there would not have been a 911 phone call. I don't know why her girl friend told oj about the party but she did.Nicole should have slapped the girlfriends face as she was the one that caused all of this to happen.imo

BY MR. ROBERT BAKER:

Q: Was the door at all broken at the time -- Well, strike that one, too. Was the door broken before October 25, 1993?

A: I believe it had been fixed and rebroken on the 25th.

Q: So is it your testimony that the door was not broken at the time the incident occurred on October 25, 1993?

A: It was not broken.

[martin II]

BY MR. ROBERT BAKER:

Q: Was the door at all broken at the time -- Well, strike that one, too. Was the door broken before October 25, 1993?

A: I believe it had been fixed and rebroken on the 25th.

Q: So is it your testimony that the door was not broken at the time the incident occurred on October 25, 1993?

A: It was not broken.


I don't know who is testifyuying but i think Kato said thye door was broken some before oj came there.

This whole 911 call can be summed up as follows

With all of ojs yelling and all of her crying

the coppers asked her if she wanted to press charges and she said NO.

[weezer]

I don't know who is testifyuying but i think Kato said thye door was broken some before oj came there.

This whole 911 call can be summed up as follows

With all of ojs yelling and all of her crying

the coppers asked her if she wanted to press charges and she said NO.

Kaelin Deposition - February 20, 1996

[William Anthony]

proof please that anyone other than orenthal dropped the glove behind kato's quarters. not your unsupported theory -- concrete proof. you know. the stuff you keep insisting isn't there for orenthal's guilt. proof.

The only theory, which was unsupported, was that of the prosecution claiming that Simpson dropped the glove behind Kato's quarters. The evidence, that which supports a proof, based on logical inferences drawn from the evidence is that MF was the one that placed the glove behind Kato's quarters, since he admitted to being alone when he allegedly found the glove and the other evidence, that he hated interracial couples and would plant/fabricate/manipulate/create evidence to frame certain people was supplied by the statements of MF and other witnesses, and the evidence directly contradicting the prosecution's theory that Simpson dropped the glove behind Kato's quarters was supplied by MF would admitted he investigated and found no evidence that anyone was behind Kato's quarters before him. I know you are aware that evidence is used to proof a theory and lack of evidence refutes a theory. Perhaps, a more importantly was MF's testimony that he had a homicide kit that contained plastic bags of various sizes.

[martin II]

william and you are the folks saying the glove was planted. all either of you need to do is show concrete proof that that happened. not your theories. proof.

I think it is fair since you made the assumption you should give proof of that.
But we already know that it a failed assumption. .

[martin II]

that's your answer? LOL

no
He never evaded her private space,touched pushed or hit her

[weezer]

The only theory, which was unsupported, was that of the prosecution claiming that Simpson dropped the glove behind Kato's quarters. The evidence, that which supports a proof, based on logical inferences drawn from the evidence is that MF was the one that placed the glove behind Kato's quarters, since he admitted to being alone when he allegedly found the glove and the other evidence, that he hated interracial couples and would plant/fabricate/manipulate/create evidence to frame certain people was supplied by the statements of MF and other witnesses, and the evidence directly contradicting the prosecution's theory that Simpson dropped the glove behind Kato's quarters was supplied by MF would admitted he investigated and found no evidence that anyone was behind Kato's quarters before him. I know you are aware that evidence is used to proof a theory and lack of evidence refutes a theory. Perhaps, a more importantly was MF's testimony that he had a homicide kit that contained plastic bags of various sizes.

the matching glove was at the murder scene. the gloves had orenthal's, Nicole's, and Ron's DNA -- no one else's. I rest my case.

in the numerous investigations during and since, there has never been proof that any of the crap that the defense threw against the wall ever happened. so, I assume YOU have proof to support your theory. you know william -- proof. the stuff you keep insisting LE didn't have against orenthal. you've proffered the theory that Fuhrman planted it -- now, how about proof.

[William Anthony]

the matching glove was at the murder scene. the gloves had orenthal's, Nicole's, and Ron's DNA -- no one else's. I rest my case.

in the numerous investigations during and since, there has never been proof that any of the crap that the defense threw against the wall ever happened. so, I assume YOU have proof to support your theory. you know william -- proof. the stuff you keep insisting LE didn't have against orenthal. you've proffered the theory that Fuhrman planted it -- now, how about proof.

I have never said that MF in fact planted the glove or in other words charged him with so doing. You do understand that the prosecution charged Simpson with murder and was therefore required to prove their charges. You do understand which party bore the burden of proof, don't you?

[weezer]

Nicole said it was one time now who do you believe i believe you or nicole.

who do you believe martin?

[weezer]

Thats just not true.

Nicole had demanded for some time that oj fire the maid because she did not like her he had refused.
Nicole went to the maids room and attacked her slapping and knocking her down, The maid went to oj and told him what had happened.Oj came to the room to resolve the situation and Nicole hit the maid and ran out the door.
I think it was after this that the maid said she could not work for oj with a person like Nicole in the house so she quit.She had worked for him for a long time.

that is just not true.

Nicole demanded that if orenthal wanted her to move back to Rockingham, he had to get rid of the maid. do you know whether or not orenthal fired the maid? let me give you a hint: YES

[martin II]

you 'dissagree'? what a joke. I'm not name calling martin -- I'm calling 'it' what 'it' is.

Calling me a pig on this public thread is name calling.You may think it is ok to call posters these type names but it is name calling.You don't have to say what you think all the time.Pig is not a nice thing for you
to call anyone.

[William Anthony]

I suppose some will take offense at comments made, because the person referred to is dead. However, I hope that no offense is taken by a poster who refers to the magnificent one as cockroach.

[weezer]

Calling me a pig on this public thread is name calling.You may think it is ok to call posters these type names but it is name calling.You don't have to say what you think all the time.Pig is not a nice thing for you
to call anyone.

and callous, piggish posts about victims aren't 'ok' either.

Originally Posted by martin ii
snipped *** "at any rate she never got any earings on that day but she got a few licks."

[martin II]

Originally Posted by martin ii
snipped *** "at any rate she never got any earings on that day but she got a few licks."

YOU are the only one that owes an apology.

You did say that oj beat her didn;t you.

[William Anthony]

Ah, it is as I expected. It depends on who is dead.

[weezer]

I suppose some will take offense at comments made, because the person referred to is dead. However, I hope that no offense is taken by a poster who refers to the magnificent one as cockroach.

you think he was magnificent and I think he was a cockroach. I thought you were all for everyone being able to have their own opinion -- even when it differs from our own?

martin's comments about the victim on the night that orenthal beat her isn't offensive -- it's callous and piggish.

[weezer]

I bet some folks in some communities even find what martin said okay and probably even funny. It was a callous and piggish post made by whatever kind of person makes those kinds of posts. :shrug:

[martin II]

you think he was magnificent and I think he was a cockroach. I thought you were all for everyone being able to have their own opinion -- even when it differs from our own?

martin's comments about the victim on the night that orenthal beat her isn't offensive -- it's callous and piggish.

You have the same options as everyone when you don't agree or like a posters post, you can state your dissagreement and move on But you are not allowed to call posters nasty names because of what you think of them.

[martin II]

and callous, piggish posts about victims aren't 'ok' either.

Originally Posted by martin ii
snipped *** "at any rate she never got any earings on that day but she got a few licks."

