Random Discussions On The Case

[martin II]

There is a fair amount of evidence that Nicole was afraid of OJS. First of all a psychotherapist that Nicole consulted, Susan Forward said that Nicole was afraid of OJS, and from Nicole' description of the relationship, the psychotherapist thought that OJS might kill Nicole.
In Petrocelli's book on page 212, a friend of Nicole said the Nicole thought he would kill her, cut her up, and throw the pieces on the freeway.
In the civil trial Kato K said that Nicole was afraid that OJS would kill her by cutting her throat. I think, Martin, that you would understand the case better if you had paid less attention to Fred Goldman, and more attention to the relationship between Nicole and OJS.

What i have paid attention to is Nicoles request of oj to allow her to come back to rockingham to 'HAVE HER FAMILY BACK" then saying she "Wanted to have her freedom" Then deciding to start seeing him for that year in a effort to get back togeather and the letter she wrote him taking responsibility for the problems they exerienced. I also look at the issue if she had these fellings
of fear of oj and she received her divoice she made little effort to put distance between them as she moved about 5 minutes away to GG.
I think many here paid attention to Fred Goldman as he has made himself a central issue in both trials.

The prosecution was not able to prove that OJ did what some believe he did so it is a closed issue for me.imo
Martin II

[Parker]

Martin, you know a lot more about this than me. But I really never thought Fred Goldman tried to push himself forward. He never came across that way to me. Concerned for his son, yes. Wanting to see justice done for his son, yes. But that's all I saw. Other people see different things, I guess. Which is OK.

[William Anthony]

I agree that the evidence was imperfectly processed; in fact I would go one step further and say that very little that people do is perfectly done. It isn't possible to process a mountain of evidence without making numerous errors. But look at it this way: If Henry Lee had done the work it probably would have been a lot worse judging by the mistakes he made; for example confusing trowel marks in the cement with foot prints in blood.
If the evidence was contaminated it was an amazing coincidence that it held together is a logical manner. Gerdes was an expert who ridiculed the LA crime lab as 'garbage in, garbage out', but he was unable to find any lab results which caused the wrong person to be arrested, or prevented a guilty person from being convicted. If he could have, he would have.

I hope you have read the links on the junk sciences. That is exactly my point.

I do not see it as amazing to have the blood evidence contaminated in such a way that it held together in a logical manner, which, imho, it did not, when you consider that you have only the exemplars of three people. The most disturbing fact and where the evidence did not hold together is the blood trail at Rockingham. Given all the evidence of the sloppy handling, storage, collection, missing blood, missing blood trails and improper results, with the additional condition that neither the defense nor its experts had anything to prove, I think the right verdict was reached in the criminal murder trial-not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the circumstances, I did not find the prosecution's evidence reliable.

[William Anthony]

There is a fair amount of evidence that Nicole was afraid of OJS. First of all a psychotherapist that Nicole consulted, Susan Forward said that Nicole was afraid of OJS, and from Nicole' description of the relationship, the psychotherapist thought that OJS might kill Nicole.
In Petrocelli's book on page 212, a friend of Nicole said the Nicole thought he would kill her, cut her up, and throw the pieces on the freeway.
In the civil trial Kato K said that Nicole was afraid that OJS would kill her by cutting her throat. I think, Martin, that you would understand the case better if you had paid less attention to Fred Goldman, and more attention to the relationship between Nicole and OJS.

I have re-read Kato's testimony and did not see anywhere in the transcripts that he said Simpson would kill her by cutting her throat. Is the statement you are referring to an out of court statement?

[weezer]

I hope you have read the links on the junk sciences. That is exactly my point.

I do not see it as amazing to have the blood evidence contaminated in such a way that it held together in a logical manner, which, imho, it did not, when you consider that you have only the exemplars of three people. The most disturbing fact and where the evidence did not hold together is the blood trail at Rockingham. Given all the evidence of the sloppy handling, storage, collection, missing blood, missing blood trails and improper results, with the additional condition that neither the defense nor its experts had anything to prove, I think the right verdict was reached in the criminal murder trial-not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the circumstances, I did not find the prosecution's evidence reliable.

if there were only three people at the murder scene, why would it be odd that that is the only exemplars you would find?

the blood at rockingham is the least controversial -- since it was found and documented while orenthal was in chicago and before he gave his blood sample. :shrug:

no amount of contamination could change someone else's DNA into orenthal's and vice versa. ;)

[martin II]

Martin, you know a lot more about this than me. But I really never thought Fred Goldman tried to push himself forward. He never came across that way to me. Concerned for his son, yes. Wanting to see justice done for his son, yes. But that's all I saw. Other people see different things, I guess. Which is OK.

Let me say this another way.Regardless of the motive any person that engages in regular national, tv, radio and print media interviews on a subject is asking for attention and will get responses from the public.imo

[martin II]

if there were only three people at the murder scene, why would it be odd that that is the only exemplars you would find?

the blood at rockingham is the least controversial -- since it was found and documented while orenthal was in chicago and before he gave his blood sample. :shrug:

no amount of contamination could change someone else's DNA into orenthal's and vice versa. ;)

The problem with the blood Mazzola collected at rockingham and Bundy, and she collected most if not all of it, is that she could not verify by her initials that the blood she collected was the blood presented in court. mishandeling of blood samples is a hugh problem.imo

[martin II]

There is a fair amount of evidence that Nicole was afraid of OJS. First of all a psychotherapist that Nicole consulted, Susan Forward said that Nicole was afraid of OJS, and from Nicole' description of the relationship, the psychotherapist thought that OJS might kill Nicole.
In Petrocelli's book on page 212, a friend of Nicole said the Nicole thought he would kill her, cut her up, and throw the pieces on the freeway.
In the civil trial Kato K said that Nicole was afraid that OJS would kill her by cutting her throat. I think, Martin, that you would understand the case better if you had paid less attention to Fred Goldman, and more attention to the relationship between Nicole and OJS.


There were lapd and lab protocols covering the collecting and processing of evidence samples which if followed would have prevented the many problems
with evidence that occured. imo

[Kate Sachel]

Martin, you know a lot more about this than me. But I really never thought Fred Goldman tried to push himself forward. He never came across that way to me. Concerned for his son, yes. Wanting to see justice done for his son, yes. But that's all I saw. Other people see different things, I guess. Which is OK.

I agree with you. I didn't see it as martin does; in his point of view Fred Goldman made himself the center of attention in both the criminal and civil trials. I personally believe that Fred Goldman was trying to give a voice to his murdered son in the media frenzy of two cases that were made out, from the beginning, to be solely about OJ Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Let me say this another way.Regardless of the motive any person that engages in regular national, tv, radio and print media interviews on a subject is asking for attention and will get responses from the public.imo

However, the motive is the important factor. I saw Mr. Goldman as trying to capture some attention for his son and for the justice he felt was not served, I did not see it as Mr. Goldman trying to seek attention for himself.

I can never fault Mr. Goldman for making it his mission to haunt the man he believes murdered his son, especially when that man spent the aftermath of the murders making one mockery after another regarding such.

Kate

[William Anthony]

if there were only three people at the murder scene, why would it be odd that that is the only exemplars you would find?

the blood at rockingham is the least controversial -- since it was found and documented while orenthal was in chicago and before he gave his blood sample. :shrug:

no amount of contamination could change someone else's DNA into orenthal's and vice versa. ;)

You begin with the a two letter word that begs too many assumptions, imho. What you actually have is blood and we can assume that all the exemplars are from those that bled at Bundy at some time, (which it would not be a stretch to say the victims bleed on the night of the murders) but we can not exclude, given the evidence, the possibility that Simpson's blood got to Bundy by contamination or some other means either unintentionally or intentionally. You seem to forget that there was evidence of another bleeding person being at Bundy, which was admitted by the prosecution expert, who on cross said that there was no literature to support his accusation that an AB blood type could degrade to type B blood in the manner that he proposed. There was also junk science that showed a hair belonging to an unidentified Caucasian.

There is no doubt that the blood at Rockingham was Simpson's, if we believe the DNA evidence. The problem arises when we consider the prosecution's theory that he gained entry to his property, dropping a glove in the course of that entry, in the manner and at the location they claim he did, when the Rockingham blood trail directly contradicts that theory. Given these considerations, there was ample reason to arrive at reasonable doubt, as I see it.

[tv]

Let me say this another way.Regardless of the motive any person that engages in regular national, tv, radio and print media interviews on a subject is asking for attention and will get responses from the public.imo

You mean like OJ Simpson himself? Fred Goldman was in the public fighting for justice for his son. OJ Simpson was engaging in his usual sleazy antics. He even wanted to tape the Vegas crime for a reality show...LOL. :D

[William Anthony]

Prosecution expert's testimony,

May 4th

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that under that degradation route, you never have the pattern of a BA that's degraded that has both the b-1 and the b-2 bands without the a-1 band?

MR. MATHESON: Again, given the things I mentioned before, the conditions of the samples in those studies and the system they used for identifying it, that is true.

MR. BLASIER: And in this case, your test results showed both the b-1 and the b-2 band without the a-1 band, didn't they?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: So under this scientific literature, if this BA was a degraded--I'm sorry--if your B under the fingernails was a degraded BA, it wouldn't look like the results you got, would it?

MR. MATHESON: If my sample or the samples that I analyzed were under those conditions in those studies and run in the same way, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Can you cite me to a single scientific article that states that the degradation route taken by a BA when it degrades would ever get you to the point where you're going to have a b-1 and a b-2 without the a-1?

MR. MATHESON: And we're talking specifically about articles at this point?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: No, I can not."

[martin II]

You mean like OJ Simpson himself? Fred Goldman was in the public fighting for justice for his son. OJ Simpson was engaging in his usual sleazy antics. He even wanted to tape the Vegas crime for a reality show...LOL. :D

Regradless of the motive, a person that engages in regular tv,radio and print media over a 13 year period can expect to receive responses from the public.

[tv]

Regradless of the motive, a person that engages in regular tv,radio and print media over a 13 year period can expect to receive responses from the public.Just like OJ Simpson.

[martin II]

Just like OJ Simpson.

Both got too much imo

[weezer]

You begin with the a two letter word that begs too many assumptions, imho. What you actually have is blood and we can assume that all the exemplars are from those that bled at Bundy at some time, (which it would not be a stretch to say the victims bleed on the night of the murders) but we can not exclude, given the evidence, the possibility that Simpson's blood got to Bundy by contamination or some other means either unintentionally or intentionally. You seem to forget that there was evidence of another bleeding person being at Bundy, which was admitted by the prosecution expert, who on cross said that there was no literature to support his accusation that an AB blood type could degrade to type B blood in the manner that he proposed. There was also junk science that showed a hair belonging to an unidentified Caucasian.

There is no doubt that the blood at Rockingham was Simpson's, if we believe the DNA evidence. The problem arises when we consider the prosecution's theory that he gained entry to his property, dropping a glove in the course of that entry, in the manner and at the location they claim he did, when the Rockingham blood trail directly contradicts that theory. Given these considerations, there was ample reason to arrive at reasonable doubt, as I see it.

the dna, fiber, hair, blood and pigeon-toed footprints found at the murder scene on that night belonged to the murderer orenthal james simpson. no amount of smoke and mirrors changes orenthal's dna into anyone else's or vice versa.

[fgump2]

I have re-read Kato's testimony and did not see anywhere in the transcripts that he said Simpson would kill her by cutting her throat. Is the statement you are referring to an out of court statement?

I was depending on memory when I wrote that. I could be wrong. I remember reading about someone testifying at the civil trial that Nicole was afraid that OJS would kill her by cutting her throat. When this testimony was given, OJS made funny noise and put his hand over his face. If my memory is correct on this, the testimony would have been in the civil trial, not out of court. I don't plan on looking up the civil testimony, but another thing I read was that when the police phoned the Browns and told them that Nicole was dead, the police heard voices in the background saying 'OJ did it'. I think if I tried to document all of this I would spend more time than I intend to.

[fgump2]

Prosecution expert's testimony,

May 4th

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that under that degradation route, you never have the pattern of a BA that's degraded that has both the b-1 and the b-2 bands without the a-1 band?

MR. MATHESON: Again, given the things I mentioned before, the conditions of the samples in those studies and the system they used for identifying it, that is true.

MR. BLASIER: And in this case, your test results showed both the b-1 and the b-2 band without the a-1 band, didn't they?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: So under this scientific literature, if this BA was a degraded--I'm sorry--if your B under the fingernails was a degraded BA, it wouldn't look like the results you got, would it?

MR. MATHESON: If my sample or the samples that I analyzed were under those conditions in those studies and run in the same way, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Can you cite me to a single scientific article that states that the degradation route taken by a BA when it degrades would ever get you to the point where you're going to have a b-1 and a b-2 without the a-1?

MR. MATHESON: And we're talking specifically about articles at this point?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: No, I can not."


This testimony helps the defense. But as far as I know the defense wasn't able to get an expert to say that the blood in question was probably from a fourth person. Also DNA is a relatively new and complicated science, and there probably hasn't been much research on what happens if you mix soap, dirt and blood under a person's fingernail.
I think the defense showed inconsistent logic in explaining away some blood evidence by saying 'garbage in garbage out' ( for example on OJS blood at the crime scene, or Ron's blood in the bronco), and then assuming the blood evidence is infallible when it shows a fourth person's blood under Nicole's fingernail. I think there were 3 drops of OJS blood at the crime scene. That cross contamination could account for all 3 drops is very unlikely. The original blood would have had to degrade to nothing (no DNA), and this itself is unlikely. All the blood from the crime scene was processed in the same manner, so the killer's blood was degraded to nothing, the other blood should have also; and yet none of the blood evidence was degraded to nothing, most of the blood (all of it not under the fingernail) near Nicole was her blood. Most of the blood near Ron was his blood, except, I think, one spot of Nicole's blood that the killer may have tracked over. Blood DNA doesn't degrade easily, and the police mistreatment of it shouldn't have caused it to degrade to nothing. It would be an amazing coincidence for all the blood to degrade to nothing, and then be cross contaminated in a manner that is logically consistent.

[William Anthony]

I was depending on memory when I wrote that. I could be wrong. I remember reading about someone testifying at the civil trial that Nicole was afraid that OJS would kill her by cutting her throat. When this testimony was given, OJS made funny noise and put his hand over his face. If my memory is correct on this, the testimony would have been in the civil trial, not out of court. I don't plan on looking up the civil testimony, but another thing I read was that when the police phoned the Browns and told them that Nicole was dead, the police heard voices in the background saying 'OJ did it'. I think if I tried to document all of this I would spend more time than I intend to.

Where you able to attend the trial or was it televised? I was wondering about how you knew Simpson made funny noises and put his hand over his face. If I was his lawyer, I would have objected to high heaven about that hearsay testimony. I realize that time is a valuable commodity and that having information that can be supported is also, imho.

[William Anthony]

This testimony helps the defense. But as far as I know the defense wasn't able to get an expert to say that the blood in question was probably from a fourth person. Also DNA is a relatively new and complicated science, and there probably hasn't been much research on what happens if you mix soap, dirt and blood under a person's fingernail.
I think the defense showed inconsistent logic in explaining away some blood evidence by saying 'garbage in garbage out' ( for example on OJS blood at the crime scene, or Ron's blood in the bronco), and then assuming the blood evidence is infallible when it shows a fourth person's blood under Nicole's fingernail. I think there were 3 drops of OJS blood at the crime scene. That cross contamination could account for all 3 drops is very unlikely. The original blood would have had to degrade to nothing (no DNA), and this itself is unlikely. All the blood from the crime scene was processed in the same manner, so the killer's blood was degraded to nothing, the other blood should have also; and yet none of the blood evidence was degraded to nothing, most of the blood (all of it not under the fingernail) near Nicole was her blood. Most of the blood near Ron was his blood, except, I think, one spot of Nicole's blood that the killer may have tracked over. Blood DNA doesn't degrade easily, and the police mistreatment of it shouldn't have caused it to degrade to nothing. It would be an amazing coincidence for all the blood to degrade to nothing, and then be cross contaminated in a manner that is logically consistent.

The scientific literature was that the Blood type AB did not degrade in the manner that the prosecution's expert said it did or, in other words, the expert had nothing to support his interpretation of the results. I was talking specifically about a result that the expert gave as a B and then tried to explain it away as AB that had degraded, because it did not fit the prosecution's theory that only Ms. Nicole, Mr. Ronald Goldman and Simpson were present and bled at the crime scene.

I don't think there was anything inconsistent in the defense's theory of how the evidence was unreliable. They offered evidence of contamination, planting, poor collection, handling and storage techniques, blood where it should not have been, no blood where it should have been and results that just weren't logical or, if the results were illogical or impossible, the prosecution was placed into the precarious position of trying to create from whole cloth scenarios to explain the illogical and impossible results.

It was the prosecution who said the blood degraded, not the defense. The defense showed that some other unidentified person could have been at Bundy and bled and there could have been another person there, who may have or may not have bled and left the unidentified hair.

[weezer]

The scientific literature was that the Blood type AB did not degrade in the manner that the prosecution's expert said it did or, in other words, the expert had nothing to support his interpretation of the results. I was talking specifically about a result that the expert gave as a B and then tried to explain it away as AB that had degraded, because it did not fit the prosecution's theory that only Ms. Nicole, Mr. Ronald Goldman and Simpson were present and bled at the crime scene.

I don't think there was anything inconsistent in the defense's theory of how the evidence was unreliable. They offered evidence of contamination, planting, poor collection, handling and storage techniques, blood where it should not have been, no blood where it should have been and results that just weren't logical or, if the results were illogical or impossible, the prosecution was placed into the precarious position of trying to create from whole cloth scenarios to explain the illogical and impossible results.

It was the prosecution who said the blood degraded, not the defense. The defense showed that some other unidentified person could have been at Bundy and bled and there could have been another person there, who may have or may not have bled and left the unidentified hair.

oh my! there was no unidentified blood and/or hair. :punch:

[William Anthony]

oh my! there was no unidentified blood and/or hair. :punch:

Oh my, I have provide the testimony on the blood and you might be "mis-remembering" the evidence.

[weezer]

Oh my, I have provide the testimony on the blood and you might be "mis-remembering" the evidence.

nope -- you gave an excerpt from testimony that meant nothing as far as proving the blood did in fact belong to someone other than Nicole.

there was neither unidentified blood or hair.

[William Anthony]

nope -- you gave an excerpt from testimony that meant nothing as far as proving the blood did in fact belong to someone other than Nicole.

there was neither unidentified blood or hair.

The testimony was that the expert identified the blood as a type B and that neither Simpson, nor Ms. Nicole Brown Simpson, nor Mr. Ronald Goldman had type B blood and there was an unidentified Caucasian hair. The testimony I quoted showed the desperate need of the prosecution to invent things to fit their theory of the murders.

[William Anthony]

May 4th

"MR. MATHESON: According to our statistics that we use, it's approximately 50 percent of the general population.

