Random Discussions On The Case

[martin II]

Martin,

Did you read the book? I have not but from what have I heard is that the book is not at all accurate of the actual details. I am under the impression that liberties were taken with evidence even though that was not how the evidence was protrayed in the trial.

I read the book

One chapter which i call the hook chapter, by hook i mean a fake description of the murder scene included in the book purly to get people to buy the book.
Nothing in that chapter made sense.Nothing in that chapter was possible.
Some call it the murder chapter. It is my opinion only a gofor would believe any of it.

ALL the other chapters were about ojs and Nicoles 17 year relationshuip. Those chapteers were very interesting and contained much that most had never heard before.He didn't bash Nicole but he did give details of many of her actions.Including some about how she tried to interject herself in Ojs and
Paulas relationship.

[old_soul]

Cora was close to Nicole and they jogged daily .sometimes twice daily.She would have seen signs and would have spoken on any regular abuse.

When oj was released some people came to his house and hung some signs on his gate. Murderer killer etc
Sdyney came out and ripped all the signs.

No Martin, not during the time these pics were taken, and it looks like she tried to cover it up and was not doing too good a job of it. Whenever she had a mark, I'm sure she hid out until the makeup covered it.
http://i42.tinypic.com/mmbcki.jpglooking great just before she....http://i39.tinypic.com/e7nvxf.jpg


Those signs on the gates....It was wrong and hurtful to those kids, who lived there. Just wrong.

[martin II]

My condolences go out to her family and loved ones and ask God to comfort them in the time of their loss. :rose:

May she rest in peace.:rose::rose::rose:

[Kate Sachel]

Not sure if this has been posted....

O.J. Simpson's Sister Dies in Local Hospital
Posted By: Lesha Ruffin 16 hrs ago

http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=57428&provider=top

Oh my goodness, what sad and unfortunate news. May her family members and all others who loved her find the comfort they will need in this time of sorrow. My heart goes out.

Kate

[weezer]

No Martin, not during the time these pics were taken, and it looks like she tried to cover it up and was not doing too good a job of it. Whenever she had a mark, I'm sure she hid out until the makeup covered it.
http://i42.tinypic.com/mmbcki.jpglooking great just before she....http://i39.tinypic.com/e7nvxf.jpg


Those signs on the gates....It was wrong and hurtful to those kids, who lived there. Just wrong.


"The truth is, no one really knew her during her marriage," said one woman who had been friends with her since both were in their early 20s. "She was never free to be herself or have friends. She wasn't available for that kind of intimacy."

It was only much later, the friend added, that she began to suspect there was more to Nicole Simpson's guardedness than met the eye, that there was something very wrong about her tendency toward sudden cancellations and no-shows.

". . .She would have these horrible cramps. That's what O.J. would tell us. 'Nicole has horrible menstrual cramps.' Supposedly they kept her in bed for days," the friend said.

Eventually, however, the violent and jealous facets of the Simpson marriage became common--if closely held--knowledge in their small circle of friends. . ."

[William Anthony]

Oh my goodness, what sad and unfortunate news. May her family members and all others who loved her find the comfort they will need in this time of sorrow. My heart goes out.

Kate

The saddest part is that words are not capable of expressing our sympathy and we never know how one feels under those circumstances. I guess it is enough to let them know we feel for them.

[weezer]

SNIPPED***". . .http://i42.tinypic.com/mmbcki.jpglooking great just before she....http://i39.tinypic.com/e7nvxf.jpg
. . ."

"No, I never punched her or anything like that," he said.

"You never kicked her either, is that correct?" Petrocelli asked.

"That's correct," Simpson answered.

[William Anthony]

May she rest in peace.:rose::rose::rose:

I hope the family and her loved ones will find peace in the not too distant future.

[weezer]

http://i42.tinypic.com/mmbcki.jpglooking great just before she....http://i39.tinypic.com/e7nvxf.jpg

". . .Simpson suggested that bruises seen in photographs of his ex-wife's face were caused by his defending himself when she attacked him or by her habit of "picking" at her facial blemishes, the newspaper report said. . ."

[William Anthony]

Thanks Snoop, for the link.....


Carmelita was young.. how sad. :rose: interesting, how quick posters were to add comments in the section below the story.......

To lose a loved one is always sad and to hear of such a loss is a sad thing to those with a compassionate nature.