You made the same kind of nasty attack on Gi many times and she politely asked you to apologize and you told her the same as you are telling me now kiss off you get no apology and she had done nothing wrong to you.'I am finished posting to you before you decide to call me or someone else a nasty name.

[martin II]

I'm not sure that he didn't threaten to hit her. It's hard to understand everything he's saying in the background. He was being violent and threatening; there's no other way to characterize it and you know it, William.

I have said he was threatening i think and this did cause het to be afraid but in the end he did not come close to her and did not do what she thought he was going to do.
He should have not accepted her invitation to come back to her house and she should not have offered it knowing how upset he was.A better solution would have been for him to go play a late game of golf or gone to the movies or something which i guess he did after le told him to just go home when she would not press chargers. imo

[weezer]

the only person who said Nicole asked him to come back to the house is orenthal. the same orenthal james simpson who spent 17 years abusing, stalking, threatening and eventually killing her. his word is worth a lot -- NOT!

[weezer]

doesn't sound like she invited him back to me!

NICOLE: Can you send someone to my house?
DISPATCHER: What's the problem there?
NICOLE: My ex-husband has just broken into my house and he's ranting and raving outside the front yard.
DISPATCHER: Has he been drinking or anything?
NICOLE: No. But he's crazy.
DISPATCHER: And you said he hasn't been drinking?
NICOLE: No.
DISPATCHER: Did he hit you?
NICOLE: No.
DISPATCHER: Do you have a restraining order against him?
NICOLE: No.
DISPATCHER: What's your name?
NICOLE: Nicole Simpson.
DISPATCHER: And your address?
NICOLE: 325 Gretna Green Way.
DISPATCHER: Okay, we'll send the police out.
NICOLE: Nicole: Thank you.
DISPATCHER: Dispatcher: Uh-huh.
(The dispatcher puts out a domestic violence call for any patrol car to respond to the address at Gretna Green. A short time later, Nicole Simpson called back.
NICOLE: Could you get somebody over here now, to ... Gretna Green. He's back. Please?

[weezer]

NICOLE: He's O.J. Simpson. I think you know his record. Could you just send somebody over here?
DISPATCHER: What is he doing there?
NICOLE: He just drove up again. (She begins to cry) Could you just send somebody over?

[weezer]

DISPATCHER: Just a moment. Does he have any weapons?
NICOLE: I don't know. He went home and he came back. The kids are up there sleeping and I don't want anything to happen.

[weezer]

DISPATCHER: OK, you just want him to leave?
NICOLE: My door. He broke the whole back door in.
DISPATCHER : And then he left and he came back?
NICOLE: Then he came and he practically knocked my upstairs door down but he pounded it and he screamed and hollered and I tried to get him out of the bedroom because the kids are sleeping in there.

[weezer]

DISPATCHER: Yeah. Has this happened before or no?
NICOLE: Many times.

[martin II]

William even the dead is called names.

[weezer]

NICOLE: Yeah. You know what, O.J.? That window above you is also open. Could you just go, please? Can I get off the phone?
DISPATCHER: You want, you feel safe hanging up?
NICOLE: Well, you're right
DISPATCHER: You want to wait til the police get there?
NICOLE: Yeah.

[martin II]

Park does not know if the bronco was parked at the rockingham gate or not.
If he does not know we don't know.

Park looks at address NOT CARS

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

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

[tv]

Nicole said it was one time now who do you believe i believe you or nicole.She said that because the negative publicity was a problem for her abuser. She says very clearly on the 911 tape that it's happened many times before. How come you think Nicole is a liar on everything except saying it only happened one time?

[tv]

TV,

Both men were on Larry King Live and Welsh explained why he told Klaas to take the test.

If what you say is true that only means that Marc Klaas was unfamiliar withe the way investigations are handled. It was the first time he'd had his child stolen. I don't see a comparison between Marc Klaas and OJ Simpson in regard to taking a polygraph.

[martin II]

A biase witness caught in a untruth

cale claimed he was stand near oj rockingham gate at 9:33 and did not see the bronco. The bently with oj and kato arrived at 9;30-9;45 and went into the rockingham gate and he did not see that either.


Petrocelli: What time do you think you pulled into the Rockingham property after McDonald's?
Kaelin: I would say it would be about 9:33.
Petrocelli: Now, when you came back from McDonald's and you pull in and he parks the Bentley in the same place where it was before and you're sitting in the passenger seat, you still have the drink, the chicken sandwich and the French fries in your lap without a bag and with a straw. Is that right?
Kaelin: Yes.

9:33 Bentley arrives - Cale must be later
BY MR. SHAPIRO: When you were walking your dog, sir, did you see a Bently automobile driving up Rockingham?
Cales: No, sir.
SHAPIRO: If a Bentley had been driving up between 9:30 and 9:45, would you be in a position to see it?
Cales: If it had its headlights on, and --
SHAPIRO: Did you see that vehicle driving up between 9:30 and 9:45?
Cales: No, sir.
=== Or was it before the Bentley arrived at 9:33? ===
SHAPIRO: It could have been before 9:30 that you were walking your dog, isn't that correct?
Cales: I don't think it was.
SHAPIRO: You're not sure.
Cales: I am very sure. It was 9:30 to 9:45 time frame. That's the best estimate I can give you, sir.
SHAPIRO: So your, in your definition, your best estimate is being very sure of something?
Cales: When you have a period of time within certain parameters. That's -- I'm very sure of my estimate, it's in that range of time.
SHAPIRO: Could it have been 9:25?
Cales: I don't think it was. Is it possible, I guess it's possible. I don't think so, though.

[tv]

TV,

There was only one incident of DV that involved physical contact that was entered into evidence.

Any one listening to that tape can tell Simpson is beside himself, he is beyond angry having to read something in the National Enquirer and I can't blame Nicole for being terrified---however, the fact is she did not say nor was it heard that Simpson threatened her with phyical violence. From what I remember of the tape she never said that Simpson came any where near her.

The point is, Simpson was enraged but he never lost control of his hands. His mouth, yes, his hands no. His feet of rebreaking of the door, yes, his hands no. He also stayed and waited for the police. He learned from the last time. It is clear to me that there is much more evidence that Simpson did learn from the 1989 evidence, did believe he would go to jail if he ever laid another hand on her.

The officer who spoke to Nicole after that incident had taped Nicole's interview, we don't know the whole contents of the tape but Nicole does say it only happend one time. IMO, the DA's should have put on DV expert to explain why Nicole would lie about this or why she felt Simpson would beat her up. All we have when it comes to DV is once incident and Nicole confirmed that it was only once.

GreenIce, why do you believe her when she says it only happened one time but think she's lying when she says it happened repeatedly? Don't you realize that battered women often defend their abusers and cover for them for many complex reasons? You have only given one incident of her saying it only happened once but she said many times that it was ongoing and there had been multiple incidents. I'm incredulous that you're defending OJ Simpson when Nicole was so obviously battered by him. For you to say he only lost control of his feet is...well, I don't know what it is. :shrug: For him to be angry enough that he tore a door off the hinges no matter what body part he is used to do it is very violent and shows his rage was out of control. Sure, he learned from the last time. He learned he'd better leave her dead so she couldn't ruin his image with her accusations.

[tv]

TV,

Simpson kicking in the door was of course wrong, however, do you think he is the only person in the world who has ever kicked a door out of anger? People slamming doors, kicking doors, punching walls, etc., is not that uncommon when someone is beyond angry.