MR. BLASIER: And would it be fair to infer from that that of the approximately 1500 times you've done this test, roughly half of them would come back EAP B?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And have you testified in Court before about EAP results that have come back as a B?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: And of course, in these approximately 750 cases, I assume you've written reports that have said, "I tested it. Looks like an EAP B to me," correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: In all of those reports, do you write down, "you know, it could be a BA"?

MR. MATHESON: Not in all those reports, no. I do include that disclaimer when the EAP is a source of elimination or exclusion in a sample.

MR. BLASIER: Have you testified in Court where an EAP B happens to be the type of the suspect and also the evidence you've tested, that it's an EAP type B without giving that disclaimer?

MR. MATHESON: Like I just mentioned, I will put that it's a B unless it's an exclusion of some type.

MR. BLASIER: Can I take that as a yes, you have so testified in cases that an EAP B result is a B when it incriminates a Defendant without saying that it could have been a BA?

MR. MATHESON: Yes."

Hardly and unbiased opinion and testimony, imho.

[fgump2]

I was depending on memory when I wrote that. I could be wrong. I remember reading about someone testifying at the civil trial that Nicole was afraid that OJS would kill her by cutting her throat. When this testimony was given, OJS made funny noise and put his hand over his face. If my memory is correct on this, the testimony would have been in the civil trial, not out of court. I don't plan on looking up the civil testimony, but another thing I read was that when the police phoned the Browns and told them that Nicole was dead, the police heard voices in the background saying 'OJ did it'. I think if I tried to document all of this I would spend more time than I intend to.

I looked up the testimony of Kato, and I couldn't find any mention of Nicole thinking OJS would cut her throat. Kato did testify that Nicole said that OJS would probably kill her. I believe that Nicole did predict that OJS would kill her by cutting her throat, but I could find no mention of it.
This is from Feb 15 of the civil trial
Q: Did -- You said yesterday that Nicole told you that she thought O.J. would kill her one day.
A: Yes.
Q: Did she ever tell you how she thought O.J. would kill her?
A: She had mentioned a story that she was saying, "I know how O.J. would kill me one day," and --
Q: How did she say O.J. would kill her?
A: She said with scissors.

Another point I'd like to make is that the presence of unidentified hair at the crime scene doesn't impress me. Hair blows around in the wind and is practically immortal. The unidentified hair in the hat could have come from someone at the factory. It could be that someone else might have accidentally put the hat on and then OJS might have said 'Hey, that's my hat', and the other guy then put it down. I have several hats and I wouldn't be surprised if one of them has unidentifiable hairs; but that doesn't mean a crime occurred.

[William Anthony]

I looked up the testimony of Kato, and I couldn't find any mention of Nicole thinking OJS would cut her throat. Kato did testify that Nicole said that OJS would probably kill her. I believe that Nicole did predict that OJS would kill her by cutting her throat, but I could find no mention of it.
This is from Feb 15 of the civil trial
Q: Did -- You said yesterday that Nicole told you that she thought O.J. would kill her one day.
A: Yes.
Q: Did she ever tell you how she thought O.J. would kill her?
A: She had mentioned a story that she was saying, "I know how O.J. would kill me one day," and --
Q: How did she say O.J. would kill her?
A: She said with scissors.

Another point I'd like to make is that the presence of unidentified hair at the crime scene doesn't impress me. Hair blows around in the wind and is practically immortal. The unidentified hair in the hat could have come from someone at the factory. It could be that someone else might have accidentally put the hat on and then OJS might have said 'Hey, that's my hat', and the other guy then put it down. I have several hats and I wouldn't be surprised if one of them has unidentifiable hairs; but that doesn't mean a crime occurred.

I know exactly what you mean about hair blowing in the wind and not being impressive, which is what I feel about the prosecutors and the prosecution. Simpson's hat being found at the home of his ex-wife does not mean that he committed a crime and the hair found in the cap could mean that someone else wore it as you say, who may or may not have been the murderer. Reasonable doubt comes to mind, imho.

[weezer]

I know exactly what you mean about hair blowing in the wind and not being impressive, which is what I feel about the prosecutors and the prosecution. Simpson's hat being found at the home of his ex-wife does not mean that he committed a crime and the hair found in the cap could mean that someone else wore it as you say, who may or may not have been the murderer. Reasonable doubt comes to mind, imho.

so you believe that 'someone' wearing orenthal's hat commited the murders? ;)

[William Anthony]

so you believe that 'someone' wearing orenthal's hat commited the murders? ;)

No and the operative word in my post was "could". This is a luxury that the defense is more entitled than the prosecution, based on the fact that they are required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the person that committed the murders. Judging from so much of the prosecution's case, I think they never clearly understood that they had to offer more than could(s).

[William Anthony]

I looked up the testimony of Kato, and I couldn't find any mention of Nicole thinking OJS would cut her throat. Kato did testify that Nicole said that OJS would probably kill her. I believe that Nicole did predict that OJS would kill her by cutting her throat, but I could find no mention of it.
This is from Feb 15 of the civil trial
Q: Did -- You said yesterday that Nicole told you that she thought O.J. would kill her one day.
A: Yes.
Q: Did she ever tell you how she thought O.J. would kill her?
A: She had mentioned a story that she was saying, "I know how O.J. would kill me one day," and --
Q: How did she say O.J. would kill her?
A: She said with scissors.

Another point I'd like to make is that the presence of unidentified hair at the crime scene doesn't impress me. Hair blows around in the wind and is practically immortal. The unidentified hair in the hat could have come from someone at the factory. It could be that someone else might have accidentally put the hat on and then OJS might have said 'Hey, that's my hat', and the other guy then put it down. I have several hats and I wouldn't be surprised if one of them has unidentifiable hairs; but that doesn't mean a crime occurred.

I have had time to research your post and Kato did not testify at either trial in February, nor was there any testimony to the subject matter you claimed.
He was deposed on February 15th, and I think that testimony was not allowed in court, because of its hearsay character, imho. I don't know if you are aware and, not wanting to look pompous, let me clarify that depositions are a form of discovery, which means that one of its purposes is to seek information that would be admissible at the time of trial, or that the rules allow for some information that would be inadmissible at trial. I think this is what was done in regard to Kato's hearsay testimony, meaning it was ruled inadmissible at trial and, if not, I am fairly confident that Petrocelli would have jumped at it.

[fgump2]

I know exactly what you mean about hair blowing in the wind and not being impressive, which is what I feel about the prosecutors and the prosecution. Simpson's hat being found at the home of his ex-wife does not mean that he committed a crime and the hair found in the cap could mean that someone else wore it as you say, who may or may not have been the murderer. Reasonable doubt comes to mind, imho.

The reason I brought the hair up is that I thought the defense had said the unidentified hair in the hat raised doubt about who the killer was. I could be misrepresenting the defense position. I admit I haven't studied the transcripts very much. I don't see why unidentified hair in a hat a crime scene is worth mentioning by either the defense or the press. Most crime scenes probably have unidentified hair in them.
It is logical to think that the killer dropped the hat there. It was very close to the dead bodies which put it in the fight scene. That was an upper middle class condo neighborhood so the maintenance people would not have let a hat lay there for long. Johnnie Cochran said the hat didn't make a good disguise. Maybe so, but the killer had to be quite angry, otherwise he wouldn't have killed two people, and angry people usually don't think very clearly. How did JC think it wound up in the middle of a crime scene? Did he think that someone was wearing the hat to keep their ears warm and it fell there just before the killings?

[bobaugust]

I looked up the testimony of Kato, and I couldn't find any mention of Nicole thinking OJS would cut her throat. Kato did testify that Nicole said that OJS would probably kill her. I believe that Nicole did predict that OJS would kill her by cutting her throat, but I could find no mention of it.
This is from Feb 15 of the civil trial
Q: Did -- You said yesterday that Nicole told you that she thought O.J. would kill her one day.
A: Yes.
Q: Did she ever tell you how she thought O.J. would kill her?
A: She had mentioned a story that she was saying, "I know how O.J. would kill me one day," and --
Q: How did she say O.J. would kill her?
A: She said with scissors.

Another point I'd like to make is that the presence of unidentified hair at the crime scene doesn't impress me. Hair blows around in the wind and is practically immortal. The unidentified hair in the hat could have come from someone at the factory. It could be that someone else might have accidentally put the hat on and then OJS might have said 'Hey, that's my hat', and the other guy then put it down. I have several hats and I wouldn't be surprised if one of them has unidentifiable hairs; but that doesn't mean a crime occurred.

Frump2, there were 12 naturally shed hairs, a number of which were full length including the root, found in and on the knit cap at Bundy. All of those 12 hairs matched Simpson’s hairs, meaning they all had the same microscopic characteristics as Simpson’s hair samples. There were six older hair fragments found in the knit cap that were unidentified but could have been Simpson’s hairs from earlier years. There was also one hair fragment found on Ron Goldman’s shirt that also had the same microscopic characteristics as Simpson’s hair.

bobaugust

[Parker]

Brother, I'm getting confused about the hairs. The knit cap must have been worn by OJ at some time. When was it dropped at Nicole's place? It could have been lying there for days, or weeks even, depending on the weather. Or how many times the grounds were tended. The gloves were made a big deal of by the defense. Maybe the prosecution should have pushed the hair evidence harder.:shrug: But then, they would have to prove that OJ was wearing that cap that night. And obviously the prosecution didn't.

[William Anthony]

The reason I brought the hair up is that I thought the defense had said the unidentified hair in the hat raised doubt about who the killer was. I could be misrepresenting the defense position. I admit I haven't studied the transcripts very much. I don't see why unidentified hair in a hat a crime scene is worth mentioning by either the defense or the press. Most crime scenes probably have unidentified hair in them.
It is logical to think that the killer dropped the hat there. It was very close to the dead bodies which put it in the fight scene. That was an upper middle class condo neighborhood so the maintenance people would not have let a hat lay there for long. Johnnie Cochran said the hat didn't make a good disguise. Maybe so, but the killer had to be quite angry, otherwise he wouldn't have killed two people, and angry people usually don't think very clearly. How did JC think it wound up in the middle of a crime scene? Did he think that someone was wearing the hat to keep their ears warm and it fell there just before the killings?

It was the prosecution's theory that Simpson wore the hat on the night of the murders as a disguise, which the magnificent one made a mockery of, imho, by simply putting the hat on and saying he was readily identifiable as Johnny Cochran with a hat on. The reason the unidentified hair was so relevant was because it was the prosecution's theory, which they had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that Simpson, to the exclusion of all others, was the one that committed the murders. If there were maintenance people, who could have testified that the hat was not there prior to the murders, it was the prosecution's burden to bring forth that testimony. The magnificent one did not have to prove how the hat wound up in the crime scene only present evidence that the prosecution's evidence could not be trusted, which he did with the hair evidence, imho.

[William Anthony]

Brother, I'm getting confused about the hairs. The knit cap must have been worn by OJ at some time. When was it dropped at Nicole's place? It could have been lying there for days, or weeks even, depending on the weather. Or how many times the grounds were tended. The gloves were made a big deal of by the defense. Maybe the prosecution should have pushed the hair evidence harder.:shrug: But then, they would have to prove that OJ was wearing that cap that night. And obviously the prosecution didn't.

I agree. The one thing that is being overlooking is the unidentified Caucasian hair, which could not have had the same microscopic characteristics of Simpson's. Could it have been Mr. Ronald Goldman's hair, as the prosecution wanted the jury to believe? Yes. Could it have been the hair of someone else at the scene, who actually committed the murders and had type B blood? Yes. Therefore, you have reasonable doubt, imho.

[Parker]

I agree. The one thing that is being overlooking is the unidentified Caucasian hair, which could not have had the same microscopic characteristics of Simpson's. Could it have been Mr. Ronald Goldman's hair, as the prosecution wanted the jury to believe? Yes. Could it have been the hair of someone else at the scene, who actually committed the murders and had type B blood? Yes. Therefore, you have reasonable doubt, imho.

OK William Anthony I'm getting even more confused. An unidentified Caucasian hair was found in the knit cap? Along with all of OJ's. The prosecution wanted the jury to believe that the hair was Ron Goldman's?

OK. If one was Goldman's and the rest were OJ's. Then how did one of Goldman's mix with OJ's in the cap that was found?

You see, I don't understand. For a hair to be found in the knit cap would mean it had to be on the wearer's head. So OJ and Ron both had the knit cap on their heads the night of the murders? Or, OJ had left the knit cap at Nicole's house whenever. Ron comes by and for whatever reason he puts the knit cap on. Why would he do that? He was bringing back Nicole's glasses.

[William Anthony]

OK William Anthony I'm getting even more confused. An unidentified Caucasian hair was found in the knit cap? Along with all of OJ's. The prosecution wanted the jury to believe that the hair was Ron Goldman's?

OK. If one was Goldman's and the rest were OJ's. Then how did one of Goldman's mix with OJ's in the cap that was found?

You see, I don't understand. For a hair to be found in the knit cap would mean it had to be on the wearer's head. So OJ and Ron both had the knit cap on their heads the night of the murders? Or, OJ had left the knit cap at Nicole's house whenever. Ron comes by and for whatever reason he puts the knit cap on. Why would he do that? He was bringing back Nicole's glasses.

I don't blame you for being confused. The prosecution presented the evidence and then tried to explain it away, which, imho, is the cause of the confusion. To coin a phrase, if it does not fit, you must acquit or reasonable doubt. The prosecution would have us believe that the hair was transferable but none of the other evidence was.

[Parker]

William Anthony, you don't apparently dispute Bob August's post that the hairs found in the knit cap belonged to OJ. Then I still don't understand why Ron Goldman's hair would be found in the cap. Unless he placed it on his head. Is that really a possibility?
Like I said, it's confusing.

[bobaugust]

OK William Anthony I'm getting even more confused. An unidentified Caucasian hair was found in the knit cap? Along with all of OJ's. The prosecution wanted the jury to believe that the hair was Ron Goldman's?

OK. If one was Goldman's and the rest were OJ's. Then how did one of Goldman's mix with OJ's in the cap that was found?

You see, I don't understand. For a hair to be found in the knit cap would mean it had to be on the wearer's head. So OJ and Ron both had the knit cap on their heads the night of the murders? Or, OJ had left the knit cap at Nicole's house whenever. Ron comes by and for whatever reason he puts the knit cap on. Why would he do that? He was bringing back Nicole's glasses.

Parker, an unidentified Caucasian hair was never found in or on the knit cap. An unidentified naturally shed light brown Caucasian hair that had some of the same microscopic characteristics as Ronald Goldman’s hair sample was found on the killer’s right hand glove. The Prosecution spoke about how naturally shed hair samples can be transferred during contact.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, you don't apparently dispute Bob August's post that the hairs found in the knit cap belonged to OJ. Then I still don't understand why Ron Goldman's hair would be found in the cap. Unless he placed it on his head. Is that really a possibility?
Like I said, it's confusing.

There is nothing for me to dispute, as the post says the hairs had the same microscopic characteristics, not that they were the same, and this identification is based on another of the junk sciences, imho. The problem arises with the unidentified Caucasian hair. No one knows for a fact how that hair got there but it cannot exclude the possibility beyond a reasonable doubt, imho, that someone other than Simpson committed the murders. I think the prosecution needed to offer some possible and believable explanation, other than trace evidence is easily transferable and we trampled back and forth between the crimes scenes being careful not to transfer evidence, even though the defense presented evidence that we had moved the evidence and introduced a foreign item into the crime scene and while doing so were careful not to throw any trace evidence that might be contained on the item into the crime scene. Be careful to note that I never alleged the hair was found in the cap and saying displayed some of the same microscopic characteristics is not the same as saying displayed the same microscopic characteristics. The unidentified hair being found on the glove causes more confusion, imho.

[William Anthony]

Although I cannot say definitively that these are the same articles they are almost identical, which leads me to believe they were written in part by one of the experts, who testified in the Simpson murder trial.

Microscopy of Hair Part 1: A Practical Guide and Manual for Human Hairs
Douglas W. Deedrick
Supervisory Special Agent
Scientific Analysis Section

Sandra L. Koch
Physical Scientist, Forensic Examiner
Trace Evidence Unit
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Quantico, Virginia

I did not include the link to the article giving the names of the authors, because we have been requested not to provide links that contain pictures, so I will post this link, which I believe is the same article.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Bh5Lo1JXsPsJ:https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/cevrentas/web/Forensics/Hair%2520Analysis%2520Packet.doc+all+hair+from+the +same+racial+type+have+some+of+the+same+microscopi c+characteristics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

This is what the article admits.

“Hairs that have been matched or associated through a microscopic examination should also be examined by mtDNA sequencing. Although it is uncommon to find hairs from two different individuals exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics, it can occur. For this reason, the hairs or portions of the hairs should be forwarded for mtDNA sequencing. The combined procedures add credibility to each. “

IIRC, there was no DNA testing of the hairs. This was another of the prosecution's failures, if I am correct, which led to reasonable doubt. The unidentified Caucasian hair could have tested by mtDNA and compared to Mr. Ronald Goldman's other hairs.

[Parker]

Parker, an unidentified Caucasian hair was never found in or on the knit cap. An unidentified naturally shed light brown Caucasian hair that had some of the same microscopic characteristics as Ronald Goldman’s hair sample was found on the killer’s right hand glove. The Prosecution spoke about how naturally shed hair samples can be transferred during contact.

bobaugust


OK I'm getting even more confused. If that's possible. Bob, Ron's hair was found on the Bruno glove that OJ said he couldn't fit on his hand? Not the knit cap?

[martin II]

William Anthony, you don't apparently dispute Bob August's post that the hairs found in the knit cap belonged to OJ. Then I still don't understand why Ron Goldman's hair would be found in the cap. Unless he placed it on his head. Is that really a possibility?
Like I said, it's confusing.

More confusion. i think there was a caucasian blond hair foung in ojs truck. no one knows when it was deposited there or who it belonged to.imo

[William Anthony]

OK I'm getting even more confused. If that's possible. Bob, Ron's hair was found on the Bruno glove that OJ said he couldn't fit on his hand? Not the knit cap?

"MR. BAILEY: Well, most importantly, I take it you are confident that the unidentified Caucasian hair found on the Rockingham glove didn't come from any of the people whose samples you looked at?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. I wasn't satisfied with any of their hairs as a possible donor.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And you have no idea who did deposit that hair, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I don't."

July 5th testimony.

[martin II]

OK I'm getting even more confused. If that's possible. Bob, Ron's hair was found on the Bruno glove that OJ said he couldn't fit on his hand? Not the knit cap?

This is why the prosecution tried so hard to prove that oj wore the gloves. but when the gloves did not fit, that created reasonable doubt for some jury
members.imo

[Parker]

"MR. BAILEY: Well, most importantly, I take it you are confident that the unidentified Caucasian hair found on the Rockingham glove didn't come from any of the people whose samples you looked at?