[martin II]

To lose a loved one is always sad and to hear of such a loss is a sad thing to those with a compassionate nature.

Such a short life.very very sad.:rose:
A very sad day for oj and his family

[weezer]

We had earlier discussions about Nicole and Michelle (the maid) where everyone had an opinion about why Nicole is said to have had such a dislike for Michelle. I believe Michelle betrayed Nicole that night by standing by and letting orenthal beat her:

in the '89 beating, Nicole ran to Michelle's room (I can't imagine she would have gone there if she didn't think Michelle would help her) -- so I would think the logical inference would be that at that time on that night, Nicole trusted Michelle -- not something you would do with someone you hated:

"Q. Now, it's also true that Nicole then ran to one of the guest rooms on your property, where your then housekeeper, Michelle, lived, correct?

A. She ended up there. I don't know if she ran there. I didn't see them when she -- when she ran there.

Q. You followed her to Michelle's room to continue the argument, true?

A. I went out to Michelle's room, yes."

and here is where I think Michelle betrayed Nicole:

"A. That when I walked toward -- to her, she yelled at me and kind of
pushed the phone at me. And I was trying to tell her to stop and talk.

And she jumped over onto the bed, got to the other side of the bed, said some things, started to the foot of the bed, and went out the door, where I think Michelle was.

Q. Okay.

So at no time, then, did you tell Dr. Lenore Walker that you were on top of Nicole on the bed, holding her down till she calmed down; she was punching and scratching you; you put her in a head lock; you let her go, and then she ran out?

A. That was upstairs.

Q. At no time did you tell that -- that that occurred downstairs, true?

A. It did.

Q. You would agree that you had some type of physical confrontation with Nicole in that bedroom downstairs?

A. I wouldn't describe it as that, but we probably touched. But I wouldn't describe it as physical.

Q. And your touching was what, trying to grab her?

A. Yeah. She had kind of pushed the phone at me, and I was trying to make her be still. And she got on the bed, and got to the other side of the bed, said some things to me. And I think walked -- came to the end of the bedroom, where I guess Michelle was at the door, and they went out the door.

Q. So Michelle observed all of this, didn't she?

A. I don't know. Michelle was behind me and the door was open, so I'm
assuming she was there.

Q. She was right there in the room while you were engaged in a physical altercation with Nicole, true?

A. I think she was standing right at the door and the door was open, so I can't say if she was actually in the room or standing outside of the room.

Q. She was looking at what was happening, true?

A. You'd have to ask Michelle."

we know that Michelle went out to the police car and tried to pull Nicole out.

[martin II]

We had earlier discussions about Nicole and Michelle (the maid) where everyone had an opinion about why Nicole would have slapped Michelle. I want to explain why I posted my theory about where Nicole's intense dislike of Michelle came from:

in the '89 beating, Nicole ran to Michelle's room (I can't imagine she would have gone there if she didn't think Michelle would help her) -- so I would think the logical inference would be that at that time on that night, Nicole trusted Michelle -- not something you would do with someone you hated:

Q. Now, it's also true that Nicole then ran to one of the guest rooms on your property, where your then housekeeper, Michelle, lived, correct?

A. She ended up there. I don't know if she ran there. I didn't see them when she -- when she ran there.

Q. You followed her to Michelle's room to continue the argument, true?

A. I went out to Michelle's room, yes.

and here is where I think Michelle betrayed Nicole:

A. That when I walked toward -- to her, she yelled at me and kind of
pushed the phone at me. And I was trying to tell her to stop and talk.

And she jumped over onto the bed, got to the other side of the bed,
said some things, started to the foot of the bed, and went out the
door, where I think Michelle was.

Q. Okay.

So at no time, then, did you tell Dr. Lenore Walker that you were on
top of Nicole on the bed, holding her down till she calmed down; she
was punching and scratching you; you put her in a head lock; you let
her go, and then she ran out?

A. That was upstairs.

Q. At no time did you tell that -- that that occurred downstairs,
true?

A. It did.

Q. You would agree that you had some type of physical confrontation
with Nicole in that bedroom downstairs?

A. I wouldn't describe it as that, but we probably touched. But I
wouldn't describe it as physical.

Q. And your touching was what, trying to grab her?

A. Yeah. She had kind of pushed the phone at me, and I was trying to
make her be still. And she got on the bed, and got to the other side
of the bed, said some things to me. And I think walked -- came to the
end of the bedroom, where I guess Michelle was at the door, and they
went out the door.