Nicole struck a maid and knocked her down because she was angry. She knew it was wrong and she said she couldn't control it. DV is DV, doesn't matter or is not restricted to couples only. IMO.

I remember when it came out about Nicole striking out at Simpson and the media just gave the clear impression it didn't matter because he was bigger then her and she couldn't hurt him. I find that just totally bizarre because when you go to strike someone, just because it didn't hurt doesn't mean that it doesn't count. IMO.
Now you're accusing Nicole of domestic violence and absolving Simpson? :eek: You're trivializing the fear and psychological anguish that punching walls, kicking doors and destroying doors can cause someone that is on the receiving end of the anger. What I find totally bizarre is that you think it's acceptable and not uncommon that a person acts this way because he is beyond angry. Where do you draw the line?

[martin II]

If what you say is true that only means that Marc Klaas was unfamiliar withe the way investigations are handled. It was the first time he'd had his child stolen. I don't see a comparison between Marc Klaas and OJ Simpson in regard to taking a polygraph.

i don't know about Klaas but i know oj did not take a real full test he took only a short part of one.And we don't know what the questions were or the answers he gave.

[tv]

i don't know about Klaas but i know oj did not take a real full test he took only a short part of one.And we don't know what the questions were or the answers he gave.If he'd been doing well on it Bailey wouldn't have stopped the examination. He would have shouted the results to the world.

[martin II]

She said that because the negative publicity was a problem for her abuser. She says very clearly on the 911 tape that it's happened many times before. How come you think Nicole is a liar on everything except saying it only happened one time?

i don't think i have said nicole was a lier on everything and i don't know why she wrote a letter saying it only happened one time.Do you know who she wrote the letter to.I am not sure about that.

[tv]

i don't think i have said nicole was a lier on everything and i don't know why she wrote a letter saying it only happened one time.Do you know who she wrote the letter to.I am not sure about that.I'll see if I can find it. If not, I'm sure there is someone on here that knows.

[martin II]

If he'd been doing well on it Bailey wouldn't have stopped the examination. He would have shouted the results to the world.

Bailey was the polygraoph expert most think. He gave his reasons for stopping the test.Sone links i have read agree that a person should not be given that test close to the time of a event he is questioned about.It seems reasonable to me.imo i don't know how a examinor can determine what the results of the test will be until the test is complete.right?

[weezer]

i don't know about Klaas but i know oj did not take a real full test he took only a short part of one.And we don't know what the questions were or the answers he gave.

but we do know it was going 'badly' and flee stopped it.

[weezer]

i don't think i have said nicole was a lier on everything and i don't know why she wrote a letter saying it only happened one time.Do you know who she wrote the letter to.I am not sure about that.

that's because there was no letter.

[martin II]

I'll see if I can find it. If not, I'm sure there is someone on here that knows.

It may have been to oj as i know one letter she wrote to him she took responsibility for some of their problems.Then there was another letter she wrote that was posted by a former poster Wukong sp i think the name was that was given to him by that M NATTINE sp person. No need to spend time on finding the letter.
i think that letter was addressed to Cora.Not sure.

[tv]

It may have been to oj as i know one letter she wrote to him she took responsibility for some of their problems.Then there was another letter she wrote that was posted by a former poster Wukong sp i think the name was that was given to him by that M NATTINE sp person. No need to spend time on finding the letter.

weezer says there is no letter and she's usually right about things like that.

[tv]

Bailey was the polygraoph expert most think. He gave his reasons for stopping the test.Sone links i have read agree that a person should not be given that test close to the time of a event he is questioned about.It seems reasonable to me.imo i don't know how a examinor can determine what the results of the test will be until the test is complete.right?
I used to work for a company that investigated employee theft in a chain of stores. When they had evidence someone was stealing they polygraphed them on the spot. I don't know if the test has to be completed before it can be evaluated. I'd say that an examiner knows how it's going as the test progresses.

[martin II]

weezer says there is no letter and she's usually right about things like that.

Maby we will see if that is correct or not.

[weezer]

I used to work for a company that investigated employee theft in a chain of stores. When they had evidence someone was stealing they polygraphed them on the spot. I don't know if the test has to be completed before it can be evaluated. I'd say that an examiner knows how it's going as the test progresses.

Bailey said Friday during testimony in a Florida courtroom where his license to practice law is being challenged, that shortly after the June 12, 1994, killings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman, he received a telephone call from Los Angeles defense attorney Robert Shapiro.

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

Bailey said he told Shapiro that was because it was too emotional a time for Simpson.

"I said shut the test down; you have to let him settle down," Bailey said.

Bailey said he advised Shapiro that if Simpson were to take a polygraph test, it should only include questions about Goldman's death. . ."

hmmmm -- sounds like Ron's name had already came up during the questions.

[martin II]

I used to work for a company that investigated employee theft in a chain of stores. When they had evidence someone was stealing they polygraphed them on the spot. I don't know if the test has to be completed before it can be evaluated. I'd say that an examiner knows how it's going as the test progresses.

The media had a good run with that test.What i don't know is what Shaperio told Bailey when he called him.Did he tell him oj is taking the polygraph or did he tell him it was not going well.Some have guessed but i don't know.

Since the test was stopped after a short period of time i don't know if the questions were a set of generic test questions like what is your name do you have children etc or whether the first questions started off, did you kill nicole.Were you at bundy address on 6/12.etc

[weezer]

seems to be pretty clear:

Bailey said Friday during testimony in a Florida courtroom where his license to practice law is being challenged, that shortly after the June 12, 1994, killings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman, he received a telephone call from Los Angeles defense attorney Robert Shapiro.

Bailey, who has said he is an expert on polygraph examinations, said Shapiro wanted his advice about a polygraph test of Simpson in progress that was not going well.
Bailey said he told Shapiro that was because it was too emotional a time for Simpson.

"I said shut the test down; you have to let him settle down," Bailey said.

[weezer]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, FOX NEWS)

DENISE BROWN, VICTIM'S SISTER: You never gave me a penny, O.J.

O.J. SIMPSON, FORMER PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYER: No, your family got money from me.

BROWN: You never gave me a penny.

SIMPSON: You're family got money from me.

[martin II]

tv
As i said there were many reports on the oj tape issue by various people and reporters, i don;t know what Shaperio said to Bailey when they talked.

[tv]

tv
As i said there were many reports on the oj tape issue by various people and reporters, i don;t know what Shaperio said to Bailey when they talked.

It looks like that was sworn testimony from Bailey.

[martin II]

Through his connections at Hertz oj arranged for Lou Brown to get A hERTZ car rental business for his family. OJ paid for the college education for Nicoles
younger sister. When Lou Brown was about to loose his house oj loaned him
a cash amount of about $300.000 or $400,000 dollare that saved his house.
This loan has never been repaid.

After the civikl trial Goldman went to court to get the court to force Brown to pay the outstanding note to him instead of oj. The court refused. It is my understanding that oj still holds the note but has made no demand for payment from Lou Brown.This is what i have read fron various reports i don't know if this is the total given to the Browns,

[weezer]

Through his connections at Hertz oj arranged for Lou Brown to get A hERTZ car rental business for his family. OJ paid for the college education for Nicoles
younger sister. When Lou Brown was about to loose his house oj loaned him
a cash amount of about $300.000 or $400,000 dollare that saved his house.
This loan has never been repaid.