MR. DEEDRICK: Yeah. I wasn't satisfied with any of their hairs as a possible donor.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And you have no idea who did deposit that hair, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: No, I don't."

July 5th testimony.

Hey William Anthony. I hoped Bob might reply to me. Anyway. Whose samples were Mr Deedrick referring to? Ron Goldman or OJ?

[martin II]

Parker

Saying the hair had the same microscopic charasteristics as Simpsons is not the same as saying it was with scientific certainty it was Simpsons.That sounds like the prosecution was saying it COULD be Simpsons but we don't know for a fact that it was.imo

[William Anthony]

Hey William Anthony. I hoped Bob might reply to me. Anyway. Whose samples were Mr Deedrick referring to? Ron Goldman or OJ?

I apologize if I over stepped my boundaries. I just thought you might want to have the information in the manner to which it was testified. He was referring to all three donors, meaning Ms. NBS, Mr. Ronald Goldman and Simpson. I think there were samples taken from all the police at the scene and they were all excluded. My point was more in line with the fact that we all remember testimony differently or may want to believe on that testimony, which suits our particular conclusions on the issues. To me the bottom line was that he testified that he did not know who deposited the unidentified Caucasian hair on the glove. The fact that the gloves were alleged to be tight-fitting by design suggests to me that an unidentified Caucasian wore the gloves at sometime and that sometime could have been the night of the murders.

In doing some research I found this. I hope all will pardon the pictures in the link but I found this particularly interesting. I have recently become aware that some or at least one poster does not place much stock in the smart fellows' articles. However, I did find this interesting.

http://www.smartfellowspress.com/smokinggun/Murder.html

[William Anthony]

July 6th testimony,

"MS. CLARK: Concerning also the police officer elimination standard, you testified earlier to the fact that you received samples or standards taken from each of the police and lab personnel involved in the case?

MR. DEEDRICK: Right.

MS. CLARK: And then I think you indicated on cross-examination that there were two, sometimes three slides for each of them, correct?

MR. DEEDRICK: That's right. A representative sample of hairs was prepared and mounted on slides.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, two slides, does that mean two hairs?

MR. DEEDRICK: Oh, no. That representative sampling would mean an adequate number of hairs to compare, which could be twenty to thirty hairs perhaps."

These would also be the donors to the best of my understanding.

[martin II]

The reason I brought the hair up is that I thought the defense had said the unidentified hair in the hat raised doubt about who the killer was. I could be misrepresenting the defense position. I admit I haven't studied the transcripts very much. I don't see why unidentified hair in a hat a crime scene is worth mentioning by either the defense or the press. Most crime scenes probably have unidentified hair in them.
It is logical to think that the killer dropped the hat there. It was very close to the dead bodies which put it in the fight scene. That was an upper middle class condo neighborhood so the maintenance people would not have let a hat lay there for long. Johnnie Cochran said the hat didn't make a good disguise. Maybe so, but the killer had to be quite angry, otherwise he wouldn't have killed two people, and angry people usually don't think very clearly. How did JC think it wound up in the middle of a crime scene? Did he think that someone was wearing the hat to keep their ears warm and it fell there just before the killings?

The prosecution was not able to prove when that cap was first deposited at Bundy and who deposited it there.

[weezer]

The prosecution was not able to prove when that cap was first deposited at Bundy and who deposited it there.

but we know that it was on orenthal's big, ole bobble-head the night he slaughtered Ron and Nicole.

[bobaugust]

OK I'm getting even more confused. If that's possible. Bob, Ron's hair was found on the Bruno glove that OJ said he couldn't fit on his hand? Not the knit cap?

Parker, the unidentified light Brown naturally shed Caucasian hair was on the killer’s right hand glove found at Rockingham. Other hairs found on that glove were Nicole Brown’s with blood on them and 3 ripped or torn hairs from Ron Goldman. Also found on that glove was Simpson’s blood mixed with both victims blood. Some blue black cotton fibers that were also found on Ron Goldman’s shirt and on Simpson’s socks. And an unusual x-shaped fiber consistent with Simpson’s Bronco carpet.

bobaugust

[martin II]

The prosecution put forth the theory that oj entered his property by the south walkway by jumping the fence where the glove was found. Three decetives testified that they saw no evidence that anyone jumped the south walkway fence or walked that walkway at Rockingham.imo

[Parker]

So, if I'm right, the defense never disputed the physical evidence on the glove? They disputed the ownership of the glove. Smart move. Couldn't the prosecution find receits, anything like that, to tie the glove to OJ?

[bobaugust]

So, if I'm right, the defense never disputed the physical evidence on the glove? They disputed the ownership of the glove. Smart move. Couldn't the prosecution find receits, anything like that, to tie the glove to OJ?

Parker, the prosecution called six witnesses who testified about photographs showing Simpson wearing the same exact kind of expensive Aris skin tight thin leather gloves as the murder gloves at different football games in December 1990, January 1991, November 1993, two times in December 1993, and January 1994. The fact that the prosecution could not definitively say when Simpson obtained the murder gloves doesn’t change the blood and fiber evidence found on them that points to Simpson as the killer.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The prosecution put forth the theory that oj entered his property by the south walkway by jumping the fence where the glove was found. Three decetives testified that they saw no evidence that anyone jumped the south walkway fence or walked that walkway at Rockingham.imo

That is probably the most damaging part of the prosecution's theory and supports the position that the Rockingham glove was planted. The fact that the blood drops were found on Rockingham but none found behind Kato's quarters and Parks was there waiting to pick Simpson up but did not see him enter through Rockingham and the gloves not fitting all added to sealing the prosecution's fate, imho.

[Parker]

Parker, the prosecution called six witnesses who testified about photographs showing Simpson wearing the same exact kind of expensive Aris skin tight thin leather gloves as the murder gloves at different football games in December 1990, January 1991, November 1993, two times in December 1993, and January 1994. The fact that the prosecution could not definitively say when Simpson obtained the murder gloves doesn’t change the blood and fiber evidence found on them that points to Simpson as the killer.

bobaugust

OK. The defense couldn't explain away the physical evidence. That's right?

There was physical evidence on the gloves that tied OJ, Ron and Nicole together?
That's what I understand.

[William Anthony]

I thought the defense did a magnificent job of raising reasonable doubt about the physical evidence on the gloves, with the testimony that the glove appeared shinny some 5 hours later, blood being found in the wrong places at Rockingham, the testimonies of Kathleen Bell, Andrea Terry, Roderick Hodge, Allan Park, Laura Hart Mckinney and last, but by no means last, MF and the evidence of contamination and cross contamination and gloves that did not fit, keeping in mind that the defense was not obligated to explain anything, only to show that the evidence as presented could and should not be trusted-reasonable doubt. I think that, if the proper burdens are placed on the proper parties, there can be no doubt that the jury reached the proper verdict-not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, I do not think everyone will agree with my position on what I think the evidence showed but I do think we can agree on what the legal standard was.

[Parker]

William Anthony, you're absolutely correct. The defense didn't have to prove anything. That was up to the prosecution.

It appears the prosecution didn't do a very good job.

In your last post, you don't say that the physical evidence against OJ was incorrect. My understanding is that you agree that there was physical evidence against OJ.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, you're absolutely correct. The defense didn't have to prove anything. That was up to the prosecution.

It appears the prosecution didn't do a very good job.

In your last post, you don't say that the physical evidence against OJ was incorrect. My understanding is that you agree that there was physical evidence against OJ.

Not knowing enough about DNA, other than later information revealed that the results from the gate stain indicated planting and the evidence of planting and contamination and the missing blood of Simpson when considered, does not allow me to dispute the evidence only say that the defense showed why the evidence should not be trusted. The other evidence of planting of and on the glove I have previously addressed. There have been recent articles on the value of the alleged forensic sciences or junk sciences, if you will. My concern is more with how the evidence got there and how it was interpreted and I do not give value to the notion that hair had the same microscopic characteristics of the accused, since the article I provided stated that they can demonstrate the same microscopic characteristics even if they are not from the same person, albeit it is rare. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed miserably when it came to proving their case that Simpson and only Simpson was the murderer to the exclusion of all others.

[Parker]

Not knowing enough about DNA, other than later information revealed that the results from the gate stain indicated planting and the evidence of planting and contamination and the missing blood of Simpson when considered, does not allow me to dispute the evidence only say that the defense showed why the evidence should not be trusted. The other evidence of planting of and on the glove I have previously addressed. There have been recent articles on the value of the alleged forensic sciences or junk sciences, if you will. My concern is more with how the evidence got there and how it was interpreted and I do not give value to the notion that hair had the same microscopic characteristics of the accused, since the article I provided stated that they can demonstrate the same microscopic characteristics even if they are not from the same person, albeit it is rare. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed miserably when it came to proving their case that Simpson and only Simpson was the murderer to the exclusion of all others.

You're correct about the prosecution. Terrible.

Planting the glove? Well, now we're getting into territory I'm not qualified to discuss.

Your concern is more with how the evidence got there? So you don't disagree that OJ's hair was found in the knit cap, along with Nicole's and Ron's?

[William Anthony]

You're correct about the prosecution. Terrible.

Planting the glove? Well, now we're getting into territory I'm not qualified to discuss.

Your concern is more with how the evidence got there? So you don't disagree that OJ's hair was found in the knit cap, along with Nicole's and Ron's?

I neither dispute nor agree with that particular evidence but find it untrustworthy, because of the junk science and the evidence of planting.

[Parker]

William Anthony, so you agree that Ron, Nicole's and OJ's hairs were found in the glove?

[weezer]

I neither dispute nor agree with that particular evidence but find it untrustworthy, because of the junk science and the evidence of planting.

you are being more than a little dishonest. Please post/link credible evidence/testimony that supports the charge of planting.

again, no amount of contamination, poor collection, etc., would change orenthal's DNA into someone else's and vice versa.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, so you agree that Ron, Nicole's and OJ's hairs were found in the glove?

I neither agree nor dispute it. I agree that the testimony was that the hair had the same microscopic characteristics as those of the people you named and it is my understanding that the hairs of Ms. NBS and Mr. Ronald Goldman, hereinafter Mr. RG, were found on the glove by the testimony.

[William Anthony]

you are being more than a little dishonest. Please post/link credible evidence/testimony that supports the charge of planting.

again, no amount of contamination, poor collection, etc., would change orenthal's DNA into someone else's and vice versa.

I am being quite honest. Because I do not agree with your view of the evidence, that disagreement does not make me dishonest nor does it make you dishonest. It simply means we view the evidence differently and I saw it as the jury did-reasonable doubt.

When DNA was placed on an item either unintentionally or intentionally where it should not have been (contamination), the results should not be trusted and evidence that this may have been done to me means the evidence should not be trusted and false, inaccurate or perjured testimony to me means falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus. You have the right to find credible what I find incredible, with out you calling me dishonest and vice versa.

[weezer]

I am being quite honest. Because I do not agree with your view of the evidence, that disagreement does not make me dishonest nor does it make you dishonest. It simply means we view the evidence differently and I saw it as the jury did-reasonable doubt.

When DNA was placed on an item either unintentionally or intentionally where it should not have been (contamination), the results should not be trusted and evidence that this may have been done to me means the evidence should not be trusted and false, inaccurate or perjured testimony to me means falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus. You have the right to find credible what I find incredible, with out you calling me dishonest and vice versa.

you are being dishonest when you state as fact that there was planting. there is and has never been any credible evidence that that happened.

again, no amount of contamination, collection, etc., would change orenthal's DNA into someone else's and vice versa.

[William Anthony]

you are being dishonest when you state as fact that there was planting. there is and has never been any credible evidence that that happened.

again, no amount of contamination, collection, etc., would change orenthal's DNA into someone else's and vice versa.

This is what I actually said, "The other evidence of planting of and on the glove I have previously addressed." What you find credible I may find incredible. credibility belongs to the trier of fact. "An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it."

James Michener.

[weezer]

This is what I actually said, "The other evidence of planting of and on the glove I have previously addressed." What you find credible I may find incredible. credibility belongs to the trier of fact. "An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it."

James Michener.

ONE MORE TIME -- there is and has never been credible evidence that planting occurred. For someone to continue to offer as fact that there is/was, is dishonest.

[William Anthony]

ONE MORE TIME -- there is and has never been credible evidence that planting occurred. For someone to continue to offer as fact that there is/was, is dishonest.

"An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it." To be able to acknowledge when we are wrong, helps us to get it right, imho.

James Michener.

[martin II]

William Anthony, you're absolutely correct. The defense didn't have to prove anything. That was up to the prosecution.

It appears the prosecution didn't do a very good job.

In your last post, you don't say that the physical evidence against OJ was incorrect. My understanding is that you agree that there was physical evidence against OJ.

Parker

If the prosecution was not able to prove that oj Simpson droped/ placed the glove in the south walkway or that he was even in the south walkway where the glove was found as they claimed, then the glove got there by some other means than oj placing/dropping it there.If oj did not place it there then who did? or how did it get there??

[William Anthony]

I watched part of the last trial shown on trutv and found that they were no longer referring to forensic science as such but as forensic arts and they were referring in questions to testifying to a reasonable forensic certainty. In my mind this not only diminishes the prosecution's murder case but also Petrocelli's claim to have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the murderer. I think the legal profession may view the alleged junk sciences in a different light.

[William Anthony]

http://www.truthinjustice.org/junk.htm

“Pennsylvania: Emerson McCauley is anything but a sympathetic figure. A thief and forger, he told Pennsylvania police that he witnessed two men rape a woman and throw her off a 44-foot-high Juniata County bridge in 1977. He was looking for a break for himself by making up lies to frame others, and it backfired. Emerson was charged with the murder, and former star junk scientist, police chemist Janice Roadcap, clinched the conviction when she testified that a "uniquely shaped" hair on the victim's leg came from Emerson's chest. But DNA has cleared Emerson, who appears to be what he has said all along that he is -- innocent of murder. Roadcap Redux”


"California Panel Calls for Standards for Scientific Analysis, Evidence. An influential California commission on May 3, 2007 said that forensic science errors are a major contributor to wrongful convictions and called for better training, more monitoring and stronger standards in the real world of "CSI." The report cited the Innocence Project at New York's Cardozo Law School, which identified forensic science testing errors in 63% of a set of nationwide DNA exoneration cases analyzed. The California commission also raised a red flag over the ability of the criminal justice system to expose mistakes in scientific evidence."

[tv]

I watched part of the last trial shown on trutv and found that they were no longer referring to forensic science as such but as forensic arts and they were referring in questions to testifying to a reasonable forensic certainty. In my mind this not only diminishes the prosecution's murder case but also Petrocelli's claim to have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the murderer. I think the legal profession may view the alleged junk sciences in a different light.

Why don't we just free all convicted criminals that have been found guilty because of forensics? Just let them all go and say all forensic science is junk -- unless there is an eyewitness to the alleged crime then there is no case. Oh, wait a minute, eyewitness testimony can be very unreliable. I guess we could convict someone of a crime if they confess...oops, that won't work either...we all know how LE is known to coerce confessions. What's your solution? :shrug:

[tv]

I watched part of the last trial shown on trutv and found that they were no longer referring to forensic science as such but as forensic arts and they were referring in questions to testifying to a reasonable forensic certainty. In my mind this not only diminishes the prosecution's murder case but also Petrocelli's claim to have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the murderer. I think the legal profession may view the alleged junk sciences in a different light.

Who are 'they' that aren't referring to forensic science as science any longer? Was it the commentators or the attorneys involved in the case?

[William Anthony]

Why don't we just free all convicted criminals that have been found guilty because of forensics? Just let them all go and say all forensic science is junk -- unless there is an eyewitness to the alleged crime then there is no case. Oh, wait a minute, eyewitness testimony can be very unreliable. I guess we could convict someone of a crime if they confess...oops, that won't work either...we all know how LE is known to coerce confessions. What's your solution? :shrug:

To utilize proper standards and validated sciences in order to ensure that the least amount of those convicted of crimes are actually not guilty.

[William Anthony]

Who are 'they' that aren't referring to forensic science as science any longer? Was it the commentators or the attorneys involved in the case?

The commentator, Jack Ford, referred to it as forensic art and the lawyers phrased their questions to state to a reasonable degree of forensic certainty.

[William Anthony]

Who are 'they' that aren't referring to forensic science as science any longer? Was it the commentators or the attorneys involved in the case?

Would you agree that this places the civil and criminal murder trial verdicts in a new light?

[tv]

To utilize proper standards and validated sciences in order to ensure that the least amount of those convicted of crimes are actually not guilty.
What forensic science do you think qualifies as valid?

[William Anthony]

What forensic science do you think qualifies as valid?

The only one that seems to be accepted by the scientific community at the present time as being valid is DNA, to the best of my understanding.

[tv]

Would you agree that this places the civil and criminal murder trial verdicts in a new light?Not to me. Changing terminology doesn't change the reality of forensic science. I haven't heard it referred to as forensic arts anywhere else. Besides, what's the difference in that and the term 'medical arts'. Nothing under the sun is infallible.

[William Anthony]

Not to me. Changing terminology doesn't change the reality of forensic science. I haven't heard it referred to as forensic arts anywhere else. Besides, what's the difference in that and the term 'medical arts'. Nothing under the sun is infallible.

I agree that nothing is infallible and the reason it is now being referred to as forensics or forensic arts is, to the best of my understanding, and based on the links and articles, is because it has not undergone the rigors that the DNA discipline has. I think the difference in the term art and science is that art allows for more subjectivity. It is the reality of the forensics that has been called into question and, therefore, that causes me to view Petrocelli's claim and the evidence in a new light. I am not saying that all the forensics are flawed but based on the amount of errors in the last link, I would like to see a higher standard used for convictions and findings of liability.

[tv]

The only one that seems to be accepted by the scientific community at the present time as being valid is DNA, to the best of my understanding.The scientific community doesn't consider fingerprint evidence valid? What about blood spatter? I can think of several forensic scientists that would disagree that blood spatter isn't valid.

[William Anthony]

The scientific community doesn't consider fingerprint evidence valid? What about blood spatter? I can think of several forensic scientists that would disagree that blood spatter isn't valid.

Interestingly enough, there has been some discussion on the validity of fingerprint analysis, which I think was in one of my links. As to the blood splatter, its validity was alluded to by attorney Ford (maybe lawyer, if he is still practicing) caused by two conflicting experts in the last case on trutv. It was then that he commented that forensic should be referred to as an art, because of its subjectivity.

http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/ID/Cole_junksci.html

[tv]

I agree that nothing is infallible and the reason it is now being referred to as forensics or forensic arts is, to the best of my understanding, and based on the links and articles, is because it has not undergone the rigors that the DNA discipline has. I think the difference in the term art and science is that art allows for more subjectivity. It is the reality of the forensics that has been called into question and, therefore, that causes me to view Petrocelli's claim and the evidence in a new light. I am not saying that all the forensics are flawed but based on the amount of errors in the last link, I would like to see a higher standard used for convictions and findings of liability.