Q. So Michelle observed all of this, didn't she?

A. I don't know. Michelle was behind me and the door was open, so I'm
assuming she was there.

Q. She was right there in the room while you were engaged in a
physical altercation with Nicole, true?

A. I think she was standing right at the door and the door was open,
so I can't say if she was actually in the room or standing outside of
the room.

Q. She was looking at what was happening, true?

A. You'd have to ask Michelle.

when oj locked his bedroom door he was in the bed when nicole went to michaels room.i think nicole went to michael to see if she knew anything about the earings and to accuse her of assisting oj in his flings.Michael obviously didn't give nicole the answer she wanted and nicole attacked her.

[weezer]

when oj locked his bedroom door he was in the bed when nicole went to michaels room.i think nicole went to michael to see if she knew anything about the earings and to accuse her of assisting oj in his flings.Michael obviously didn't give nicole the answer she wanted and nicole attacked her.

you did read this part right?

"A. That when I walked toward -- to her, she yelled at me and kind of pushed the phone at me. And I was trying to tell her to stop and talk.

And she jumped over onto the bed, got to the other side of the bed, said some things, started to the foot of the bed, and went out the door, where I think Michelle was."

sounds like she was calling the police -- not arguing with Michael.

[weezer]

just to clear this up:

"Originally Posted by martin II
The ony time i know he beat her was the 1998 incedent when she thought he had baugfht some diamonds for her and she demanded that he give them to her.i think that is correct."
---------------------------------
"And by the way, this argument was over Nicole's belief that you were buying expensive earrings for another woman and were being unfaithful to her, true?

A. I think it was over her misinterpreting what a girl named Kathryn, Marcus Allen's wife, said to her."
. . . .

"Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) This argument that you and Nicole had began when you -- and Nicole accused you of buying expensive earrings for another woman, true?

A. That's not necessarily true.

Q. Not necessarily true?

A. No. She made -- she alluded to something and she never talked about what it was.

Q. But the gist of it was that you had bought expensive earrings for a woman other than her, correct?

A. Yes."

[RayStar]

WOW last time I was here the page number was 72. Sorry for the Simpson family loss.

[GreenIce]

One of my best friends is a domestic abuse counselor...she is also a psychotherapist. I hear many interesting stories from her also, besides the people I know of who have been there. Many time, abusers show the first signs after marriage. The mentality? :shrug: Anyway, the verbally abusing, the hurting of someones feeling however unjustified, is systematic. Of course, in and of itself a husband calling his wife a fat pig during an argument is one thing...But your pregnant wife, with your child, why would a man do this, belittle and put down this woman, when it's the furthest thing from the truth? As we know, it progressed. It would be interesting to know if this happened with Marguerite (sic?) or was just Nicole able to make him act this way because she opened her mouth to him?

On the flip side..don't you think there were friends, like Cowlings and even Arnelle who knew of his doing this...why didn't anyone try to get him help? Afraid to bring it up, or..not their place?

One of my clients who got the strength to actually leave , remembers how helpless she felt. It started with verbal abuse, and escalated. Fat lips, black eyes, bruised ribs. When she got home from her job as a extremely successful administrator making $75,000 in '85 at the age of 30, he expected her to cook his meals...and fast. I do not want to tell you the ways she tried to get back at him ~ the ways she tried to regain control of her sad life..

GreenIce, calling your pregnant wife a fat pig was the beginning of what was to come. Spousal Abuse Syndrome.

I basically agree with the rest of your post, but also learned, opening one's mouth leads to alienation, which defeats the purpose.

Old Soul,

Marguerite gave an interview after the murders. There were the rumors that she had also been beaten by Simpson. She basically said that Simpson was a yeller and never hit her. Obviously, there probably wasn't a lot of love lost between the Simpson wives, however, Marguerite could have made a fortune if she said that Simpson did hit her.

I asked Marcia Clark, (she was doing an interview where you could e-mail her questions) if Nicole had killed Simpson, would she have been allowed to use the Battered Wife Syndrome as a defense. She praised the question but she said no, she would not have been able use this defense. There were not enough incidents to justify this defense. And while verbal abuse is horrible, you can't kill a person because they called you names, no matter how callous or vile.