After the civikl trial Goldman went to court to get the court to force Brown to pay the outstanding note to him instead of oj. The court refused. It is my understanding that oj still holds the note but has made no demand for payment from Lou Brown.This is what i have read fron various reports i don't know if this is the total given to the Browns,

do you have something to back this up or is this just some of the tabloid, media stuff?

[tv]

Through his connections at Hertz oj arranged for Lou Brown to get A hERTZ car rental business for his family. OJ paid for the college education for Nicoles
younger sister. When Lou Brown was about to loose his house oj loaned him
a cash amount of about $300.000 or $400,000 dollare that saved his house.
This loan has never been repaid.

After the civikl trial Goldman went to court to get the court to force Brown to pay the outstanding note to him instead of oj. The court refused. It is my understanding that oj still holds the note but has made no demand for payment from Lou Brown.This is what i have read fron various reports i don't know if this is the total given to the Browns,

It would be rude even by OJ Simpson's standards to ask for repayment from the Browns after he murdered their daughter.

[martin II]

It looks like that was sworn testimony from Bailey.

hhhmmmmm
Bailey was in court about his license and he was testifying about oj taking a polygraph test? Is that why he lost his license because he stopped ojs test?
maby yes maby not hahaha

[martin II]

It would be rude even by OJ Simpson's standards to ask for repayment from the Browns after he murdered their daughter.

Business is business but my point is that oj was very generous to the browns
and that Fred tried to force the browns to illegally pay him for a note that was not owed to him.A note can only be paid to the holder as far as i know,oj knew that the Browns did not have the money so he didn't ask for it.

[tv]

Business is business but my point is that oj was very generous to the browns
and that Fred tried to force the browns to illegally pay him for a note that was not owed to him.A note can only be paid to the holder as far as i know,If that's true then Mr. Goldman wasn't successful. The Browns still have the money, right?

Just because OJS loaned a large sum of money to Lou Brown doesn't mean he didn't kill Ron and Nicole.

[weezer]

If that's true then Mr. Goldman wasn't successful. The Browns still have the money, right?

Just because OJS loaned a large sum of money to Lou Brown doesn't mean he didn't kill Ron and Nicole.

and it certainly doesn't mean that orenthal was above trying to work a deal where the Brown's would pay him in order to see that the children wouldn't do without.

[weezer]

It would be rude even by OJ Simpson's standards to ask for repayment from the Browns after he murdered their daughter.

you would think but then he did write his confession for money. . . .;)

[weezer]

hhhmmmmm
Bailey was in court about his license and he was testifying about oj taking a polygraph test? Is that why he lost his license because he stopped ojs test?
maby yes maby not hahaha

little hard for you just to accept facts isn't it martin? flee said orenthal was taking a lie detector test that was going badly when shapiro called him.

actually, he lost his license in more than one state and it didn't have anything to do with orenthal. he was/is just a plain ole crook that got caught. :shrug:

Gosh I love karma!

[weezer]

PER CURIAM.

F. Lee Bailey seeks review of a referee's report finding numerous, serious violations of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and recommending permanent disbarment. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we approve the referee’s findings of guilt and order that F. Lee Bailey be disbarred.

[weezer]

Bailey told LawCrossing that his personal legal battles have left him embittered and that while he is still fighting to clear his name, he has no interest in returning to criminal defense work full time. Bailey was disbarred in Florida in 2001 and in Massachusetts in 2002 for the way he handled stock owned by a drug smuggler in 1994.

[martin II]

If that's true then Mr. Goldman wasn't successful. The Browns still have the money, right?

Just because OJS loaned a large sum of money to Lou Brown doesn't mean he didn't kill Ron and Nicole.

tv

The loan to the Browns as far as i know was made long before Nicole was killed and the note was due long before nicole was killed and oj did not demand payment and has not to this day so the loan had nothing to do with her death.Fred learned about the note when he started looking for ojs money
after the civil trial.
OJ may not have given Dernise a penny but he shure did give her family a lot of financial supprot.imo

[weezer]

SNIPPED *** ". . .The loan to the Browns as far as i know was made long before Nicole was killed and the note was due long before nicole was killed and oj did not demand payment and has not to this day so the loan had nothing to do with her death. . ."

you have proof of this or is this some more of the tabloid media 'stuff'?

[martin II]

It is what it is
goodnight tv.

[tv]

you would think but then he did write his confession for money. . . .;)He sure did and he trashed Nicole in the process.

[weezer]

there seems to be some on this board that would have everyone believe the Browns were orenthal's poor relations -- this just isn't true. I believe orenthal used his celebrity and wealth to buy his way into a family that by all accounts seemed to be doing just fine without him:

". . .Returning to the United States when the girls were toddlers, the Browns lived first in Long Beach, then bought a large home with a tennis court, a 16-foot-deep pool and a three-acre back yard in the Royal Palm Estates section of Garden Grove. Two more daughters, Dominique and Tanya, were born. Nicole and Denise started high school there, at Rancho Alamitos High School, before the family moved to the gated Orange County beach community of Monarch Bay in the mid-1970s. . ."

[William Anthony]

Definition of a plain old crook that got caught-MF.

[William Anthony]

The rules seem to differ on what is callous depending on who it is that is dead.

[GreenIce]

IF Nicole ever struck the maid, it would have been when the maid tried to block Nicole getting out of the room and away from orenthal's abuse. this was the same maid that went out to the police car and tried to talk Nicole into coming back into the house isn't it?

FBG,

Time for a different approach.

This did happen. Bottom line, Nicole had no right to punch another person in the face. No one has a right to put their hands on another person, period. You can't justify one act of violence because it was Nicole who struck out and condemn anyone else. The way to handle DV, IMO, is that it is "all or nothing". In today's world, if the police get a 911 call and they determine that both adults struck each other, both are arrested.

Nicole and Michelle hated one another. Nicole lost it and decked her. It was wrong. However, please do not think that I don't understand how angry we can become and how tempting it appears to throw a punch, however, gender and size should not minimize the truth. IMO.

[GreenIce]

If what you say is true that only means that Marc Klaas was unfamiliar withe the way investigations are handled. It was the first time he'd had his child stolen. I don't see a comparison between Marc Klaas and OJ Simpson in regard to taking a polygraph.

TV,

I think it was you who was under the impression that Mark Klaas had no problem getting into the chair to take the lie detector test. He was furious, as any of us would be if we were accused of murdering our child. I find Mr. Klaas' perfectly normal. John Welsh didn't jump into the chair either, however, I think it was his lawyer who explained the reasoning behind the test.

Mr. Simpson was asked by Lange and Vanatter if he would consent to taking a test. I think Simpson asked if the tests were "true blue" or not and then I think he went on to say that he had some weird thoughts about Nicole. Which I think it was about Nicole hitting the maid and hoping that Michelle would have pressed charges.

Again, just for the record, I don't think they should be given at all and while I know that many lawyers on both sides believe in them, I still don't find this to be a reliable scientific tool. Like I asked another poster, if Simpson given the test past it, would you change your mind?

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, why do you believe her when she says it only happened one time but think she's lying when she says it happened repeatedly? Don't you realize that battered women often defend their abusers and cover for them for many complex reasons? You have only given one incident of her saying it only happened once but she said many times that it was ongoing and there had been multiple incidents. I'm incredulous that you're defending OJ Simpson when Nicole was so obviously battered by him. For you to say he only lost control of his feet is...well, I don't know what it is. :shrug: For him to be angry enough that he tore a door off the hinges no matter what body part he is used to do it is very violent and shows his rage was out of control. Sure, he learned from the last time. He learned he'd better leave her dead so she couldn't ruin his image with her accusations.