You're not viewing Petrocelli's claim and the evidence in a new light. It's the same light you've always viewed it in -- you don't believe it. What amuses me is that I'm fairly sure you think OJ Simpson is the person that murdered Ron and Nicole but you wouldn't admit it even if you were being tortured with bamboo shoots under your fingernails. :D

Before you reply, I know your stock answer is that you don't know if he's guilty or not. Okey, dokey. ;)

[William Anthony]

You're not viewing Petrocelli's claim and the evidence in a new light. It's the same light you've always viewed it in -- you don't believe it. What amuses me is that I'm fairly sure you think OJ Simpson is the person that murdered Ron and Nicole but you wouldn't admit it even if you were being tortured with bamboo shoots under your fingernails. :D

Before you reply, I know your stock answer is that you don't know if he's guilty or not. Okey, dokey. ;)

I guess you are right and I should have said that I am viewing his claim in a brighter light, which causes me to further question his claim. :) I have previously stated that, if the standard was a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt, I would say that Simpson was guilty. However, based on the new information about the junk sciences, I don't know if I would say that.

http://redlightsandsiren.blogspot.com/2009/02/criminals-convicted-by-junk-science.html

[William Anthony]

You're not viewing Petrocelli's claim and the evidence in a new light. It's the same light you've always viewed it in -- you don't believe it. What amuses me is that I'm fairly sure you think OJ Simpson is the person that murdered Ron and Nicole but you wouldn't admit it even if you were being tortured with bamboo shoots under your fingernails. :D

Before you reply, I know your stock answer is that you don't know if he's guilty or not. Okey, dokey. ;)

I watched the movie, "Double Jeopardy" last night, starring Ashley Judd, and her lawyer told her in response to a question as to whether or not he believed her guilty, that it did not matter what he believed. :)

[tv]

I guess you are right and I should have said that I am viewing his claim in a brighter light, which causes me to further question his claim. :) I have previously stated that, if the standard was a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt, I would say that Simpson was guilty. However, based on the new information about the junk sciences, I don't know if I would say that.

http://redlightsandsiren.blogspot.com/2009/02/criminals-convicted-by-junk-science.html Are you talking about legal guilt or factual guilt?

[William Anthony]

Are you talking about legal guilt or factual guilt?

Since a jury determines the facts based on the weight and credibility they give to the evidence, I think that it becomes both a factual and legal finding of guilt. I think you tried a lawyer question and meant to say actual guilt.:)

[fgump2]

"An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it." To be able to acknowledge when we are wrong, helps us to get it right, imho.

James Michener.

I believe that the 1995 criminal defense demonstrated a lack of integrity, and their supporters have been just as bad, maybe worse. I don’t have enough space here to show all my reasons, but I thought I would mention a few.
Scheck accused D. Fung of processing evidence in a dishonest manner and said that part of the reason for this was that he was afraid of his boss. And yet the defense never showed any evidence that either his boss applied pressure, or that Fung deliberately did anything dishonest. If the defense had any evidence that Fung did falsified evidence because he was afraid of his boss, they should have let the public know about it, after all Fung worked on other cases besides OJ Simpson. Scheck slung mud at two people and never showed any evidence for it. The defense did show that Fung made some mistakes, but this isn’t the same as showing that it was deliberate. To sling mud at the police without backing it up with facts harms us all. People who approve of these tactics should remember the saying “keep telling a man he is no good and pretty soon he will prove you right”. To subject law enforcement or anyone else, to unnecessary and unsubstantiated insults is wrong. It will result in either higher taxes or lower quality police work. The defense has the moral right to criticize the work at the criminologists, but engage in unsupported insults is morally wrong. I think Scheck made these accusations to get Fung rattled.
I find it infuriating that very few people have spoken out against Scheck or the dream team for this. Scheck also misquoted Henry Lee at least twice in a manner that helped the defense.
Supporters of the dream team usually roast A. Mazzola for failing to initial a piece of paper, and D. Fung for not remembering what he did several months earlier. And yet they always praise J. Cochran for his work. In his opening statement Cochran broke the Reciprocal discovery law. He did this by mentioning 14 witnesses that would support the defense, and he hadn’t provided this information to the prosecution. This is on page 300 of V Bugliosi’s book. I think it was probably deliberate, and some of these witnesses were pretty pathetic. I think it is hypocritical to roast Mazzolla or Fung for their lapses, and call Cochran magnificent. It would be interesting to get a bunch of people who don’t have a preconceived opinion of the case (say 12 – 15 year olds from some country where the trial didn’t get much publicity), and ask them which they think is most serious, Cochran’s mistakes, or Mazzola’s, or Fung’s memory problems. Cochran had a bunch of people working under him to check on his work, whereas Mazzola didn’t.
Supporters of the dream team often talk about the junk science of the prosecution. They also often say that ‘if the police criminologists and pathologists had followed procedures these problems wouldn’t have come up’. I think what they mean is that if all the law enforcement people had done their work perfectly there would have been no problems. I think if all the work had been done perfectly, I would assume it was rigged or a miracle. It is also odd that people who are so picky about police errors are so accepting of Cochran errors, and Henry Lee errors. If WA or Martin think that all non forensic science (chemistry, physics or biology) for example has to be done perfectly or it is ignored; then they don’t know much about science. It is also a sign of either foolish thinking or dishonesty to roast Mazzola and Fung for things like not initialing a piece of paper, and then praise the world’s best criminologist (AKA Henry Lee) and ignore his inability to tell the difference between foot prints in blood and trowel marks in cement. I realize that the prosecutions work is held to a higher standard, but if a guy comes through with the billing that Henry Lee (or Mr. Cochran) did, the public should examine his work and hold him to high standards. To use an example I used earlier it would be interesting to get people with an open mind (and who don’t know the skin colors involved or OJ’s celebrity background) to pass judgment on the work of Mazzola, Fung, and Lee, or Cochran.
Would supporters of the dream team (WA and Martin for example) all of a sudden find the mistakes of Cochran and H Lee to be unacceptable if they tried to convict people with their techniques? I know that Johnnie Cochran is dead.

[tv]

Since a jury determines the facts based on the weight and credibility they give to the evidence, I think that it becomes both a factual and legal finding of guilt. I think you tried a lawyer question and meant to say actual guilt.:)William, unlike you, I'm not trying to be or act like a lawyer. I said what I meant to say. Geez, why do I
bother? :seeya:

[Parker]

I believe that the 1995 criminal defense demonstrated a lack of integrity, and their supporters have been just as bad, maybe worse. I don’t have enough space here to show all my reasons, but I thought I would mention a few.
Scheck accused D. Fung of processing evidence in a dishonest manner and said that part of the reason for this was that he was afraid of his boss. And yet the defense never showed any evidence that either his boss applied pressure, or that Fung deliberately did anything dishonest. If the defense had any evidence that Fung did falsified evidence because he was afraid of his boss, they should have let the public know about it, after all Fung worked on other cases besides OJ Simpson. Scheck slung mud at two people and never showed any evidence for it. The defense did show that Fung made some mistakes, but this isn’t the same as showing that it was deliberate. To sling mud at the police without backing it up with facts harms us all. People who approve of these tactics should remember the saying “keep telling a man he is no good and pretty soon he will prove you right”. To subject law enforcement or anyone else, to unnecessary and unsubstantiated insults is wrong. It will result in either higher taxes or lower quality police work. The defense has the moral right to criticize the work at the criminologists, but engage in unsupported insults is morally wrong. I think Scheck made these accusations to get Fung rattled.
I find it infuriating that very few people have spoken out against Scheck or the dream team for this. Scheck also misquoted Henry Lee at least twice in a manner that helped the defense.
Supporters of the dream team usually roast A. Mazzola for failing to initial a piece of paper, and D. Fung for not remembering what he did several months earlier. And yet they always praise J. Cochran for his work. In his opening statement Cochran broke the Reciprocal discovery law. He did this by mentioning 14 witnesses that would support the defense, and he hadn’t provided this information to the prosecution. This is on page 300 of V Bugliosi’s book. I think it was probably deliberate, and some of these witnesses were pretty pathetic. I think it is hypocritical to roast Mazzolla or Fung for their lapses, and call Cochran magnificent. It would be interesting to get a bunch of people who don’t have a preconceived opinion of the case (say 12 – 15 year olds from some country where the trial didn’t get much publicity), and ask them which they think is most serious, Cochran’s mistakes, or Mazzola’s, or Fung’s memory problems. Cochran had a bunch of people working under him to check on his work, whereas Mazzola didn’t.
Supporters of the dream team often talk about the junk science of the prosecution. They also often say that ‘if the police criminologists and pathologists had followed procedures these problems wouldn’t have come up’. I think what they mean is that if all the law enforcement people had done their work perfectly there would have been no problems. I think if all the work had been done perfectly, I would assume it was rigged or a miracle. It is also odd that people who are so picky about police errors are so accepting of Cochran errors, and Henry Lee errors. If WA or Martin think that all non forensic science (chemistry, physics or biology) for example has to be done perfectly or it is ignored; then they don’t know much about science. It is also a sign of either foolish thinking or dishonesty to roast Mazzola and Fung for things like not initialing a piece of paper, and then praise the world’s best criminologist (AKA Henry Lee) and ignore his inability to tell the difference between foot prints in blood and trowel marks in cement. I realize that the prosecutions work is held to a higher standard, but if a guy comes through with the billing that Henry Lee (or Mr. Cochran) did, the public should examine his work and hold him to high standards. To use an example I used earlier it would be interesting to get people with an open mind (and who don’t know the skin colors involved or OJ’s celebrity background) to pass judgment on the work of Mazzola, Fung, and Lee, or Cochran.
Would supporters of the dream team (WA and Martin for example) all of a sudden find the mistakes of Cochran and H Lee to be unacceptable if they tried to convict people with their techniques? I know that Johnnie Cochran is dead.

WOW! What a post! Thanks for raising so many points! And interesting points. What if the facts of the case and the trial were given to teenagers in Austria, or Venezuala and not given real names or racial backgrounds, yes, I'd find that really interesting.

You've given me a lot to think about. Thanks.

[William Anthony]

William, unlike you, I'm not trying to be or act like a lawyer. I said what I meant to say. Geez, why do I
bother? :seeya:

I don't know why you seem upset and, if you aren't then forget this posts, but I must say that I used a smiley and enjoyed your question as it was posed in a manner that a lawyer would pose questions. I do not know what you have against lawyers but I think it is an honorable profession and meant nothing untoward. However, I answered your question to the best of my understanding as to what you were asking and I really don't know what you are bothering about. If that is what you meant to say, then accept my answer, as I do not know for a fact that Simpson is innocent or guilty, which you have made mention of your awareness to my previous response.

[William Anthony]

I believe that the 1995 criminal defense demonstrated a lack of integrity, and their supporters have been just as bad, maybe worse. I don’t have enough space here to show all my reasons, but I thought I would mention a few.
Scheck accused D. Fung of processing evidence in a dishonest manner and said that part of the reason for this was that he was afraid of his boss. And yet the defense never showed any evidence that either his boss applied pressure, or that Fung deliberately did anything dishonest. If the defense had any evidence that Fung did falsified evidence because he was afraid of his boss, they should have let the public know about it, after all Fung worked on other cases besides OJ Simpson. Scheck slung mud at two people and never showed any evidence for it. The defense did show that Fung made some mistakes, but this isn’t the same as showing that it was deliberate. To sling mud at the police without backing it up with facts harms us all. People who approve of these tactics should remember the saying “keep telling a man he is no good and pretty soon he will prove you right”. To subject law enforcement or anyone else, to unnecessary and unsubstantiated insults is wrong. It will result in either higher taxes or lower quality police work. The defense has the moral right to criticize the work at the criminologists, but engage in unsupported insults is morally wrong. I think Scheck made these accusations to get Fung rattled.
I find it infuriating that very few people have spoken out against Scheck or the dream team for this. Scheck also misquoted Henry Lee at least twice in a manner that helped the defense.
Supporters of the dream team usually roast A. Mazzola for failing to initial a piece of paper, and D. Fung for not remembering what he did several months earlier. And yet they always praise J. Cochran for his work. In his opening statement Cochran broke the Reciprocal discovery law. He did this by mentioning 14 witnesses that would support the defense, and he hadn’t provided this information to the prosecution. This is on page 300 of V Bugliosi’s book. I think it was probably deliberate, and some of these witnesses were pretty pathetic. I think it is hypocritical to roast Mazzolla or Fung for their lapses, and call Cochran magnificent. It would be interesting to get a bunch of people who don’t have a preconceived opinion of the case (say 12 – 15 year olds from some country where the trial didn’t get much publicity), and ask them which they think is most serious, Cochran’s mistakes, or Mazzola’s, or Fung’s memory problems. Cochran had a bunch of people working under him to check on his work, whereas Mazzola didn’t.
Supporters of the dream team often talk about the junk science of the prosecution. They also often say that ‘if the police criminologists and pathologists had followed procedures these problems wouldn’t have come up’. I think what they mean is that if all the law enforcement people had done their work perfectly there would have been no problems. I think if all the work had been done perfectly, I would assume it was rigged or a miracle. It is also odd that people who are so picky about police errors are so accepting of Cochran errors, and Henry Lee errors. If WA or Martin think that all non forensic science (chemistry, physics or biology) for example has to be done perfectly or it is ignored; then they don’t know much about science. It is also a sign of either foolish thinking or dishonesty to roast Mazzola and Fung for things like not initialing a piece of paper, and then praise the world’s best criminologist (AKA Henry Lee) and ignore his inability to tell the difference between foot prints in blood and trowel marks in cement. I realize that the prosecutions work is held to a higher standard, but if a guy comes through with the billing that Henry Lee (or Mr. Cochran) did, the public should examine his work and hold him to high standards. To use an example I used earlier it would be interesting to get people with an open mind (and who don’t know the skin colors involved or OJ’s celebrity background) to pass judgment on the work of Mazzola, Fung, and Lee, or Cochran.
Would supporters of the dream team (WA and Martin for example) all of a sudden find the mistakes of Cochran and H Lee to be unacceptable if they tried to convict people with their techniques? I know that Johnnie Cochran is dead.

I choose to disagree as to which party showed a lack of integrity. Imho, the prosecution showed a lack of integrity when they put MF on the stand and tried to deny any knowledge of his prior admitted conduct and when they decided not to put Martz on the stand when they realized his results were incredulously wrong and then put on an alleged expert to try to explain away his incredible results, not to mention the perjured testimony of MF, the slanting of Fung's testimony about the time he collected the socks or Mazzola's feigned testimony about not remembering a gate, not to mention that preposterous and rehearsed testimony of Peratis, trying to explain away the missing blood, a ridiculous time line, gloves that did not fit, the stupidity of what they called a disguise, a contradictory blood trail at Rockingham, and the unscientific opinion that type AB blood degraded in a manner inconsistent with the scientific literature. I agree with certain portions of your posts and the most germane, imho, is that, if you keep telling a man he is no good, he will prove you right, as it relates to the court of public opinion and Simpson and that the prosecution is held to a higher standard, which they chose to ignore, imho. I differ with your assessment of the defense and the magnificent one as it was their duty to do exactly what the did, which, to me, was to give their client the best defense possible, letting the chips fall were the may even if it meant in the face of a poor prosecution and not be swayed by their tears. The prosecution did point out the alleged mistakes of Dr. Lee and the magnificent one, which I think the jury recognized paled in comparison to the numerous mistakes made by the prosecution. I don't think Simpson's skin color played a part in the verdict, as evidenced by the acquittal of Robert Blakely. I think his skin color played a part in the charges as evidenced by the evidence against MF and played a part in America's reaction to the jury verdict.

I can only speak for myself and say that any deprivation of liberty caused by mistakes, perjured testimony, evidence of evidence planting, contamination, cross contamination, sloppy evidence handling, storage and collection, evidence that does not fit the theory of the crime, lack of evidence and illogical theories, irrespective of who offers such or the location that the caliber of such evidence is offered, should not be used to convict a person and deprive them of their liberty, regardless of skin color and/or celebrity status, whether it be in Australia, Canada, England, France, South Africa or the United States.

[Parker]

I choose to disagree as to which party showed a lack of integrity. Imho, the prosecution showed a lack of integrity when they put MF on the stand and tried to deny any knowledge of his prior admitted conduct and when they decided not to put Martz on the stand when they realized his results were incredulously wrong and then put on an alleged expert to try to explain away his incredible results, not to mention the perjured testimony of MF, the slanting of Fung's testimony about the time he collected the socks or Mazzola's feigned testimony about not remembering a gate, not to mention that preposterous and rehearsed testimony of Peratis, trying to explain away the missing blood, a ridiculous time line, gloves that did not fit, the stupidity of what they called a disguise, a contradictory blood trail at Rockingham, and the unscientific opinion that type AB blood degraded in a manner inconsistent with the scientific literature. I agree with certain portions of your posts and the most germane, imho, is that, if you keep telling a man he is no good, he will prove you right, as it relates to the court of public opinion and Simpson and that the prosecution is held to a higher standard, which they chose to ignore, imho. I differ with your assessment of the defense and the magnificent one as it was their duty to do exactly what the did, which, to me, was to give their client the best defense possible, letting the chips fall were the may even if it meant in the face of a poor prosecution and not be swayed by their tears. The prosecution did point out the alleged mistakes of Dr. Lee and the magnificent one, which I think the jury recognized paled in comparison to the numerous mistakes made by the prosecution. I don't think Simpson's skin color played a part in the verdict, as evidenced by the acquittal of Robert Blakely. I think his skin color played a part in the charges as evidenced by the evidence against MF and played a part in America's reaction to the jury verdict.

I can only speak for myself and say that any deprivation of liberty caused by mistakes, perjured testimony, evidence of evidence planting, contamination, cross contamination, sloppy evidence handling, storage and collection, evidence that does not fit the theory of the crime, lack of evidence and illogical theories, irrespective of who offers such or the location that the caliber of such evidence is offered, should not be used to convict a person and deprive them of their liberty, regardless of skin color and/or celebrity status, whether it be in Australia, Canada, England, France, South Africa or the United States.

William Anthony what fgump is saying, I think and I agree with. The truth is the truth. And that may not always be what the courts say it is. JMO.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony what fgump is saying, I think and I agree with. The truth is the truth. And that may not always be what the courts say it is. JMO.

You most certainly are entitled to your opinion and by the statistics most agree with your opinion, despite the evidence in my prior post, and the fact that the jury verdict is aligned with the notion that they felt the defense had the most integrity, imho. I would only like to add that the defense did not call Fung, Mazzola or MF and any discomfort they felt as being called as witnesses was a result of the prosecution's deciding to place them on the stand. I think the prosecution should be blamed for leading the lambs to slaughter.

[William Anthony]

I choose to disagree as to which party showed a lack of integrity. Imho, the prosecution showed a lack of integrity when they put MF on the stand and tried to deny any knowledge of his prior admitted conduct and when they decided not to put Martz on the stand when they realized his results were incredulously wrong and then put on an alleged expert to try to explain away his incredible results, not to mention the perjured testimony of MF, the slanting of Fung's testimony about the time he collected the socks or Mazzola's feigned testimony about not remembering a gate, not to mention that preposterous and rehearsed testimony of Peratis, trying to explain away the missing blood, a ridiculous time line, gloves that did not fit, the stupidity of what they called a disguise, a contradictory blood trail at Rockingham, and the unscientific opinion that type AB blood degraded in a manner inconsistent with the scientific literature. I agree with certain portions of your posts and the most germane, imho, is that, if you keep telling a man he is no good, he will prove you right, as it relates to the court of public opinion and Simpson and that the prosecution is held to a higher standard, which they chose to ignore, imho. I differ with your assessment of the defense and the magnificent one as it was their duty to do exactly what the did, which, to me, was to give their client the best defense possible, letting the chips fall were the may even if it meant in the face of a poor prosecution and not be swayed by their tears. The prosecution did point out the alleged mistakes of Dr. Lee and the magnificent one, which I think the jury recognized paled in comparison to the numerous mistakes made by the prosecution. I don't think Simpson's skin color played a part in the verdict, as evidenced by the acquittal of Robert Blakely. I think his skin color played a part in the charges as evidenced by the evidence against MF and played a part in America's reaction to the jury verdict.

I can only speak for myself and say that any deprivation of liberty caused by mistakes, perjured testimony, evidence of evidence planting, contamination, cross contamination, sloppy evidence handling, storage and collection, evidence that does not fit the theory of the crime, lack of evidence and illogical theories, irrespective of who offers such or the location that the caliber of such evidence is offered, should not be used to convict a person and deprive them of their liberty, regardless of skin color and/or celebrity status, whether it be in Australia, Canada, England, France, South Africa or the United States.

Correction-Robert Blake, :). I couldn't think of his correct last name until now.

[William Anthony]

If WA or Martin think that all non forensic science (chemistry, physics or biology) for example has to be done perfectly or it is ignored; then they don’t know much about science

I don't think that either of the sciences listed above are forensic arts or junk sciences, although they are used in the forensic arts or junk sciences.

[tv]

I don't know why you seem upset and, if you aren't then forget this posts, but I must say that I used a smiley and enjoyed your question as it was posed in a manner that a lawyer would pose questions. I do not know what you have against lawyers but I think it is an honorable profession and meant nothing untoward. However, I answered your question to the best of my understanding as to what you were asking and I really don't know what you are bothering about. If that is what you meant to say, then accept my answer, as I do not know for a fact that Simpson is innocent or guilty, which you have made mention of your awareness to my previous response.

William, I'm not upset. I would like for you say if you think OJ Simpson is guilty or not guilty of murder. Not whether you think he's guilty by what you consider to be legal standards but what you personally believe in your heart. I asked you the same question nearly two years ago and I'm still waiting for you to answer. :)<-------- Please take note of the smiley.

[William Anthony]

William, I'm not upset. I would like for you say if you think OJ Simpson is guilty or not guilty of murder. Not whether you think he's guilty by what you consider to be legal standards but what you personally believe in your heart. I asked you the same question nearly two years ago and I'm still waiting for you to answer. :)<-------- Please take note of the smiley.

I will try to answer your question to the best of my ability. I have not formed a belief as to whether or not he committed the murders. The question of whether or not he got away with murder is not as significant to me as it is whether or not the prosecution was able to prove he did and why the divide in public opinion was exposed by that particular jury verdict.

[tv]

I will try to answer your question to the best of my ability. I have not formed a belief as to whether or not he committed the murders. The question of whether or not he got away with murder is not as significant to me as it is whether or not the prosecution was able to prove he did and why the divide in public opinion was exposed by that particular jury verdict.
Okay. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angry032.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

[William Anthony]

I think that most feel Robert Blake got away with murder but yet I have not seen on this board an equal amount of outrage against the verdict, jury, and his defense team. This is what I find most interesting when I compare Simpson to others similarly situated. I wonder what the differences are and why. I question why, when someone feels that there were things in the case that led to reasonable doubt, they are met with such a high degree of emotional responses on this board.

[William Anthony]

Okay. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angry032.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

Cute and I like that. :)

[tv]

I think that most feel Robert Blake got away with murder but yet I have not seen on this board an equal amount of outrage against the verdict, jury, and his defense team. This is what I find most interesting when I compare Simpson to others similarly situated. I wonder what the differences are and why. I question why, when someone feels that there were things in the case that led to reasonable doubt, they are met with such a high degree of emotional responses on this board.
William, we've been over this before but we can do it again. OJ Simpson and his legal problems have generated a huge amount of interest because he was a much beloved American sports hero and popular culture icon. No one really cares about Robert Blake -- he's a weird guy and fairly, or unfairly, no one cares about his victim. I think he's guilty of either killing his wife himself, or more likely, having someone else kill her.

The case itself is much more intriguing than the Robert Blake case. The reason there's more interest in OJ Simpson is no more complicated than that.

[tv]

Cute and I like that. :)Thank you -- feel free to borrow it anytime. :)

[William Anthony]

William, we've been over this before but we can do it again. OJ Simpson and his legal problems have generated a huge amount of interest because he was a much beloved American sports hero and popular culture icon. No one really cares about Robert Blake -- he's a weird guy and fairly, or unfairly, no one cares about his victim. I think he's guilty of either killing his wife himself, or more likely, having someone else kill her.

The case itself is much more intriguing than the Robert Blake case. The reason there's more interest in OJ Simpson is no more complicated than that.

Robert Blake was a much beloved tv star and his "Beretta" television series was a cultural icon, establishing the saying, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime." Why does no one care about his victim and shouldn't the members who post on this thread feel equally about the fact that a person was murdered and justice not served? Why is this case more intriguing than Blake's and why is there more interest in Simpson? I saw Blake more often on television than I did Simpson. Blake came into households across America on a weekly basis, whereas Simpson only did when some games during football season were televised and not on a weekly basis.

[Salem]

A very interesting question, imho. I know for a fact that he is not guilty of murder and so should everyone else, imho. I am not convinced that he did or did not commit murder. I am convinced that there was reasonable doubt of his guilt and, therefore, he could have only been deemed not guilty in a court of law. I hope I am understanding your question, correctly. I think many of are the opinion that he did commit the murders. I think that is a different question as to why they believe that.

Sorry if this has already been posted, I didn't read all the way through. My first post here. Can you explaing the "fact" that you know OJ isn't guilty? I do enjoy opposing views, but this statement, imho, is crazy.

You said you know for a fact. Can you support that statment with fact?

[Salem]

Robert Blake was a much beloved tv star and his "Beretta" television series was a cultural icon, establishing the saying, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime." Why does no one care about his victim and shouldn't the members who post on this thread feel equally about the fact that a person was murdered and justice not served? Why is this case more intriguing than Blake's and why is there more interest in Simpson? I saw Blake more often on television than I did Simpson. Blake came into households across America on a weekly basis, whereas Simpson only did when some games during football season were televised and not on a weekly basis.


I will tell you my perspective. OJ and Nicole were beautiful, rich, and powerful Nicole's family and the children, equally alluring. Toss in Kato for entertainment, and the other hollywood names mention. Add a dash of the dream team, and it was compelling.

Blake? Has been. Old. Unattractive, same for Bonnie. Boring. Uninteresting. imho

[weezer]

"An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it." To be able to acknowledge when we are wrong, helps us to get it right, imho.

James Michener.

thank you -- a perfect phrase for the orenthal apologists. :beer:

[fgump2]

I think that most feel Robert Blake got away with murder but yet I have not seen on this board an equal amount of outrage against the verdict, jury, and his defense team. This is what I find most interesting when I compare Simpson to others similarly situated. I wonder what the differences are and why. I question why, when someone feels that there were things in the case that led to reasonable doubt, they are met with such a high degree of emotional responses on this board.



First of all Blake was never famous as Mr Simpson. Secondly, the trial never got as much publicity. Also few if any people made heroes of the lawyer(s) who got Blake off. I saw pictures of people dancing in the streets because of the Simpson acquittal, but no such pictures of people dancing about Blakes acquittal. I also haven't read where Mr. Blake made any asinine statements like OJS did. I am pretty sure he made one statement in Florida that "sometimes when a man kills a woman, the woman had it coming". The fact that this man had a squeaky clean image for more than 25 years should bother us. Who a country's heroes are is important. OJ Simpson and Johnnie Cochran are unworthy as heroes.
To take up another point; most people believe that criminology is more imprecise than physics or chemistry. Criminology is usually grouped with social sciences in most universities. Most social sciences are imprecise, economics is imprecise obviously. If we don't want to call them a science, we should call them perhaps a craft. The word art doesn't fit for me.
The fact that the dream team supporters almost never expressed sympathy for the families of the victims or asked to investigate the work of the police personnel working on the case also bothered me.
If they dream team supports really thought OJS was innocent, they should have asked to examine the prior work of such people as Lange, Vanneter, Fung, and others (not to mention the one with initials of MF), and check to see if there were any problems with their work in the past; if there was any likelihood that they might have framed innocent people. If the dream team really believed that a frame-up occurred, they should be interested in any case where these people worked together, especially if the accused was a minority person. If they could have found evidence of mishandled cases, or innocent people imprisoned, that would have helped the public images of both OJS, and the dream team. By not asking for this investigation, that is almost the same as admitting that OJS was probably guilty. OJS spent more than 10M to defend himself, why not have OJS, and Cochran, and Scheck spend say, 1M to investigate people like Fungi, etc. For starters they could use the evidence that Scheck had that Fungi had falsified evidence. Well, Scheck implied he had the evidence; he made the charge. I think Scheck should have been sued for slander.

[weezer]

FYI: after orenthal's murder trial, there was multiple investigations by multiple organizations into Fuhrman's LE career -- there was/is NO evidence that the things the orenthal apologists continue to accuse Fuhrman of ever happened.

[martin II]

I believe that the 1995 criminal defense demonstrated a lack of integrity, and their supporters have been just as bad, maybe worse. I don’t have enough space here to show all my reasons, but I thought I would mention a few.
Scheck accused D. Fung of processing evidence in a dishonest manner and said that part of the reason for this was that he was afraid of his boss. And yet the defense never showed any evidence that either his boss applied pressure, or that Fung deliberately did anything dishonest. If the defense had any evidence that Fung did falsified evidence because he was afraid of his boss, they should have let the public know about it, after all Fung worked on other cases besides OJ Simpson. Scheck slung mud at two people and never showed any evidence for it. The defense did show that Fung made some mistakes, but this isn’t the same as showing that it was deliberate. To sling mud at the police without backing it up with facts harms us all. People who approve of these tactics should remember the saying “keep telling a man he is no good and pretty soon he will prove you right”. To subject law enforcement or anyone else, to unnecessary and unsubstantiated insults is wrong. It will result in either higher taxes or lower quality police work. The defense has the moral right to criticize the work at the criminologists, but engage in unsupported insults is morally wrong. I think Scheck made these accusations to get Fung rattled.
I find it infuriating that very few people have spoken out against Scheck or the dream team for this. Scheck also misquoted Henry Lee at least twice in a manner that helped the defense.
Supporters of the dream team usually roast A. Mazzola for failing to initial a piece of paper, and D. Fung for not remembering what he did several months earlier. And yet they always praise J. Cochran for his work. In his opening statement Cochran broke the Reciprocal discovery law. He did this by mentioning 14 witnesses that would support the defense, and he hadn’t provided this information to the prosecution. This is on page 300 of V Bugliosi’s book. I think it was probably deliberate, and some of these witnesses were pretty pathetic. I think it is hypocritical to roast Mazzolla or Fung for their lapses, and call Cochran magnificent. It would be interesting to get a bunch of people who don’t have a preconceived opinion of the case (say 12 – 15 year olds from some country where the trial didn’t get much publicity), and ask them which they think is most serious, Cochran’s mistakes, or Mazzola’s, or Fung’s memory problems. Cochran had a bunch of people working under him to check on his work, whereas Mazzola didn’t.
Supporters of the dream team often talk about the junk science of the prosecution. They also often say that ‘if the police criminologists and pathologists had followed procedures these problems wouldn’t have come up’. I think what they mean is that if all the law enforcement people had done their work perfectly there would have been no problems. I think if all the work had been done perfectly, I would assume it was rigged or a miracle. It is also odd that people who are so picky about police errors are so accepting of Cochran errors, and Henry Lee errors. If WA or Martin think that all non forensic science (chemistry, physics or biology) for example has to be done perfectly or it is ignored; then they don’t know much about science. It is also a sign of either foolish thinking or dishonesty to roast Mazzola and Fung for things like not initialing a piece of paper, and then praise the world’s best criminologist (AKA Henry Lee) and ignore his inability to tell the difference between foot prints in blood and trowel marks in cement. I realize that the prosecutions work is held to a higher standard, but if a guy comes through with the billing that Henry Lee (or Mr. Cochran) did, the public should examine his work and hold him to high standards. To use an example I used earlier it would be interesting to get people with an open mind (and who don’t know the skin colors involved or OJ’s celebrity background) to pass judgment on the work of Mazzola, Fung, and Lee, or Cochran.
Would supporters of the dream team (WA and Martin for example) all of a sudden find the mistakes of Cochran and H Lee to be unacceptable if they tried to convict people with their techniques? I know that Johnnie Cochran is dead.

Le me make a correction in your post about Mazzola.

She did not fail to put her initials on a PIECE of paper.

She collected DOZENS of blood samples and testified that she initialed all of the envelopes in this case as she always did in other colleciton activities.
That was her testimony on direct.

Prior to her cross examination by defense she was told by the prosecution that her initielas were not on the envelopes the defense planned to present in court so feeling that she had put her initials on the envelopes she went to the lab to look for the envelopes.
ON cross examination she was given ALL of the envelopes and asked to identify the intials she said she put on the envelopes.. She could not as her initials were not on the envelopes presentes in court.. Her excuse was she did not know why they were now not there.

Mazzola made notes of all of her collection activities so it was not that her memory was bad because of time. If you see this as something minor it is quite ok with me but i don't see it that way.imo

[martin II]

First of all Blake was never famous as Mr Simpson. Secondly, the trial never got as much publicity. Also few if any people made heroes of the lawyer(s) who got Blake off. I saw pictures of people dancing in the streets because of the Simpson acquittal, but no such pictures of people dancing about Blakes acquittal. I also haven't read where Mr. Blake made any asinine statements like OJS did. I am pretty sure he made one statement in Florida that "sometimes when a man kills a woman, the woman had it coming". The fact that this man had a squeaky clean image for more than 25 years should bother us. Who a country's heroes are is important. OJ Simpson and Johnnie Cochran are unworthy as heroes.
To take up another point; most people believe that criminology is more imprecise than physics or chemistry. Criminology is usually grouped with social sciences in most universities. Most social sciences are imprecise, economics is imprecise obviously. If we don't want to call them a science, we should call them perhaps a craft. The word art doesn't fit for me.
The fact that the dream team supporters almost never expressed sympathy for the families of the victims or asked to investigate the work of the police personnel working on the case also bothered me.
If they dream team supports really thought OJS was innocent, they should have asked to examine the prior work of such people as Lange, Vanneter, Fung, and others (not to mention the one with initials of MF), and check to see if there were any problems with their work in the past; if there was any likelihood that they might have framed innocent people. If the dream team really believed that a frame-up occurred, they should be interested in any case where these people worked together, especially if the accused was a minority person. If they could have found evidence of mishandled cases, or innocent people imprisoned, that would have helped the public images of both OJS, and the dream team. By not asking for this investigation, that is almost the same as admitting that OJS was probably guilty. OJS spent more than 10M to defend himself, why not have OJS, and Cochran, and Scheck spend say, 1M to investigate people like Fungi, etc. For starters they could use the evidence that Scheck had that Fungi had falsified evidence. Well, Scheck implied he had the evidence; he made the charge. I think Scheck should have been sued for slander.

In a criminal trial the defense does not have to prove anything. They only have to show the jury that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonabvle doubt which they did.
So all of what you think the defence should have done means nothing in a crinminal trial.imo

[William Anthony]

Sorry if this has already been posted, I didn't read all the way through. My first post here. Can you explaing the "fact" that you know OJ isn't guilty? I do enjoy opposing views, but this statement, imho, is crazy.

You said you know for a fact. Can you support that statment with fact?

Yes, Simpson went through a trial and the verdict at the end of the trial was not guilty.

[weezer]

"During redirect examination, Goldberg asked whether she was involved in an elaborate conspiracy with the police agasinst Simpson. Mazzola said she was not."

there is and has never been ANY credible evidence that planting of evidence occurred in the simpson case.

[William Anthony]

I will tell you my perspective. OJ and Nicole were beautiful, rich, and powerful Nicole's family and the children, equally alluring. Toss in Kato for entertainment, and the other hollywood names mention. Add a dash of the dream team, and it was compelling.

Blake? Has been. Old. Unattractive, same for Bonnie. Boring. Uninteresting. imho

Thank you for being honest and you may be correct that anger can be tempered by physical attractiveness and age of the victims. That is a sad thought the anger over a perceived unjust verdict depends on who is murdered and by whom.

[William Anthony]

thank you -- a perfect phrase for the orenthal apologists. :beer:

That phrase was in regard to your request for a link about "credible evidence of planting" and calling me dishonest and I simply stated what actually said was "evidence of planting" and reminded you that credibility is a matter of personal taste or how one sees the evidence, if you will.

[William Anthony]

First of all Blake was never famous as Mr Simpson. Secondly, the trial never got as much publicity. Also few if any people made heroes of the lawyer(s) who got Blake off. I saw pictures of people dancing in the streets because of the Simpson acquittal, but no such pictures of people dancing about Blakes acquittal. I also haven't read where Mr. Blake made any asinine statements like OJS did. I am pretty sure he made one statement in Florida that "sometimes when a man kills a woman, the woman had it coming". The fact that this man had a squeaky clean image for more than 25 years should bother us. Who a country's heroes are is important. OJ Simpson and Johnnie Cochran are unworthy as heroes.
To take up another point; most people believe that criminology is more imprecise than physics or chemistry. Criminology is usually grouped with social sciences in most universities. Most social sciences are imprecise, economics is imprecise obviously. If we don't want to call them a science, we should call them perhaps a craft. The word art doesn't fit for me.
The fact that the dream team supporters almost never expressed sympathy for the families of the victims or asked to investigate the work of the police personnel working on the case also bothered me.
If they dream team supports really thought OJS was innocent, they should have asked to examine the prior work of such people as Lange, Vanneter, Fung, and others (not to mention the one with initials of MF), and check to see if there were any problems with their work in the past; if there was any likelihood that they might have framed innocent people. If the dream team really believed that a frame-up occurred, they should be interested in any case where these people worked together, especially if the accused was a minority person. If they could have found evidence of mishandled cases, or innocent people imprisoned, that would have helped the public images of both OJS, and the dream team. By not asking for this investigation, that is almost the same as admitting that OJS was probably guilty. OJS spent more than 10M to defend himself, why not have OJS, and Cochran, and Scheck spend say, 1M to investigate people like Fungi, etc. For starters they could use the evidence that Scheck had that Fungi had falsified evidence. Well, Scheck implied he had the evidence; he made the charge. I think Scheck should have been sued for slander.