TV,

I am not defending Simpson. I clearly posted that when the jurors heard from Nicole's own voice that it happened only once, they should have called an expert on why many women will lie about it or minimize or, or take responsibilty for it. That is all that I posted.

I am not justifying his actions in regards to the door, however, he never approached her nor did he physically threaten her. We have contantly heard there were other physical confrontations, however, there was only one introduced into evidence during the criminal trial. It is not my fault that the DA's motive fell apart. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Now you're accusing Nicole of domestic violence and absolving Simpson? :eek: You're trivializing the fear and psychological anguish that punching walls, kicking doors and destroying doors can cause someone that is on the receiving end of the anger. What I find totally bizarre is that you think it's acceptable and not uncommon that a person acts this way because he is beyond angry. Where do you draw the line?

TV,

Where did I absolve OJ Simpson? How could I absolve OJ Simpson when Nicole hit the maid?

[GreenIce]

If he'd been doing well on it Bailey wouldn't have stopped the examination. He would have shouted the results to the world.

TV,

I just thought of something, I know have been critical of Bob Shapiro on the issue of the lie detector, mainly for not knowing that a certain amount of time must pass before taking it. Well what if I am wrong? What if Shapiro did know and in his opinion, Simpson passed? Think about it, if Simpson would have passed that test with flying colors while answers questions about Nicole, so soon after the murders, then this would have been diaster for the defense and would not have waved those results to the world, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Bailey was the polygraoph expert most think. He gave his reasons for stopping the test.Sone links i have read agree that a person should not be given that test close to the time of a event he is questioned about.It seems reasonable to me.imo i don't know how a examinor can determine what the results of the test will be until the test is complete.right?

Martin,

I think it is possible that Shapiro had a reason why he did this. I also wonder why the examiner never told Shapiro that it was too soon to take the test. Was Simpson told this?

[GreenIce]

He sure did and he trashed Nicole in the process.

TV,

How did Simpson trash Nicole? Are you talking about what was said about her in the book?

[Kate Sachel]

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.

Do you automatically assume a childish nature when you are proven wrong and asked to correct your misstatements?

We are talking right now solely about your misstatements that Ronald Goldman's future earnings were, in any way, a part of the damages that the Plaintiff's were asking for in the civil trial. They were not, and that is fact.

It was not part of their instruction, and would have been legally incorrect, for any juror to speculate as to what Ronald Goldman's future earning could have been when considering damages. Frankly, I don't know how they could have begun to speculate on this point when no testimony or argument to establish such was ever given since it was not a factor.

Are you now suggesting that those jurors did something that they should not have? Are you suggesting that those jurors speculated as to something they had no knowledge of? Perhaps you are, since it is apparent from your posting above that you would disregard jury instruction and speculate the day away.

When you are ready to research what I have told you, and to correct your now blatant misstatement regarding the point at hand, I will be more than happy to listen. Until such time, please do not bother.

- Silly Kate

[weezer]

FBG,

Time for a different approach.

This did happen. Bottom line, Nicole had no right to punch another person in the face. No one has a right to put their hands on another person, period. You can't justify one act of violence because it was Nicole who struck out and condemn anyone else. The way to handle DV, IMO, is that it is "all or nothing". In today's world, if the police get a 911 call and they determine that both adults struck each other, both are arrested.

Nicole and Michelle hated one another. Nicole lost it and decked her. It was wrong. However, please do not think that I don't understand how angry we can become and how tempting it appears to throw a punch, however, gender and size should not minimize the truth. IMO.

please post the info that supports your statement: 'NICOLE LOST IT AND DECKED HER.'

[weezer]

TV,

I think it was you who was under the impression that Mark Klaas had no problem getting into the chair to take the lie detector test. He was furious, as any of us would be if we were accused of murdering our child. I find Mr. Klaas' perfectly normal. John Welsh didn't jump into the chair either, however, I think it was his lawyer who explained the reasoning behind the test.

Mr. Simpson was asked by Lange and Vanatter if he would consent to taking a test. I think Simpson asked if the tests were "true blue" or not and then I think he went on to say that he had some weird thoughts about Nicole. Which I think it was about Nicole hitting the maid and hoping that Michelle would have pressed charges.

Again, just for the record, I don't think they should be given at all and while I know that many lawyers on both sides believe in them, I still don't find this to be a reliable scientific tool. Like I asked another poster, if Simpson given the test past it, would you change your mind?

as I remember the testimony, Ron Shipp testified that orenthal asked him about lie detector tests and expressed concern because he had in fact had thoughts of harming Nicole.

because they are inadmissible in court, MOST LE use the lie detector as a tool -- seems to have worked in orenthal's case -- he couldn't pass it.

[William Anthony]

As both GreenIce and Kate, are two posters that have valuable information and conduct themselves, for the most part, in a manner respectful of others (just lightening the mood, :)), I offer this as both seem to be right on the issue of future earnings. Kate is correct that the plaintiffs said they were not seeking future earnings for Mr. RG. but look at the jury instructions, which allowed them to consider future economic loss but based on a limitation to present cash value plus investments.

http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/simpson/transcripts/jan/jan28.html

Judging from the following link, I think there is a difference slight difference between future earning and future profits, which I think is what Lambert was arguing in his closing, although he said earnings. Any thoughts? I am confused by the argument and the jury instruction.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Economic+damages

[weezer]

TV,

I just thought of something, I know have been critical of Bob Shapiro on the issue of the lie detector, mainly for not knowing that a certain amount of time must pass before taking it. Well what if I am wrong? What if Shapiro did know and in his opinion, Simpson passed? Think about it, if Simpson would have passed that test with flying colors while answers questions about Nicole, so soon after the murders, then this would have been diaster for the defense and would not have waved those results to the world, IMO.

Bailey said Friday during testimony in a Florida courtroom where his license to practice law is being challenged, that shortly after the June 12, 1994, killings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman, he received a telephone call from Los Angeles defense attorney Robert Shapiro.

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

[Kate Sachel]

As both GreenIce and Kate, are two posters that have valuable information and conduct themselves, for the most part, in a manner respectful of others (just lightening the mood, :)), I offer this as both seem to be right on the issue of future earnings. Kate is correct that the plaintiffs said they were not seeking future earnings for Mr. RG. but look at the jury instructions, which allowed them to consider future economic loss but based on a limitation to present cash value plus investments.

http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/simpson/transcripts/jan/jan28.html

Judging from the following link, I think there is a difference slight difference between future earning and future profits, which I think is what Lambert was arguing in his closing, although he said earnings. Any thoughts? I am confused by the argument and the jury instruction.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Economic+damages

The argument states:

In determining the loss of which plaintiff Goldman has suffered, you are not to consider:

3. The poverty or wealth of Ronald Goldman.

Any award for future economic loss must be only for its present cash value.
Present cash value is the present sum of money which, together with the investment return thereon when invested so as to yield the highest rate
of return consistent with reasonable security, will pay the equivalent of future lost benefits at the times, in the amounts, and for the period that you
find such future benefits would have been received. The present cash value will, of course,be less than the amount you find to be the loss of such future benefits.



I'm not certain what the confusion is.