I beg to disagree of the degree of notoriety of Simpson and Blake. You missed my point on people making heroes of the dream team. It was more in the spirit of people choosing to criticize them immediately after and during the trial and the continuing criticism of them. Perhaps, the people dancing in the streets felt that justice had been served in that the prosecution had not proven the case and the jury saw that. Why should it bother us if anyone has a lengthy squeaky clean image? I do agree that who a country's heroes are is important as evidenced by America's history books. I have heroes and people, like the magnificent one, who I admire for their skills.

You may call the forensics a craft if you like that better, just as I prefer subjective to imprecise.

The dream team was not hired to convict anyone. They were hired to do what they did.

[William Anthony]

"During redirect examination, Goldberg asked whether she was involved in an elaborate conspiracy with the police agasinst Simpson. Mazzola said she was not."

there is and has never been ANY credible evidence that planting of evidence occurred in the simpson case.

Cross examination, Ms. Mazzola there is a term of art in the legal profession called a negative pregnant, which means an answer in denial contains and admission, did you mean to say that you were engaged in a conspiracy against Simpson but not an elaborate one, or that you were aware of the conspiracy but not engaged in it?

[weezer]

Cross examination, Ms. Mazzola there is a term of art in the legal profession called a negative pregnant, which means an answer in denial contains and admission, did you mean to say that you were engaged in a conspiracy against Simpson but not an elaborate one, or that you were aware of the conspiracy but not engaged in it?

psst -- there is and never has been ANY credible evidence of planting in the simpson case. for orenthal apologists to continue to make the statements as fact is dishonest.

[William Anthony]

psst -- there is and never has been ANY credible evidence of planting in the simpson case. for orenthal apologists to continue to make the statements as fact is dishonest.

You say good bye and I say adios.

[weezer]

You say good bye and I say adios.

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth" -- or so some orenthal apologists believe.

[tv]

Robert Blake was a much beloved tv star and his "Beretta" television series was a cultural icon, establishing the saying, "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime." Why does no one care about his victim and shouldn't the members who post on this thread feel equally about the fact that a person was murdered and justice not served? Why is this case more intriguing than Blake's and why is there more interest in Simpson? I saw Blake more often on television than I did Simpson. Blake came into households across America on a weekly basis, whereas Simpson only did when some games during football season were televised and not on a weekly basis.At least two of us have already given you those answers. I'd like to turn that question around and ask why you're so interested in the Simpson case yourself. Why does this case intrigue you so much? I can think of other cases where the defendant had much less evidence against him and he/she was convicted. Scott Peterson comes to mind but there are others. You don't seem to be having an 'emotional response' to any other cases. Why are YOU more interested in Simpson than in Blake?

[Parker]

At least two of us have already given you those answers. I'd like to turn that question around and ask why you're so interested in the Simpson case yourself. Why does this case intrigue you so much? I can think of other cases where the defendant had much less evidence against him and he/she was convicted. Scott Peterson comes to mind but there are others. You don't seem to be having an 'emotional response' to any other cases. Why are YOU more interested in Simpson than in Blake?

That's a very intereting question and I hope William Anthony replies to it. IMO Blake is guilty but it wasn't proved. I think 'celebrity' played a part in both cases.

[martin II]

WOW! What a post! Thanks for raising so many points! And interesting points. What if the facts of the case and the trial were given to teenagers in Austria, or Venezuala and not given real names or racial backgrounds, yes, I'd find that really interesting.

You've given me a lot to think about. Thanks.

Minors are not allowed to serve as jury members. One must be a citizen of the u.s. and live in the community of the crime.

[William Anthony]

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth" -- or so some orenthal apologists believe.

Still waiting for the link on the pigeon-toed shoe prints you repeatedly claimed were found at Bundy.

[William Anthony]

That's a very intereting question and I hope William Anthony replies to it. IMO Blake is guilty but it wasn't proved. I think 'celebrity' played a part in both cases.

I will be glad to answer that question, again, even though I have answered it many times. My interest in this board was sparked and I became a member, after seeing the numerous negative comments about the jury and their race. When I ask the questions why about the interest in this case and why the reaction to the verdict was what it is , other than a couple, I have never gotten an answer-only answers stating that there is but never addressing the why. My original interest in the trial was sparked when I saw the command that the magnificent one had on the courtroom and the gavel to gavel coverage provided me with a unique learning experience.

[William Anthony]

That's a very intereting question and I hope William Anthony replies to it. IMO Blake is guilty but it wasn't proved. I think 'celebrity' played a part in both cases.

The feeling of most is that both Simpson and Blake were guilty were guilty but it was proven. Therefore, the question remains, why the differences in the reactions to the verdicts and to the defense teams and why the difference in the amount of outrage shown between the two. I will admit that Simpson has done things that keep him in the limelight but the reactions started long before his subsequent antics.

[Parker]

I will be glad to answer that question, again, even though I have answered it many times. My interest in this board was sparked and I became a member, after seeing the numerous negative comments about the jury and their race. When I ask the questions why about the interest in this case and why the reaction to the verdict was what it is , other than a couple, I have never gotten an answer-only answers stating that there is but never addressing the why. My original interest in the trial was sparked when I saw the command that the magnificent one had on the courtroom and the gavel to gavel coverage provided me with a unique learning experience.

So, to you, this case is racial? Not about anything else.

[William Anthony]

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth" -- or so some orenthal apologists believe.

That is what the prosecution and their witnesses believed, imho, but the dream team was able to expose their lies, especially the lies of the most infamous of their witnesses, MF.

[martin II]

First of all Blake was never famous as Mr Simpson. Secondly, the trial never got as much publicity. Also few if any people made heroes of the lawyer(s) who got Blake off. I saw pictures of people dancing in the streets because of the Simpson acquittal, but no such pictures of people dancing about Blakes acquittal. I also haven't read where Mr. Blake made any asinine statements like OJS did. I am pretty sure he made one statement in Florida that "sometimes when a man kills a woman, the woman had it coming". The fact that this man had a squeaky clean image for more than 25 years should bother us. Who a country's heroes are is important. OJ Simpson and Johnnie Cochran are unworthy as heroes.
To take up another point; most people believe that criminology is more imprecise than physics or chemistry. Criminology is usually grouped with social sciences in most universities. Most social sciences are imprecise, economics is imprecise obviously. If we don't want to call them a science, we should call them perhaps a craft. The word art doesn't fit for me.
The fact that the dream team supporters almost never expressed sympathy for the families of the victims or asked to investigate the work of the police personnel working on the case also bothered me.
If they dream team supports really thought OJS was innocent, they should have asked to examine the prior work of such people as Lange, Vanneter, Fung, and others (not to mention the one with initials of MF), and check to see if there were any problems with their work in the past; if there was any likelihood that they might have framed innocent people. If the dream team really believed that a frame-up occurred, they should be interested in any case where these people worked together, especially if the accused was a minority person. If they could have found evidence of mishandled cases, or innocent people imprisoned, that would have helped the public images of both OJS, and the dream team. By not asking for this investigation, that is almost the same as admitting that OJS was probably guilty. OJS spent more than 10M to defend himself, why not have OJS, and Cochran, and Scheck spend say, 1M to investigate people like Fungi, etc. For starters they could use the evidence that Scheck had that Fungi had falsified evidence. Well, Scheck implied he had the evidence; he made the charge. I think Scheck should have been sued for slander.


under what criminal trial procedure or law do you believe compelled the defence to prove all that you think they should have proven in the trial??

[William Anthony]

So, to you, this case is racial? Not about anything else.

No, the comments made by some on this board about the jury were racial and not about anything else, which is why I asked the question why. Some on this board do not consider the evidence pointed out by the dream team and instead rely on comments and actions taken by the jury to arrive at the fact that the trial was about race. I am sure that it was another poster, who mentioned skin color, with which you agreed.

[William Anthony]

So, to you, this case is racial? Not about anything else.

Perhaps, a more telling example in the difference in the treatment of the witnesses was made in posts where the prosecution's witnesses made innocent mistakes, human error or irrelevant lies, while the dream team and its witnesses told lies.

[William Anthony]

(and who don’t know the skin colors involved or OJ’s celebrity background) Frump2

I don't think Simpson's skin color played a part in the verdict, as evidenced by the acquittal of Robert Blakely, my post which you placed in bold.

William Anthony what fgump is saying, I think and I agree with. The truth is the truth. And that may not always be what the courts say it is. JMO.


Reply With Quote-post by Parker

[William Anthony]

To me, next to the failed glove-fitting demonstration, the staged and rehearsed video tape trying to explain away the missing ccs of blood, was the most desperate and damaging piece of evidence the prosecution put on. Desperate times call for desperate measures, imho, followed by the failure to call Martz, because his results showed he was dead.

[Parker]

To me, next to the failed glove-fitting demonstration, the staged and rehearsed video tape trying to explain away the missing ccs of blood, was the most desperate and damaging piece of evidence the prosecution put on. Desperate times call for desperate measures, imho, followed by the failure to call Martz, because his results showed he was dead.


Sorry, I don't understand your reply.:)

[martin II]

So, to you, this case is racial? Not about anything else.

The case was about murder. The media and others made it about race as it involved a accused black man and a white woman victim.

[William Anthony]

Sorry, I don't understand your reply.:)

Martz testified that he found the preservative EDTA in the sock and gate stain and in his blood in a range that would be toxic to a human being and the prosecution did not call him because of that, imho.:) However, the dream team did.

[martin II]

Sorry, I don't understand your reply.:)

See trial testimony.

[William Anthony]

Why are YOU more interested in Simpson than in Blake?

I have not seen the outcry against the verdict in the Blake case, nor an equal amount of criticism of the Blake case, nor any accusation that the verdict was racially biased, nor an equal amount of criticism against the defense team. Therefore, I must assume that the court of public opinion is satisfied that the jury was correct in deciding there was reasonable doubt and moved on.

[tv]

I have not seen the outcry against the verdict in the Blake case, nor an equal amount of criticism of the Blake case, nor any accusation that the verdict was racially biased, nor an equal amount of criticism against the defense team. Therefore, I must assume that the court of public opinion is satisfied that the jury was correct in deciding there was reasonable doubt and moved on.
You still haven't answered the question.

[tv]

The case was about murder. The media and others made it about race as it involved a accused black man and a white woman victim.Truthfully, I don't remember the media making an issue out of the race of OJ Simpson or the victims. Who are the 'others' besides the defense and OJ suppporters? By the way, there was also another victim in addition to the white woman -- a man named Ron Goldman.

[William Anthony]

You still haven't answered the question.

The answer was the why I am not as interested. Here it is, again, :).

"I have not seen the outcry against the verdict in the Blake case, nor an equal amount of criticism of the Blake case, nor any accusation that the verdict was racially biased, nor an equal amount of criticism against the defense team. Therefore, I must assume that the court of public opinion is satisfied that the jury was correct in deciding there was reasonable doubt and moved on."

I guess I should have started my answer with "Because".:)

[William Anthony]

Truthfully, I don't remember the media making an issue out of the race of OJ Simpson or the victims. Who are the 'others' besides the defense and OJ suppporters? By the way, there was also another victim in addition to the white woman -- a man named Ron Goldman.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-17572397.html

http://www.newser.com/archive-us-news/1G1-15804891/in-oj-simpson-murder-case-race-is-at-core-of-defense-strategy-originated-from-knight-ridder.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4934067

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/15/nation/na-oj15

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/oj/theojverdict.pdf

[tv]

The answer was the why I am not as interested. Here it is, again, :).

"I have not seen the outcry against the verdict in the Blake case, nor an equal amount of criticism of the Blake case, nor any accusation that the verdict was racially biased, nor an equal amount of criticism against the defense team. Therefore, I must assume that the court of public opinion is satisfied that the jury was correct in deciding there was reasonable doubt and moved on."

I guess I should have started my answer with "Because".:)

Perhaps you should have. :) I'm still confused, however. There are people that believe OJ Simpson is guilty but what difference does it make? He was found not guilty and allowed to walk free. Take, for instance, the Scott Peterson case -- he was found guilty on much less evidence than was presented in the Simpson case and he sits on death row. Why are you not concerned that the verdict in his case was a miscarriage of justice? I'm trying to understand why the OJ Simpson case, with a not guilty verdict, is more compelling to you than others.

[tv]

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-17572397.html

http://www.newser.com/archive-us-news/1G1-15804891/in-oj-simpson-murder-case-race-is-at-core-of-defense-strategy-originated-from-knight-ridder.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4934067

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/15/nation/na-oj15

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/oj/theojverdict.pdf

William, mentioning it in articles and actually making an issue of it and affecting the outcome is another thing altogether. I do believe his supporters and Nicole and Ron haters made an issue out of it and helped to lead to the not-guilty verdict.

[William Anthony]

Perhaps you should have. :) I'm still confused, however. There are people that believe OJ Simpson is guilty but what difference does it make? He was found not guilty and allowed to walk free. Take, for instance, the Scott Peterson case -- he was found guilty on much less evidence than was presented in the Simpson case and he sits on death row. Why are you not concerned that the verdict in his case was a miscarriage of justice? I'm trying to understand why the OJ Simpson case, with a not guilty verdict, is more compelling to you than others.

Because, I am not making an equal issue of any verdict, including the Simpson not guilty murder verdict, but the court of public opinion has determined to make an issue out of it and question why and become outraged over others, who support the verdict?

[tv]

Because, I am not making an equal issue of any verdict, including the Simpson not guilty murder verdict, but the court of public opinion has determined to make an issue out of it and question why and become outraged over others, who support the verdict?The court of public opinion can become as outraged as it wants -- the verdict was not guilty and can't be changed. If you'd rather comment on this case instead some other case where the defendant didn't receive justice that's fine with me. I was just trying to understand, that's all.

[William Anthony]

William, mentioning it in articles and actually making an issue of it and affecting the outcome is another thing altogether. I do believe his supporters and Nicole and Ron haters made an issue out of it and helped to lead to the not-guilty verdict.

The media by mentioning it made an issue out of it and let's not forget the allegations that the magnificent one played the race card. As far as affecting the outcome, it was the feelings expressed in posts on this message board, which expressed that opinion that caused me to become a member, and it seemed to me that those opinions were ignoring the concept of reasonable doubts and the evidence presented by the dream team as it pertained to reasonable doubt. Let's not forget the remarks made by Mr. Goldman during the trial about race, which was covered extensively, imho, by the media.

[tv]

The media by mentioning it made an issue out of it and let's not forget the allegations that the magnificent one played the race card. As far as affecting the outcome, it was the feelings expressed in posts on this message board, which expressed that opinion that caused me to become a member, and it seemed to me that those opinions were ignoring the concept of reasonable doubts and the evidence presented by the dream team as it pertained to reasonable doubt. Let's not forget the remarks made by Mr. Goldman during the trial about race, which was covered extensively, imho, by the media.Johnnie Cochran DID play the race card but that's old news. I don't consider him magnificent by any stretch of the imagination but I do consider his use of race as a strategy to be very clever. I don't recall Mr. Goldman making any statements of a racial nature. Would you kindly remind me what they were?

[William Anthony]

The court of public opinion can become as outraged as it wants -- the verdict was not guilty and can't be changed. If you'd rather comment on this case instead some other case where the defendant didn't receive justice that's fine with me. I was just trying to understand, that's all.

First, I begin with the assumption that there was reasonable doubt in those cases in which the defendants were acquitted and that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt in those cases where the defendant was convicted (Scott Peterson) and, if not, there will be issues raised on appeal. I did not start this board and can only, as a member comment on what has been posted, meaning that, if someone feels that Scott Peterson was wrongly convicted, then a forum may be started to address that issue and I might agree or disagree.:) Second, from the assumptions I started with, I still do not understand why there is the amount of outcry over the Simpson murder verdict and not with others.

[William Anthony]

Johnnie Cochran DID play the race card but that's old news. I don't consider him magnificent by any stretch of the imagination but I do consider his use of race as a strategy to be very clever. I don't recall Mr. Goldman making any statements of a racial nature. Would you kindly remind me what they were?

The magnificent one did not play the race card. He did however expose the racial views of the most infamous detective involved in the case as it related to MF's motive, opportunity and means to plant evidence in this case and the issue of MF's, who was later convicted of perjury in this case, credibility. Surely, you haven't forgotten his emotional statement about judge Ito having played the despicable comments made by MF to the world.

[martin II]

Truthfully, I don't remember the media making an issue out of the race of OJ Simpson or the victims. Who are the 'others' besides the defense and OJ suppporters? By the way, there was also another victim in addition to the white woman -- a man named Ron Goldman.

Truthfully i believe your memory has failed you.
cnn did a poll before the trial and reported that 85% of white people though oj was guilty. that made it about race.

[martin II]

William, mentioning it in articles and actually making an issue of it and affecting the outcome is another thing altogether. I do believe his supporters and Nicole and Ron haters made an issue out of it and helped to lead to the not-guilty verdict.

Some jury members thought the prosecution played the race card first when they added C Darden to the prosecution table. imo

[William Anthony]

IIRC,

July 12th came before the information on the tapes about MF and we may be able to place in context who tried to play the race card first.

Testimony and questions, July 12th

"MR. DARDEN: Did you ever tell Mr. Stevens, my investigator, that it sounded like a white male?"

MR. HEIDSTRA: No.

MR. DARDEN: Never said that?

MR. HEIDSTRA: I don't recall that at all. I said it was a clear voice but never what kind of white or brown or yellow.

MR. DARDEN: And then there was that second voice, correct?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Right.

MR. DARDEN: And that second voice, that voice sounded deeper than the first voice, didn't it?

MR. HEIDSTRA: A little bit, but I couldn't hardly hear it with the dogs, the commotion with two dogs there. It was very short.

MR. DARDEN: Did you ever tell anyone that the second voice was a deep voice?

MR. HEIDSTRA: It was deep, it was deeper than the other one other than, "Hey, hey, hey."

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So the second voice was deeper than the first one?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yeah, a little deeper. I couldn't hardly hear it. It was just very short.

MR. DARDEN: And the second voice that you heard, did it sound to you as if the person with the second voice was older than the person with the first voice?

MR. COCHRAN: Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

THE COURT: Foundational.

MR. DARDEN: Can you tell us whether or not the second voice sounded more mature than the first voice?

MR. COCHRAN: Same objection.

MR. HEIDSTRA: I couldn't say that.