Kate

[bobaugust]

What you don't grasp and why you now want to deny Park's estimates is because twenty to thirty seconds after Park talked to Simpson Kato let the limo in. This would mean that 30 seconds after Park saw simultaneously Kato and Simpson Kato would have had to walk down the driveway, perform a cursory search, back out walk back up the driveway to the spot that Park said he saw Kato "still standing". I have never seen the movie where Brad Pitt plays a vampire I have been told about the opening scene. Kato would have to have been faster than Mr. Pitt. :) Kato was never asked, IIRC, if he saw Park standing at the gate. But we do know that Park saw Kato "still standing" in the same spot. Kato was going to ask Park if he had a stronger flashlight, stood there for a moment, saw that Park had not been buzzed in, walked over and buzzed him in. Why would Kato have hesitated? He would have hesitated, because he saw him at the gate waiting to be buzzed in and when park wasn't he did it. The obvious explanation for Park's testimony is that he had been rehearsed and it was suggested that he saw Kato walking in the north walkway. However, as I have said the devil is in the details. I can hear the DA during the rehearsal-so when you saw Kato standing in the area on the north pathway near the driveway with a flashlight, you had seen him come from the back of the house-is that how you remember it. However, we now know from the details of park's testimony that was impossible. :)

Park testified that the first time he saw Kaelin is when he saw a white male come from the back of the house down the Ashford side path with a flashlight. Park said the flashlight is what attracted his attention as he sat in the limo talking to his boss. Kaelin confirms the fact that after he left his room he walked down the Ashford side path with his flashlight on. The reason for that is there were no lights on that path. Park testified that when Kaelin got to the driveway he stopped and almost simultaneously Park saw Simpson walk up form the driveway to his front door, enter his house, and lights come on in the downstairs windows. Park was asked what the lighting was like on the driveway area that he could see. Park said it wasn’t very bright, there was a light on in the entranceway by the front door and a light above the garage. He said the entranceway light was the brightest.

After Park saw Simpson enter his house he finished his phone conversation with Dale and then waited to be let in. Park was asked if he noticed where Kaelin was after Simpson entered his house and Park said from what he remembered Kaelin was still standing on the sidewalk (the Ashford side path)

Park estimated the phone conversation ended about 30 seconds after he saw Simpson enter his house. Park waited for someone to let him in the gate but no one did. Park estimated he waited about another 30 seconds before he got out of the car and went to the intercom and rang it again. This time Simpson answered and they had a brief conversation (maybe another 30 seconds) Park returned to the limo and waited some more, he estimated another 30 seconds before Kaelin let him in.

Park estimated it was about two minutes after he saw Simpson enter his house and Kaelin standing on the side path before Kaelin opened the gate. Park never looked at a clock and he was unaware that after he saw Kaelin standing on the sidewalk that Kaelin had continued on to the south path and returned before he opened the gate. Kaelin said that on that first trip he walked south on the driveway to the garage area made a left at the corner of the garage and walked in on that south pathway only a short distance before turning around and returning to the driveway and then going to the gate control box. The time it took Kaelin to make that short trip and return may very well have been only about two or three minutes. If you look at the colored diagram that both Martin and I have posted the link to you would see for yourself how short a trip that was.

Park was not really that far off with his estimation of about two minutes from the time he saw Simpson enter the house to when Kaelin opened the gate for him.

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


Your theory that Park first saw Kaelin and then Simpson when Kaelin was at the gate control box doesn’t make any sense. First of all there was lighting on the driveway. Kaelin didn’t have to and never said he used his flashlight on the driveway. The gate control box was to Park’s right near a tree next to the driveway, and from that position Kaelin not only would have been able to see Simpson enter his front door, if he was looking that way, but he and Simpson would have both been on the driveway at the same time when Kaelin returned from the south path and Simpson walked across the driveway and entered his house. Kaelin never saw Simpson on that first trip and never saw Simpson enter his house. In addition based on Park’s testimony that it was about two minutes from the time he saw Simpson enter the house to when Kaelin opened the gate means, according to your theory, Kaelin waited at least two minutes at the gate control box before he opened the gate. Kaelin never testified to that.

Your theory is based on your claim that Park was mistaken about seeing Kaelin on the Ashford side path when Kaelin came from his room after hearing the noises. There is no evidence that Park was mistaken about this and no one in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed Park was mistaken about this. Park’s story that he first saw Kaelin on the Ashford side path is consistent starting with his interview by the police, his grand jury testimony, his preliminary hearing testimony, his criminal trial testimony, and his civil trial testimony.

Everything Park testified to seeing is completely consistent with the layout of the Rockingham estate. Your theory of when Park first saw Kaelin and then Simpson is not.

bobaugust

[weezer]

SNIPPED*** "Two perfect examples, one seveal months ago. I posted that Barry Scheck was a DV expert and this fact is why the DA's maybe why the DA's dropped their motive and perhaps why they didn't call a DV expert. You said that it was not true. Martin posted the information that proved I was right.

I posted last week about unknown DNA being found in the Bronco and it was from a Hispanic person. You said that was not true. Well now you know it is true. . ."

1. Barry Scheck is NOT a DV expert and the DA's never dropped the motive.

2.
Simpson's Bronco
Driver door interior 0 1 OJS
Instrument panel 0 1 OJS
Driver side carpet 0 1 OJS
Steering wheel 0 6 OJS & NBS
Center console (item 30) 0 2 OJS
Center console (item 31) 0 2 OJS
Driver side wall 0 1 OJS
Driver side carpet 0 1 NBS
Center console (combination of 3 below) 4 * OJS
Center console (item 303) * 2 OJS
Center console (item 304) * 2 OJS
Center console (item 305) * 2 OJS

#20 -- Bronco passenger door
#21 -- Bronco driver door
#22 -- Bronco driver door
#23 -- Bronco driver door interior
#24 -- Swatch on Bronco instrument panel
#25 -- Driver side carpet fiber
#26 -- Bronco driver floor
#27 -- Plaid cap found on driver floor of Bronco
#28 -- Swatch from Bronco driver seat
#29 -- Swatch from Bronco steering wheel
#30 -- " " " console
#31 -- " " " console
#32 -- Swatch from Bronco passenger backrest
#33 -- Carpet from Bronco driver floor
#34 -- Bronco driver side wall

[William Anthony]

The argument states:

In determining the loss of which plaintiff Goldman has suffered, you are not to consider:

3. The poverty or wealth of Ronald Goldman.

Any award for future economic loss must be only for its present cash value.
Present cash value is the present sum of money which, together with the investment return thereon when invested so as to yield the highest rate
of return consistent with reasonable security, will pay the equivalent of future lost benefits at the times, in the amounts, and for the period that you
find such future benefits would have been received. The present cash value will, of course,be less than the amount you find to be the loss of such future benefits.



I'm not certain what the confusion is.

Kate

This is the part to which I was referring.

You're not to include speculative

damages, which means compensation for future loss or

harm, which, although possible, is conjectural or not

reasonably certain. (this to means future profits or losses)

However, if you determine that a party is

entitled to recover, you should compensate a party for

loss or harm caused by the injury in question which is

reasonably certain to be suffered in the future. (this means to me that they could consider future loss)

The amount of damages claimed, either by

the written pleadings or in the argument of counsel,

must not be considered by you as evidence of

reasonable compensation.

According to a table of mortality, the

life expectancy of a male person age 25 years is 49

additional years.

The life expectancy of a male person age

56 years is 21.4 additional years.

This figure is not conclusive. It is an

average life expectancy of a person who has reached

that age.