THE COURT: Hold on.

MR. DARDEN: The second voice that you heard sounded like the voice of a black man; is that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Objected to, your Honor. I object.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained"

[tv]

First, I begin with the assumption that there was reasonable doubt in those cases in which the defendants were acquitted and that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt in those cases where the defendant was convicted (Scott Peterson) and, if not, there will be issues raised on appeal. I did not start this board and can only, as a member comment on what has been posted, meaning that, if someone feels that Scott Peterson was wrongly convicted, then a forum may be started to address that issue and I might agree or disagree.:) Second, from the assumptions I started with, I still do not understand why there is the amount of outcry over the Simpson murder verdict and not with others.

The outcry is because most of America, and the world, thinks that a double-murderer got away with slaughtering two human beings. You've been told many times why the fascination with this case but you choose to believe it's because the defendant was black and the victims white. You're wrong. :)

[tv]

IIRC,

July 12th came before the information on the tapes about MF and we may be able to place in context who tried to play the race card first.

Testimony and questions, July 12th

"MR. DARDEN: Did you ever tell Mr. Stevens, my investigator, that it sounded like a white male?"

MR. HEIDSTRA: No.

MR. DARDEN: Never said that?

MR. HEIDSTRA: I don't recall that at all. I said it was a clear voice but never what kind of white or brown or yellow.

MR. DARDEN: And then there was that second voice, correct?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Right.

MR. DARDEN: And that second voice, that voice sounded deeper than the first voice, didn't it?

MR. HEIDSTRA: A little bit, but I couldn't hardly hear it with the dogs, the commotion with two dogs there. It was very short.

MR. DARDEN: Did you ever tell anyone that the second voice was a deep voice?

MR. HEIDSTRA: It was deep, it was deeper than the other one other than, "Hey, hey, hey."

MR. DARDEN: Okay. So the second voice was deeper than the first one?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yeah, a little deeper. I couldn't hardly hear it. It was just very short.

MR. DARDEN: And the second voice that you heard, did it sound to you as if the person with the second voice was older than the person with the first voice?

MR. COCHRAN: Calls for speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Okay.

THE COURT: Foundational.

MR. DARDEN: Can you tell us whether or not the second voice sounded more mature than the first voice?

MR. COCHRAN: Same objection.

MR. HEIDSTRA: I couldn't say that.

THE COURT: Hold on.

MR. DARDEN: The second voice that you heard sounded like the voice of a black man; is that correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Objected to, your Honor. I object.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained"

What's your point?

[William Anthony]

What's your point?

My point is that contrary to public opinion it wasn't the magnificent one that played the race card. It was, however, the prosecution that played it first, by the obvious inference trying to be established that whoever committed the murders of Mr. RG and Ms. NBS had to be Black.

[tv]

Some jury members thought the prosecution played the race card first when they added C Darden to the prosecution table. imo

The jury isn't there to judge the appropriateness of the race of the prosecution team. What was wrong with Chris Darden being part of the prosecution? Should he have been excluded because of his race? Geez, martin, what a thing to suggest. :eek: I haven't seen any mention of playing the race card by the defense because of Bailey or Shapiro being on the team...what's the difference?

[William Anthony]

The outcry is because most of America, and the world, thinks that a double-murderer got away with slaughtering two human beings. You've been told many times why the fascination with this case but you choose to believe it's because the defendant was black and the victims white. You're wrong. :)

Ah, I have never said that the fascination was due to the race of the victims and the defendant. However, many posts indicate that is the underlying reason that he allegedly got away with murder, as some rely on the statement made by the juror "We take care of our own", and the Black Power salute to support their feelings and they use these thing to refer to the jurors as uneducated, ignorant and racially biased to reinforce their opinion that the verdict was racially motivated, without considering, imho, the prosecution's failure and incorrectly blame the magnificent one, imho, for playing the race card. I am not saying that they are right or wrong, other than for blaming the magnificent one. What I am saying is that the underlying causes to me represents why there is this fascination, whether admitted or not.

[tv]

My point is that contrary to public opinion it wasn't the magnificent one that played the race card. It was, however, the prosecution that played it first, by the obvious inference trying to be established that whoever committed the murders of Mr. RG and Ms. NBS had to be Black.William, it's sometimes possible to tell the race of a person by the timbre of their voice. Black men often have deeper, richer voices than their white or asian counterparts. These differences are subtle and not infallible. Trying to establish the quality of the voice is just a step in determining the perpetrator. You don't seem to take issue with the fact that Mr. Darden asked Mr. Heidstra if the other voice sounded young.

William, you don't sound like Steve Urkel do you? :D

[tv]

Ah, I have never said that the fascination was due to the race of the victims and the defendant. However, many posts indicate that is the underlying reason that he allegedly got away with murder, as some rely on the statement made by the juror "We take care of our own", and the Black Power salute to support their feelings and they use these thing to refer to the jurors as uneducated, ignorant and racially biased to reinforce their opinion that the verdict was racially motivated, without considering, imho, the prosecution's failure and incorrectly blame the magnificent one, imho, for playing the race card. I am not saying that they are right or wrong, other than for blaming the magnificent one. What I am saying is that the underlying causes to me represents why there is this fascination, whether admitted or not.I can only speak for myself but I never factored race into the crime itself until I came to this forum.

[tv]

The magnificent one did not play the race card. He did however expose the racial views of the most infamous detective involved in the case as it related to MF's motive, opportunity and means to plant evidence in this case and the issue of MF's, who was later convicted of perjury in this case, credibility. Surely, you haven't forgotten his emotional statement about judge Ito having played the despicable comments made by MF to the world.Yes, he disagreed with them being played in the courtroom and I wholeheartedly agree.

[William Anthony]

William, it's sometimes possible to tell the race of a person by the timbre of their voice. Black men often have deeper, richer voices than their white or asian counterparts. These differences are subtle and not infallible. Trying to establish the quality of the voice is just a step in determining the perpetrator. You don't seem to take issue with the fact that Mr. Darden asked Mr. Heidstra if the other voice sounded young.

William, you don't sound like Steve Urkel do you? :D

The key to your post is this "it's sometimes possible to tell the race of a person by the timbre of their voice." A court of law will not allow speculation which Darden should have known. The issue we were discussing is who tried to play the race card, not the age card.:) The questions were not to the quality of the voices but to the race of the voices and should not have been based on the following stereotypes, imho, "Black men often have deeper, richer voices than their white or asian counterparts."

No, I don't sound like Steve Urkle. Do you sound like Rose on the Golden Girls?:)

[weezer]

Truthfully i believe your memory has failed you.
cnn did a poll before the trial and reported that 85% of white people though oj was guilty. that made it about race.

hmm -- what was the percentage for black?

[William Anthony]

Yes, he disagreed with them being played in the courtroom and I wholeheartedly agree.

The entire tapes were played outside the presence of the jury and, therefore, no prejudice resulted to the prosecution or the defense.They were played outside the jury's presence on voir dire for the purpose of laying a foundation for their admissibility. I disagree with Mr. Goldman's and your opinion, since a foundation must be laid before any or part of any evidence is admitted.

[William Anthony]

I can only speak for myself but I never factored race into the crime itself until I came to this forum.

Was that after you read the incorrect posts on who played the race card or the negative comments made about the jury?

[tv]

The key to your post is this "it's sometimes possible to tell the race of a person by the timbre of their voice." A court of law will not allow speculation which Darden should have known. The issue we were discussing is who tried to play the race card, not the age card.:) The questions were not to the quality of the voices but to the race of the voices and should not have been based on the following stereotypes, imho, "Black men often have deeper, richer voices than their white or asian counterparts."

No, I don't sound like Steve Urkle. Do you sound like Rose on the Golden Girls?:)Speculation is not allowed but I'm sure you, as a future lawyer, know that sometimes things are brought up just to get it in the minds of the jury. You can't unring the bell, so to speak.

To say voice quality is a stereotype is not true. There have been studies to support this. Different races have different bone structures which contributes to the sound of one's voice...what's wrong with diversity?

Actually, I look like Rose on the Golden Girls except she's much younger. :tongue:

[tv]

Was that after you read the incorrect posts on who played the race card or the negative comments made about the jury?Neither.

[William Anthony]

Speculation is not allowed but I'm sure you, as a future lawyer, know that sometimes things are brought up just to get it in the minds of the jury. You can't unring the bell, so to speak.

To say voice quality is a stereotype is not true. There have been studies to support this. Different races have different bone structures which contributes to the sound of one's voice...what's wrong with diversity?

Actually, I look like Rose on the Golden Girls except she's much younger. :tongue:

That is my point that you can not dismiss the sound of a bell once it rings, which was the prosecution's attempt and injected race into the trial.

I happen to think that Rose is attractive and I guess that would make you an older attractive version.:)

Here is some interesting reading on race and the media coverage.

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

[weezer]

Was that after you read the incorrect posts on who played the race card or the negative comments made about the jury?

everyone agreed -- including members of the defense team -- that cochran played the race card.

[William Anthony]

Neither.

I know I shouldn't but I must ask. :) When after you came to this board did you factor in race as a part of the trial?

[tv]

That is my point that you can not dismiss the sound of a bell once it rings, which was the prosecution's attempt and injected race into the trial.

I happen to think that Rose is attractive and I guess that would make you an older attractive version.:)

Here is some interesting reading on race and the media coverage.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/media.html
No, *sigh*, the prosecution believed OJ Simpson to be the perpetrator. He just happened to be black...good heavens, do the irresponsible accusations of racism agains the prosecution ever end?

How about caucasian hair that was found at the crime scene? You and martin have both suggested that it means a caucasian could have committed the murders. Isn't that injecting race according to your standards?

[tv]

Truthfully i believe your memory has failed you.
cnn did a poll before the trial and reported that 85% of white people though oj was guilty. that made it about race.
No, what made it about race was that most blacks thought he was innocent.

[tv]

I know I shouldn't but I must ask. :) When after you came to this board did you factor in race as a part of the trial?I always did think the defense factored it in to win the case but I never thought they really believed it themselves. I still don't think they believed it but I think some members of this board are convinced of it. I read this board a while before posting and was aware of the racial component in a couple of days. That is, if I recall correctly.

[William Anthony]

No, *sigh*, the prosecution believed OJ Simpson to be the perpetrator. He just happened to be black...good heavens, do the irresponsible accusations of racism agains the prosecution ever end?

How about causcasian hair that was found at the crime scene? You and martin have both suggested that it means a causcasian could have committed the murders. Isn't that injecting race according to your standards?

Let me see if I can ask what I think would be a series of appropriate questions on that issue without injecting race into the equation.

Are you familiar with the voice of Mr. Simpson either by hearing it on television or in the movies?

Do you think that you would be able to recognize the voice of Mr. Simpson if you heard it?

Did the second voice you heard appear to you to be the voice of Mr. Simpson?

The Caucasian hair dispelled the notion, which the prosecution injected, that the murders could only have been committed by a Black man, imho.

[tv]

everyone agreed -- including members of the defense team -- that cochran played the race card.Reportedly Johnnie Cochran said he needed only one black on the jury. That was right out of the horse's mouth as they say. :)

[William Anthony]

I always did think the defense factored it in to win the case but I never thought they really believed it themselves. I still don't think they believed it but I think some members of this board are convinced of it. I read this board a while before posting and was aware of the racial component in a couple of days. That is, if I recall correctly.

Well now, you have evidence that the prosecution attempted to factor it in, if you desire to consider it and, judging by the closing arguments and the efforts the defense went through to get the tapes and the witnesses on MF's racial bias, I would say that imho the defense, with the exception of Shapiro, who may have been disgruntled over the fact that he was demoted and did not discover the evidence, vehemently believed it. I will look to see if you were a member before I was. :)

[William Anthony]

Reportedly Johnnie Cochran said he needed only one black on the jury. That was right out of the horse's mouth as they say. :)

That was an out of court hearsay statement made by his former wife, who successfully fought the subpoena to testify, IIRC.

[tv]

Well now, you have evidence that the prosecution attempted to factor it in, if you desire to consider it and, judging by the closing arguments and the efforts the defense went through to get the tapes and the witnesses on MF's racial bias, I would say that imho the defense, with the exception of Shapiro, who may have been disgruntled over the fact that he was demoted and did not discover the evidence, vehemently believed it. I will look to see if you were a member before I was. :)

Nope, you were before me.

[William Anthony]

Reportedly Johnnie Cochran said he needed only one black on the jury. That was right out of the horse's mouth as they say. :)

The former Ms. Cochran may not like you calling her a horse so to say. :)

[tv]

That was an out of court hearsay statement made by his former wife, who successfully fought the subpoena to testify, IIRC.I didn't say it was in court...hence, the use of the word 'reportedly'. I don't doubt the statement was made.

[tv]

The former Ms. Cochran may not like you calling her a horse so to say. :)Perhaps not, but I'm sure she's been through much worse or at least that's what I've heard. :)

[William Anthony]

Nope, you were before me.

Well then, you may or may not have been privy to comments made about the jury, accusing them of racial bias, although I am pretty sure they were still being made in April, 2007.

[weezer]

Reportedly Johnnie Cochran said he needed only one black on the jury. That was right out of the horse's mouth as they say. :)

cochran knew how to read a jury -- especially this "we take care of our own' jury.

[William Anthony]

Perhaps not, but I'm sure she's been through much worse or at least that's what I've heard. :)

Yes, those out of court hearsay statements, again. :)

[weezer]

Perhaps not, but I'm sure she's been through much worse or at least that's what I've heard. :)

which one are we talking about? the wife or the mistress?

[William Anthony]

cochran knew how to read a jury -- especially this "we take care of our own' jury.

Yes, the magnificent one looked for jurors, who took care of their own (citizens accused of crimes) and were able to hold the prosecution to its burden, despite the race of the victims and the defendant.

[William Anthony]

which one are we talking about? the wife or the mistress?

Why fault a man for having more than another? :) We probably would have not had any Presidents as far back as Washington and Jefferson and as late as Clinton.

[tv]

Let me see if I can ask what I think would be a series of appropriate questions on that issue without injecting race into the equation.

Are you familiar with the voice of Mr. Simpson either by hearing it on television or in the movies?

Do you think that you would be able to recognize the voice of Mr. Simpson if you heard it?

Did the second voice you heard appear to you to be the voice of Mr. Simpson?

The Caucasian hair dispelled the notion, which the prosecution injected, that the murders could only have been committed by a Black man, imho.

William, I totally agree with you and I wish those questions had been asked. I don't think any more information would have been elicited but the questions would have been more appropriate. I never said the prosecution was more than competent.

[tv]

Why fault a man for having more than another? :) We probably would have not had any Presidents as far back as Washington and Jefferson and as late as Clinton.Wow, this is the first time I've heard you exclude Bush from any wrongdoing when given the chance. :eek:

[martin II]

The jury isn't there to judge the appropriateness of the race of the prosecution team. What was wrong with Chris Darden being part of the prosecution? Should he have been excluded because of his race? Geez, martin, what a thing to suggest. :eek: I haven't seen any mention of playing the race card by the defense because of Bailey or Shapiro being on the team...what's the difference?

The prosecutions table was all white until the jury was selected and G Garcetti decided he needed to show the jury that the prosecution was not racist so Darden as added to their table. There were other prosectors available with more trial experience than Darden.imo

[William Anthony]

William, I totally agree with you and I wish those questions had been asked. I don't think any more information would have been elicited but the questions would have been more appropriate. I never said the prosecution was more than competent.

Oh, I think the prosecution's line of questioning was competent even though inadmissible. The Bell rang with their attempted inferences-if anyone committed these murders, it was a Black man and that Black man was Simpson. They played the race card.

[martin II]

William, I totally agree with you and I wish those questions had been asked. I don't think any more information would have been elicited but the questions would have been more appropriate. I never said the prosecution was more than competent.

I think heidstra was asked by the prosecution if the second voice was that of a black man. imo

[William Anthony]

Wow, this is the first time I've heard you exclude Bush from any wrongdoing when given the chance. :eek:

There is a lot of evidence that Bush was a lot of things but I know of none that suggest he was attractive to women at the time he became, before or after, President, other than Laura. :)

[weezer]

Yes, the magnificent one looked for jurors, who took care of their own (citizens accused of crimes) and were able to hold the prosecution to its burden, despite the race of the victims and the defendant.

I don't think you'll find anyone to contradict cochran's ability to manipulate a jury and the system -- after all, he made a very good living for many years doing just that. shame that the people on whose backs he made that fine living didn't benefit like he did. :shrug:

[martin II]

Wow, this is the first time I've heard you exclude Bush from any wrongdoing when given the chance. :eek:

It is well known that he did lots of wrongdoing.

[William Anthony]

I think heidstra was asked by the prosecution if the second voice was that of a black man. imo

Yes, and that was my point that the prosecution injected race before the magnificent one, who has been improperly accused and many accept that.

[weezer]

Why fault a man for having more than another? :) We probably would have not had any Presidents as far back as Washington and Jefferson and as late as Clinton.

oh gosh -- I don't fault him. I did think it was a little immoral on his part to be married to one woman and fathering children with someone else and, oh yah, then there was the physical abuse by him. but, hey, that's just me. I understand that all of that is common among some folks and in some communities.

[William Anthony]

I don't think you'll find anyone to contradict cochran's ability to manipulate a jury and the system -- after all, he made a very good living for many years doing just that. shame that the people on whose backs he made that fine living didn't benefit like he did. :shrug:

Both sides try to manipulate/persuade a jury and the system in a trial. The fact that he was able to do so successfully and lucratively is why I call him the magnificent one. I think many of his clients will find the value of the money spend to retain him equal to the benefit they received by retaining him.

[weezer]

I think heidstra was asked by the prosecution if the second voice was that of a black man. imo

oh my martin -- re-writing history are you? at the time Heidstra gave the statement about hearing the voices, he said he characterized the two voices as: one young, one black.

[weezer]

Both sides try to manipulate/persuade a jury and the system in a trial. The fact that he was able to do so successfully and lucratively is why I call him the magnificent one. I think many of his clients will find the value of the money spend to retain him equal to the benefit they received by retaining him.

maybe so --

[martin II]

I don't think you'll find anyone to contradict cochran's ability to manipulate a jury and the system -- after all, he made a very good living for many years doing just that. shame that the people on whose backs he made that fine living didn't benefit like he did. :shrug:

Cochran brought justice to many citizens as a result of police abuse of them in many trials. They saw him as a hero based on the monetary awards they received as a result of this abuse and the trials he won on their behalf. imo.

[William Anthony]

oh gosh -- I don't fault him. I did think it was a little immoral on his part to be married to one woman and fathering children with someone else and, oh yah, then there was the physical abuse by him. but, hey, that's just me. I understand that all of that is common among some folks and in some communities.

I think it surpasses communities and the commonality of folks.:) I don't think any of our Presidents resided in the community or were among the folks that the magnificent one associated with on a daily basis. I think they all came from different communities with different folks, :), than those that made the magnificent one's acquaintance.