This figure may be considered by you in

connection with other evidence relating to the

probable life expectancies of Ronald Goldman and

plaintiff Goldman, including evidence of occupation,

health, habits and other activities, bearing in mind

that many persons live longer and many die sooner than

the average.

Any award for future economic loss must

be only for its present cash value. (It seems they are allowing for future economic loss but limited).

Present cash value is the present sum of

money which, together with the investment return

thereon when invested so as to yield the highest rate

of return consistent with reasonable security, will

pay the equivalent of future lost benefits at the

times, in the amounts, and for the period that you

find such future benefits would have been received.

The present cash value will, of course,

be less than the amount you find to be the loss of

such future benefits.

[martin II]

As both GreenIce and Kate, are two posters that have valuable information and conduct themselves, for the most part, in a manner respectful of others (just lightening the mood, :)), I offer this as both seem to be right on the issue of future earnings. Kate is correct that the plaintiffs said they were not seeking future earnings for Mr. RG. but look at the jury instructions, which allowed them to consider future economic loss but based on a limitation to present cash value plus investments.

http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/simpson/transcripts/jan/jan28.html

Judging from the following link, I think there is a difference slight difference between future earning and future profits, which I think is what Lambert was arguing in his closing, although he said earnings. Any thoughts? I am confused by the argument and the jury instruction.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Economic+damages


William
Thanks for your information
Future earnings or profits are different but difficult to guage for Ron.

The bottom line is The Media and others had set the standard for the Santa Monica jury as to what they were expected to do. Find OJ liable and make a big award to punish him to the max.They did not dissapoint as there was no way that they would risk the condemnation of their community or the larger
community for doing anything less.

The future earning capacity statement of oj simpson was totally ignored. He had lost his NBC and Hertz Jobs and had been generally blackballed by AD agencies and American corporations.His potential signings earnings had dropped to nothing because there was no market for these items as a result of the Not Guilty verdict.

So exactly how did the jury calculate and what did they use to calculate the feasibility of how Simpson could ever pay the award they gave. What did they know he was or could do after his career income had come to zero and all the companies that had previously requested his services had said NO MORE OJ.

IMO as it turned out they thought they were helping the plaintiffs, satisfying the public cry for his scalp and grinding oj down to powder. They could have made an award that was in ojs reach to pay or to negoiate but to satisfy the above they made one that was historic and totally unreachable.

As a result oj has not paid and Fred has spent the last 14 years accumulating large legal fees from various lawyers attempting to get this hugh award paid and he has received about $250,000 about $18,000 per year and i would suggest that his legal fees top this amount.

If freds goal was to hurt oj in his pocket he has had some small success as oj has had to hide his income but he still made $1,000,000 from that book and maby more but it took some smart HC lawyers to do this.

IMO the historic award hurt Fred more than it helped as it is obvious that it will never be paid. It may make Fred feel victorious but it does not take money form ojs pockets and deliver it to Fred.It may make some others feel
good that oj owes this hugh amount of money and that he is under the hammer financially and Fred is always right because he has the award and oj refuses to pay.Some even attatch a moral obligation to oj to pay. Pay what using what for money.

I doubt anyone would sell all their assets,forget their childrens college education and everything else that required them to have money just to pay a civil judgement to Fred or anyone else.Yet that is exaxctly what some seem to expect oj to do or what they have called for oj to do.

It may be entertaining for some to watch these court batttles by Fred against oj but it is not producting any money of substance. Just pennies.

The jury gave this historic award and then told fred we don't know how you are going to collect and we are not concerned. That is you job.

There is no current or future circumstances where this judgement can or will be paid.imo

[martin II]

FBG,

I have waited for a couple of days for you to give me an apology and I have been waiting for you to apologize to Martin for calling him a pig. I knew you weren't going to apologize and I am sorry to say you prove both Martin's and mine points.

Abuse comes in many forms, as in phyiscal and verbal and you have committed verbal abuse and you make no apologies for it. You have deliberately goaded and baited posters who do not share you views on the case with name calling, condesending posts---bottom line, you are just like OJ Simpson.

You have proved that when a person becomes so outraged, even if it is a forum like this, you have every single right in the world to throw verbal punches.

So next time you want to post about Simpson's behavior on this issue, I will make sure that I remind you that you are no better then he is. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

No other G has a problem finding the correct words to post their umbridge at a post. This board has shut down a few times and the blame has been laid at the feet of Martin and William, if this board gets closed again, it will because of your posts.

I have ignored your posts because you have a habit of calling people liars when they post information that you apparently have no knowledge of. Two perfect examples, one seveal months ago. I posted that Barry Scheck was a DV expert and this fact is why the DA's maybe why the DA's dropped their motive and perhaps why they didn't call a DV expert. You said that it was not true. Martin posted the information that proved I was right.

I posted last week about unknown DNA being found in the Bronco and it was from a Hispanic person. You said that was not true. Well now you know it is true. Apparently you feel you can call people liars and other names when you don't know the facts and when you are told them, you make no apologizes. I think your initials should change to OJ, in fact, I think that is how I will refer to you as "OJ" - Orenthalia Jane. You have earned this.

Every one makes mistakes Orenthalia, however, the difference between you and the others, they admit them, no matter how much time one may want to dance around it or whatever, but eventually, they own up. IMO.

Thank you very much.

[martin II]

Previously i posted a article showing Barry Schecks activities in the area of DV
I think he was used as such in the Hedda Nussbaum sp case.

[martin II]

WILLIAM
Ron was a person with little or no formal educational background preperations leading to any specific work that would allow one to determine what his future earnings would be from career work activities.imo

As far as i know he had very little cash value other than his salary and earnings as a waiter so it is not clear what cash he had used to create any investments that would have contributed to future earings.
imo

[William Anthony]

WILLIAM
Ron was a person with little or no formal educational background preperations leading to any specific work that would allow one to determine what his future earnings would be from career work activities.imo

As far as i know he had very little cash value other than his salary and earnings as a waiter so it is not clear what cash he had used to create any investments that would have contributed to future earings.
imo

I think that the jury instruction may have been a standard instruction and not specifically tailored to Mr. RG. I am still confused about the instruction and the argument and I don't know enough, as of yet, to determine if the damages were, in fact, awarded for future earnings or allowed to be. I can understand both Kate's and GreenIce's positions.

[Kate Sachel]

This is the part to which I was referring.

You're not to include speculative

damages, which means compensation for future loss or

harm, which, although possible, is conjectural or not

reasonably certain. (this to means future profits or losses)

However, if you determine that a party is

entitled to recover, you should compensate a party for

loss or harm caused by the injury in question which is

reasonably certain to be suffered in the future. (this means to me that they could consider future loss)

The amount of damages claimed, either by

the written pleadings or in the argument of counsel,

must not be considered by you as evidence of

reasonable compensation.

According to a table of mortality, the

life expectancy of a male person age 25 years is 49

additional years.

The life expectancy of a male person age

56 years is 21.4 additional years.

This figure is not conclusive. It is an

average life expectancy of a person who has reached

that age.

This figure may be considered by you in

connection with other evidence relating to the

probable life expectancies of Ronald Goldman and

plaintiff Goldman, including evidence of occupation,

health, habits and other activities, bearing in mind

that many persons live longer and many die sooner than

the average.

Any award for future economic loss must

be only for its present cash value. (It seems they are allowing for future economic loss but limited).