[William Anthony]

oh my martin -- re-writing history are you? at the time Heidstra gave the statement about hearing the voices, he said he characterized the two voices as: one young, one black.

I think you are mistaken about the testimony. Here it is. It was a suggestion that he said that.

Testimony and questions, July 12th

"MR. DARDEN: Did you ever tell Mr. Stevens, my investigator, that it sounded like a white male?"

MR. HEIDSTRA: No.

MR. DARDEN: Never said that?

MR. HEIDSTRA: I don't recall that at all. I said it was a clear voice but never what kind of white or brown or yellow."

Link please, to the statement you claim he made?

[weezer]

I think it surpasses communities and the commonality of folks.:) I don't think any of our Presidents resided in the community or were among the folks that the magnificent one associated with on a daily basis. I think they all came from different communities with different folks, :), than those that made the magnificent one's acquaintance.

hmm -- I'm wondering why you don't let cochran's attributes stand on their own? why try to throw other people under the bus in order to excuse his lousy/unethical/immoral behavior?

[martin II]

oh gosh -- I don't fault him. I did think it was a little immoral on his part to be married to one woman and fathering children with someone else and, oh yah, then there was the physical abuse by him. but, hey, that's just me. I understand that all of that is common among some folks and in some communities.

Abuse and out of wedlock children is NOT common to any group or community. It happens in every community by all types of people. So i don't understand the point of your comment "some folk in some communities" imo

[William Anthony]

hmm -- I'm wondering why you don't let cochran's attributes stand on their own? why try to throw other people under the bus in order to excuse his lousy/unethical/immoral behavior?

Because of your post about the commonality of this alleged conduct in regard to some folks in some communities, when the evidence suggests it surpasses that.

[William Anthony]

hmm -- I'm wondering why you don't let cochran's attributes stand on their own? why try to throw other people under the bus in order to excuse his lousy/unethical/immoral behavior?

I think you misunderstood my point as to why I call him the magnificent one, which was in regard to his courtroom skills. This applies to the skills of others who have led our country as Presidents. You posted the other information in regard to the magnificent one, which I am able to separate from his courtroom skills, just as I am from that of the Presidents abilities to lead the country.

[weezer]

I'd forgotten this testimony but in light of the fact that orenthal didn't pay Heidstra for writing the confession book, I think it's pretty funny.

MR. DARDEN: Are you planning on making some money by testifying in this case, Mr. Heidstra?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Not at all.

MR. DARDEN: Didn't you tell Patricia Baret--is that how you pronounce her last name, Baret?

MR. HEIDSTRA: I guess so.

MR. DARDEN: Didn't you tell Patricia Baret when this case is finished you are going to make a lot of money?

MR. HEIDSTRA: I didn't say that.

MR. DARDEN: You never told her that?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Maybe something might come out of it, but I never said a lot of money.

MR. DARDEN: So you think you might make some money as a result of testifying in this case?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Maybe. I don't know.

MR. DARDEN: And you could use a few dollars, right?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yes, yes.

[weezer]

Abuse and out of wedlock children is NOT common to any group or community. It happens in every community by all types of people. So i don't understand the point of your comment "some folk in some communities" imo

my comment stands on its own merit: some folks in some communities are more accepting of adultery, illegitimate children, domestic abuse.

[weezer]

I think you misunderstood my point as to why I call him the magnificent one, which was in regard to his courtroom skills. This applies to the skills of others who have led our country as Presidents. You posted the other information in regard to the magnificent one, which I am able to separate from his courtroom skills, just as I am from that of the Presidents abilities to lead the country.

I didn't misunderstand your post -- it's a common tactic of yours: in order to defend whomever it is that you are defending, you try to deflect attention and criticism to others.

you may be in awe of cochran and his courtroom skills -- good for you. there are some of us, however, who judge a man on his character.

[martin II]

oh my martin -- re-writing history are you? at the time Heidstra gave the statement about hearing the voices, he said he characterized the two voices as: one young, one black.

Link please to your statement about 'ONE BLACK " voice.

[weezer]

Abuse and out of wedlock children is NOT common to any group or community. It happens in every community by all types of people. So i don't understand the point of your comment "some folk in some communities" imo

I never said those things didn't happen in all communities. I did say that some folks and some communities accept those behaviors.

[William Anthony]

I'd forgotten this testimony but in light of the fact that orenthal didn't pay Heidstra for writing the confession book, I think it's pretty funny.

MR. DARDEN: Are you planning on making some money by testifying in this case, Mr. Heidstra?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Not at all.

MR. DARDEN: Didn't you tell Patricia Baret--is that how you pronounce her last name, Baret?

MR. HEIDSTRA: I guess so.

MR. DARDEN: Didn't you tell Patricia Baret when this case is finished you are going to make a lot of money?

MR. HEIDSTRA: I didn't say that.

MR. DARDEN: You never told her that?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Maybe something might come out of it, but I never said a lot of money.

MR. DARDEN: So you think you might make some money as a result of testifying in this case?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Maybe. I don't know.

MR. DARDEN: And you could use a few dollars, right?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yes, yes.

Link please to your claim that Heidstra made the statement that one of the voices he heard on the night of the murders coming from the Bundy vicinity was a Black voice? You seem to want to divert attention from your claims when asked for a link to irrelevant issues and things that disparage others, imho.

[William Anthony]

I never said those things didn't happen in all communities. I did say that some folks and some communities accept those behaviors.

In which communities would those accepting folks be located? Did you mean to say that the aforementioned things happen in all communities and that you can find folks that accept that behavior in all communities?

[William Anthony]

I didn't misunderstand your post -- it's a common tactic of yours: in order to defend whomever it is that you are defending, you try to deflect attention and criticism to others.

you may be in awe of cochran and his courtroom skills -- good for you. there are some of us, however, who judge a man on his character.

Then how would you judge Presidents Washington and Jefferson?

[martin II]

I never said those things didn't happen in all communities. I did say that some folks and some communities accept those behaviors.

What folks in what communities are you talking about????????

[weezer]

Link please to your claim that Heidstra made the statement that one of the voices he heard on the night of the murders coming from the Bundy vicinity was a Black voice? You seem to want to divert attention from your claims when asked for a link to irrelevant issues and things that disparage others, imho.

don't be silly: http://walraven.org/simpson/jul12.html

[martin II]

Link please to your claim that Heidstra made the statement that one of the voices he heard on the night of the murders coming from the Bundy vicinity was a Black voice? You seem to want to divert attention from your claims when asked for a link to irrelevant issues and things that disparage others, imho.

True dat. happens quite often.

[weezer]

What folks in what communities are you talking about????????

I'm talking about some folks in some communities that accept as a normal lifestyle adultery, illegitimate children, domestic abuse, etc.

come on guys, this isn't a hard concept to follow.

[weezer]

Then how would you judge Presidents Washington and Jefferson?

the same way I would 'judge' any other president; i.e., FDR, Kennedy, etc.

[William Anthony]

the same way I would 'judge' any other president; i.e., FDR, Kennedy, etc.

Would that judgment have anything to do with their lives, other than how they ran the country, or do you separate those things?

[weezer]

Link please to your claim that Heidstra made the statement that one of the voices he heard on the night of the murders coming from the Bundy vicinity was a Black voice? You seem to want to divert attention from your claims when asked for a link to irrelevant issues and things that disparage others, imho.

I wasn't diverting anything -- in fact, you and martin are misstating testimony, not me.

I thought it was interesting that those statements made by Heidstra all those years ago and bingo! he's on the list of folks that orenthal owes money to.

[martin II]

don't be silly: http://walraven.org/simpson/jul12.html

Heidstras direct testimony words have been posted that are different from what you claim he said, please post heidstras words to support your post

[weezer]

Would that judgment have anything to do with their lives, other than how they ran the country, or do you separate those things?

I'm not sure what presidents -- old and new -- have to do with this case.

you offered cochran as someone to be looked up to -- I simply completed the picture of him: rode the backs of clients all the way to the bank, fathered illegitimate children while married to someone else, was accused of domestic abuse.

[William Anthony]

don't be silly: http://walraven.org/simpson/jul12.html

Read it an there is no claim in there that he made such a statement, only a question by the prosecution to that effect, which he denied, and, unlike a prosecution witness, he was not charged with and subsequently convicted of perjury. Therefore, your claim that he made such a statement is a tad bit dishonest, imho.

[weezer]

Heidstras direct testimony words have been posted that are different from what you claim he said, please post heidstras words to support your post

I have supplied the post with Heidstra's testimony. I suggest you read it.

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure what presidents -- old and new -- have to do with this case.

you offered cochran as someone to be looked up to -- I simply completed the picture of him: rode the backs of clients all the way to the bank, fathered illegitimate children while married to someone else, was accused of domestic abuse.

I told you that my statement about him as the magnificent one had to do with his courtroom skills but you then made comments about him and some folks in some communities that were disparaging in nature and had nothing to do with his courtroom skills. So, if I am correct and you have provided nothing to disprove it, imho, you agree that his courtroom skills were superb, if not magnificent, and only reject the use of the phrase as it pertains to areas of his life outside the courtroom.

[weezer]

Read it an there is no claim in there that he made such a statement, only a question by the prosecution to that effect, which he denied, and, unlike a prosecution witness, he was not charged with and subsequently convicted of perjury. Therefore, your claim that he made such a statement is a tad bit dishonest, imho.

out of the two of us, I am the only one being honest. you did not/could not have read the testimony or you would not have posted what you did. the testimony clearly states that he did make that statement. in fact, he told a friend of his that the voice was orenthal (well, he used the initials but then. . .)

[weezer]

I told you that my statement about him as the magnificent one had to do with his courtroom skills but you then made comments about him and some folks in some communities that were disparaging in nature and had nothing to do with his courtroom skills. So, if I am correct and you have provided nothing to disprove it, imho, you agree that his courtroom skills were superb, if not magnificent, and only reject the use of the phrase as it pertains to areas of his life outside the courtroom.

personally, I thought his courtroom tactics/antics reflected his life: sleazy.

[William Anthony]

out of the two of us, I am the only one being honest. you did not/could not have read the testimony or you would not have posted what you did. the testimony clearly states that he did make that statement. in fact, he told a friend of his that the voice was orenthal (well, he used the initials but then. . .)

You are being more than a tad bit dishonest. The prosecution elicited a statement from someone that claimed he said that and his response was a clear and unequivocal denial several times that he did not tell her that. He in fact went on to testify he never told anyone that.

"MR. DARDEN: The second voice that you heard, could you tell whether or not that second voice sounded like the voice of an older man?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Maybe what--what do you mean by "Older man"? Maybe older than the other person maybe, yes, could be.

MR. DARDEN: Well, was it your opinion that the voice of the second man belonged to a man older than the voice of the first man?

MR. HEIDSTRA: It could be an older man, yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you told Miss Baret that the second voice was the voice of an older man, didn't you?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yeah.

MR. DARDEN: You did tell her that?

MR. HEIDSTRA: (No audible response.)

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And were you able to determine the ethnicity of the person who you say was the second voice?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to that--the form of that question, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HEIDSTRA: No, no, no.

MR. DARDEN: Isn't it true that you told Patricia Baret that the second voice, which would be the older man, sounded black?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Never said that, no, never. Never said that ever. I couldn't hear that voice."

[William Anthony]

personally, I thought his courtroom tactics/antics reflected his life: sleazy.

You did say that you did not have any training in the law and I find it odd that you reached that conclusion since he was highly regarded for his professional abilities by those in his profession.

[William Anthony]

out of the two of us, I am the only one being honest. you did not/could not have read the testimony or you would not have posted what you did. the testimony clearly states that he did make that statement. in fact, he told a friend of his that the voice was orenthal (well, he used the initials but then. . .)

Please, provide a link to support you statement, "at the time Heidstra gave the statement about hearing the voices, he said he characterized the two voices as: one young, one black." That was simply a statement of a person Patricia Baret that allegedly said he said that. Did you ever question why Ms. Baret or any other witness to impeach him were not called on rebuttal? The testimony is that he clearly did not tell her or anyone else that and to say otherwise is not being honest, imho.

[William Anthony]

Let's take a look at Ms. Baret's motive to slant testimony.

"MR. COCHRAN: Now, you have been asked a number of questions by Mr. Darden today and you were asked some questions about a lady by the name of Patricia Baret. Let's take her first. Is Patricia Baret a French lady?

MR. HEIDSTRA: She speaks fluent French.

MR. COCHRAN: She speaks French?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: When you are around her and when you talk to her is it your testimony that she speaks French only?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yeah. I don't like it.

MR. COCHRAN: You don't like that, so that when others are around when she is talking to you, unless they speak French, they don't know what you are talking about, right?

MR. HEIDSTRA: I think that is rude. I don't like that at all.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to Miss Baret, was she a friend of Ron Goldman's?

MR. HEIDSTRA: She claims that co me.

MR. COCHRAN: She claims she is a friend of Ron Goldman's?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to her, since this case happened, on June 12th, June 13th, 1994, has this lady sold her story and appeared on--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: It goes to bias. May I be heard on this? May I be heard on this?

THE COURT: Side bar.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. Over at the side bar. Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: The information I have, your Honor, and I don't have that tape yet, but I expect to get it, this lady heard on Hard Copy or Current Affair and sold her story. She was the one who was talking about making money, not him. He has never sold any story, and I don't have the tape yet, but that is the information that I have. They came and told me during the break this is the circumstances, so I think it goes to her bias, making up these statements. She is a friend of Goldmans. If she sold her story and she knows that, I think it is totally relevant, also to bias or interest.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Well, I think that if he knows that, he only knows from it hearsay, and I think he should just call her and ask her.

MR. COCHRAN: He is right now doing that, but I want to ask him because he is here now and I think that is an appropriate question asked in good faith.

MR. DARDEN: Not only that, I don't think he is asking him--I'm sure he is asking him in good faith, but technically not. He doesn't even have the proof of that. But Patricia Baret is available to testify.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran, you can require into any knowledge he might have as to why she might be biased or say these things, for example, the fact that she was acquainted with Ron Goldman. Obviously that is something that you can inquire into. You can ask are you familiar with or do you have knowledge of any statements that she has given to any TV interviewer, same kind of questions that Mr. Darden asked. Have you seen any interviews on any shows like x, y, or z, and let's see what he says.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay."

[martin II]

I'm not sure what presidents -- old and new -- have to do with this case.

you offered cochran as someone to be looked up to -- I simply completed the picture of him: rode the backs of clients all the way to the bank, fathered illegitimate children while married to someone else, was accused of domestic abuse.

Many clients hired Cochran as a lawyer in cases where lapd was sued for abuse Cochran won the cases and clients were paid large sums of money and he receided his fees.How is that ridding the backs of clients.
Petrocelli did the same, so did he ride Freds and NBS estates back to the bank?

[weezer]

don't you think it's funny/ironic that after all these years, it's Heidstra that orenthal owes money to?

[martin II]

You are being more than a tad bit dishonest. The prosecution elicited a statement from someone that claimed he said that and his response was a clear and unequivocal denial several times that he did not tell her that. He in fact went on to testify he never told anyone that.

"MR. DARDEN: The second voice that you heard, could you tell whether or not that second voice sounded like the voice of an older man?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Maybe what--what do you mean by "Older man"? Maybe older than the other person maybe, yes, could be.

MR. DARDEN: Well, was it your opinion that the voice of the second man belonged to a man older than the voice of the first man?

MR. HEIDSTRA: It could be an older man, yes.

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you told Miss Baret that the second voice was the voice of an older man, didn't you?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yeah.

MR. DARDEN: You did tell her that?

MR. HEIDSTRA: (No audible response.)

MR. DARDEN: Okay. And were you able to determine the ethnicity of the person who you say was the second voice?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to that--the form of that question, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HEIDSTRA: No, no, no.

MR. DARDEN: Isn't it true that you told Patricia Baret that the second voice, which would be the older man, sounded black?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Never said that, no, never. Never said that ever. I couldn't hear that voice."

Weezer
the above post includes Heidstras own words. Do you have a post with him saying what you claimed he said in his words??

[William Anthony]

don't you think it's funny/ironic that after all these years, it's Heidstra that orenthal owes money to?

Link please?

[weezer]

Weezer
the above post includes Heidstras own words. Do you have a post with him saying what you claimed he said in his words??

LOL - so two people said he said one thing and then he says he's there testifying for the defense and he changed his story. what in the world do you want me to prove?

[weezer]

Link please?

hmm -- IIRC, Heidstra is on the list of creditors that orenthal filed. I'm guessing it was from the book deal OR maybe orenthal's been paying him all these years to change his story?

[William Anthony]

LOL - so two people said he said one thing and then he says he's there testifying for the defense and he changed his story. what in the world do you want me to prove?

What two people? There was a report from LE that Patricia Baret claimed he said those things, according to my understanding and the report in and of itself was hearsay and Ms. Baret was not called to rebut his claim he never told her or anyone else that. Prove your claim that "at the time Heidstra gave the statement about hearing the voices, he said he characterized the two voices as: one young, one black."

[William Anthony]

hmm -- IIRC, Heidstra is on the list of creditors that orenthal filed. I'm guessing it was from the book deal OR maybe orenthal's been paying him all these years to change his story?

Link please to the list of creditors?

[martin II]

LOL - so two people said he said one thing and then he says he's there testifying for the defense and he changed his story. what in the world do you want me to prove?

Don't post untruths would be a good start.

[weezer]

Link please to the list of creditors?

I'm afraid you'll need to look for that william. I saw it somewhere -- might even have been the Clark County site --

[martin II]

hmm -- IIRC, Heidstra is on the list of creditors that orenthal filed. I'm guessing it was from the book deal OR maybe orenthal's been paying him all these years to change his story?

When did oj file a list of creditors? Please post a link to this new claim?

[martin II]

I'm afraid you'll need to look for that william. I saw it somewhere -- might even have been the Clark County site --

And might not have been any list at all.

[William Anthony]

I'm afraid you'll need to look for that william. I saw it somewhere -- might even have been the Clark County site --

Having had some experience in bankruptcy law and working for a bankruptcy trustee, I know that creditors are required to file proof of claims, which would show why Simpson owed them and the date that such debt was incurred as well as the amount owed. I am surprised that you aren't able to give us more information on your claim of Hiedstra's claim as opposed to speculation about why the debt was allegedly incurred.

[martin II]

Having had some experience in bankruptcy law and working for a bankruptcy trustee, I know that creditors are required to file proof of claims, which would show why Simpson owed them and the date that such debt was incurred as well as the amount owed. I am surprised that you aren't able to give us more information on your claim of Hiedstra's claim as opposed to speculation about why the debt was allegedly incurred.

William there is no oj creditors list therefore no Heidstra name on it.

LBA listed their creditors in that forced bankruptcy filing but that list included LBA creditors not oj.

That was just a false claim to change the subject imo