Present cash value is the present sum of

money which, together with the investment return

thereon when invested so as to yield the highest rate

of return consistent with reasonable security, will

pay the equivalent of future lost benefits at the

times, in the amounts, and for the period that you

find such future benefits would have been received.

The present cash value will, of course,

be less than the amount you find to be the loss of

such future benefits.

I think that perhaps we're on different pages with this one.

The jury instruction that was given is the uniform instruction given in the state of California to jurors in a wrongful death suit. What determines the damages awarded is based on what the Plaintiffs in the suit request. In this case, Rufo and Goldman did not request damages regarding future earnings.

Kate

[weezer]

WILLIAM
Ron was a person with little or no formal educational background preperations leading to any specific work that would allow one to determine what his future earnings would be from career work activities.imo

As far as i know he had very little cash value other than his salary and earnings as a waiter so it is not clear what cash he had used to create any investments that would have contributed to future earings.
imo

Ron Goldman was a young man on the brink of his life. who knows what he could or would have become.

orenthal was less than 3 years younger than Ron when he was drafted into the NFL.

[Kate Sachel]

WILLIAM
Ron was a person with little or no formal educational background preperations leading to any specific work that would allow one to determine what his future earnings would be from career work activities.imo

As far as i know he had very little cash value other than his salary and earnings as a waiter so it is not clear what cash he had used to create any investments that would have contributed to future earings.
imo

It is not referring to investments that Ron Goldman made.

“The present cash value of a gross award of future
damages is that sum of money prudently invested at the time of judgment
which will return, over the period the future damages are incurred, the gross
amount of the award.”

Kate

[William Anthony]

I think that perhaps we're on different pages with this one.

The jury instruction that was given is the uniform instruction given in the state of California to jurors in a wrongful death suit. What determines the damages awarded is based on what the Plaintiffs in the suit request. In this case, Rufo and Goldman did not request damages regarding future earnings.

Kate

I am just trying to understand and I would agree that Lambert said they were not asking for future earnings. I would also agree that it is a boilerplate jury instruction. However, to me, the jury instruction allowed the jury to consider future loss of income and it specifically mentioned Mr. RG and plaintiff Goldman. I think, if the consideration of future earnings was removed from the jury, the boilerplate jury instruction would have been redacted to excise the portions allowing for such consideration. However, this does not mean that either you or GreenIce are right or wrong. It is just that there seems to be some evidence to support both your views. I will look to see if damages can be awarded even if not specifically requested.

[tv]

TV,

I am not defending Simpson. I clearly posted that when the jurors heard from Nicole's own voice that it happened only once, they should have called an expert on why many women will lie about it or minimize or, or take responsibilty for it. That is all that I posted.

I am not justifying his actions in regards to the door, however, he never approached her nor did he physically threaten her. We have contantly heard there were other physical confrontations, however, there was only one introduced into evidence during the criminal trial. It is not my fault that the DA's motive fell apart. IMO.
Yes, you are defending Simpson. You defended him regarding breaking down the door and you are convinced he only battered her once. You're minimizing and trivializing the violent episodes in their relationship. I don't think the prosecutions motive fell apart. I think the jury didn't care that OJS beat his wife repeatedly. IMO, they may have felt that she deserved it as one other poster on this forum has insinuated.

[tv]

FBG,

Time for a different approach.

This did happen. Bottom line, Nicole had no right to punch another person in the face. No one has a right to put their hands on another person, period. You can't justify one act of violence because it was Nicole who struck out and condemn anyone else. The way to handle DV, IMO, is that it is "all or nothing". In today's world, if the police get a 911 call and they determine that both adults struck each other, both are arrested.

Nicole and Michelle hated one another. Nicole lost it and decked her. It was wrong. However, please do not think that I don't understand how angry we can become and how tempting it appears to throw a punch, however, gender and size should not minimize the truth. IMO.

I don't know the details of what happened between Nicole and the maid but Nicole wasn't on trial for brutally murdering the maid. OJS was on trial for murdering Nicole and Ron. Why does Nicole have to be put on trial in the process?

[weezer]

I don't know the details of what happened between Nicole and the maid but Nicole wasn't on trial for brutally murdering the maid. OJS was on trial for murdering Nicole and Ron. Why does Nicole have to be put on trial in the process?

I'm waiting for something besides 'say so' that supports it actually happened.

[Kate Sachel]

I am just trying to understand and I would agree that Lambert said they were not asking for future earnings. I would also agree that the it is a boilerplate jury instruction. However, to me, the jury instruction allowed the jury to consider future loss of income and it specifically mentioned Mr. RG and plaintiff Goldman. I think, if the consideration of future earnings was removed from the jury, the boilerplate jury instruction would have been redacted to excise the portions allowing for such consideration. However, this does not mean that either you or GreenIce are right or wrong. It is just that there seems to be some evidence to support both your views. I will look to see if damages can be awarded even if not specifically requested.

In order to award damages for future earnings, Plaintiffs would have to request such and then provide actual documentation to jurors to use in figuring those damages. Financial statements, W2s, etc.

The law clearly states that when someone seeks compensatory damages they must show evidence of their nature as well as data that they can be calculated from.

Kate

[tv]

TV,

I think it was you who was under the impression that Mark Klaas had no problem getting into the chair to take the lie detector test. He was furious, as any of us would be if we were accused of murdering our child. I find Mr. Klaas' perfectly normal. John Welsh didn't jump into the chair either, however, I think it was his lawyer who explained the reasoning behind the test.

Mr. Simpson was asked by Lange and Vanatter if he would consent to taking a test. I think Simpson asked if the tests were "true blue" or not and then I think he went on to say that he had some weird thoughts about Nicole. Which I think it was about Nicole hitting the maid and hoping that Michelle would have pressed charges.

Again, just for the record, I don't think they should be given at all and while I know that many lawyers on both sides believe in them, I still don't find this to be a reliable scientific tool. Like I asked another poster, if Simpson given the test past it, would you change your mind?

I haven't had time to research your claims, which I find myself doing quite often, about Marc Klaas and John Walsh. It's fairly obvious to me that OJS said he was having 'weird' thoughts about Nicole because he knew he was going to have a problem on the polygraph. Here he is admitting to having thoughts of harming Nicole and you still don't believe he did it. I have a lot of faith in polygraphs but they're not infallible. I have a question for you -- if you saw OJS committ the murders on video would you believe it?

[martin II]

I don't know the details of what happened between Nicole and the maid but Nicole wasn't on trial for brutally murdering the maid. OJS was on trial for murdering Nicole and Ron. Why does Nicole have to be put on trial in the process?

In order to understand what happened between Nicole and the maid one has to look at the involvement of each at the time of the altercation. Because of the situation between oj and Nicole it seems Nicole had some suspecion about where the earings were. Based on her previous suspecians that Michael had information of ojs affairs and that Michael could have been assisting oj in his actions,she had made previous request that oj fire her.At that point he had resisted her demands.

After oj put Nicole out of the bedroom for some reason she went to Michaels room and slapped her and knocked her down.Michael went to oj telling him what had happened and he came to her room to break up the altercation.
Nicole obviously was not finished and a pushing match i think happened between Nicole and Nicole as he attemoted to keeop them seperate or calm the situation down and Nicole ran out the door.

If Nicole had never gone to Michaels room none of this would have happened.
If Nicole had not pushed the issue of the earings with oj there would not have been a fight.

I don't think it is fair to say Nicole was totally innocent of everything because she was later killed.Her actions were her actions.
This is my understanding of those events. imo