Why do men get jealous over their own children? It happens. Why would a man call the mother of his children names, I don't know. Any more then I know why a wife would call the father of her children names. It happens and I can't post here and say that I have never said an unkind thing to mind. I can't said that I handled every situation in a mature manner. However, what I can say is if I had the chance, I would go back in time and take back ever nasty thing I have ever done to any one I knew I was hurting. I have learned through experience, that when something happens to a person you truly love, you don't first think of all the good memories, you think about all of the bad times and wonder how you could have let such trivial matters cause an estrangement. Simply, things that seem important to fight about before the murder or loss no longer is and you are disappointed in yourself for letting get that far.

AC Cowlings did come to Nicole's aid. There is no evidence that AC ever turned his back on Nicole. If I remember correctly, Nicole told him it only happened once. I believe he did describe incidents that he saw in the Simpson relationship and it was not one sided. However, there is evidence to support that AC was not shy about telling either one of them their behavior was way out of line.

[GreenIce]

Might I begin with a gentle suggestion that you begin to watch the manner in which you address individuals at times. I have read your post reagrding houses and stones, and it seems that stones are all you are interested in throwing which strikes me as odd since your home is obviously glass.

First you are all over me for the fact that I expressed my opinion that the Brown family chose celebrity and money over the welfare of their daughter, and now you're all over me for your ludicrous misconception that I am making excuses for them. Tell me, which is it? Am I being too hard on them or am I making excuses for them?

I ever so anxiously await your response advising me of how I feel and what I am doing.

Kate

Kate,

Can you give 5 examples of how the Browns chose celebrity over their daughter's welfare?

If go back and read my post, I do basically say that even if this true about Nicole's family and friends, what excuse to the LAPD have? You and Old Soul have posted about how or why Nicole's family never did anything but neither of you spoke about the state agency who's job is to serve and protect.

[weezer]

SNIPPED*** ". . .AC Cowlings did come to Nicole's aid. There is no evidence that AC ever turned his back on Nicole. If I remember correctly, Nicole told him it only happened once. I believe he did describe incidents that he saw in the Simpson relationship and it was not one sided. However, there is evidence to support that AC was not shy about telling either one of them their behavior was way out of line.

I'm not trying to start an argument with you but you are wrong about ac. he turned his back on Nicole when she was alive -- time and again -- and betrayed her in her death.

[GreenIce]

No Martin, not during the time these pics were taken, and it looks like she tried to cover it up and was not doing too good a job of it. Whenever she had a mark, I'm sure she hid out until the makeup covered it.
http://i42.tinypic.com/mmbcki.jpglooking great just before she....http://i39.tinypic.com/e7nvxf.jpg


Those signs on the gates....It was wrong and hurtful to those kids, who lived there. Just wrong.

Old Soul,

The picture of Nicole with the towel on her head was never introduced into evidence. Darden put that picture up there, knowing that he could not have laid a foundation for the picture. Judge Ito was very upset with him on this.
That picture was not admitted into evidence. Darden pulled a fast one, but it was effective, IMO.

[weezer]

I don't believe Nicole's parents knew about the abuse -- or at least not the full extent (physical). I believe they were seduced by a larger than life celebrity who knew how to manipulate people.

"Q. And you would call Nicole's mother, Juditha, incessantly to talk about Nicole, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Virtually every day, numerous times a day, trying to talk about Nicole and getting your wife back, true?

A. Often we didn't talk about Nicole but most of the time it was about Nicole, and Judy was -- she was like a shrink for me. I called her all the time. Okay."

[tv]

I'm not trying to start an argument with you but you are wrong about ac. he turned his back on Nicole when she was alive -- time and again -- and betrayed her in her death.

Talk about the 'wall of silence'. Nicole was surrounded by a wall of silence and you see where it got her -- lying in a pool of her own blood.

[old_soul]

Old Soul,

The picture of Nicole with the towel on her head was never introduced into evidence. Darden put that picture up there, knowing that he could not have laid a foundation for the picture. Judge Ito was very upset with him on this.
That picture was not admitted into evidence. Darden pulled a fast one, but it was effective, IMO.

Sigh.

Good grief, who's talking about what was introduced? Doesn't matter what was introduced! Is she beat up? Are there black and blues, GreenIce ?! Do you see the black and blue on the inside of her arm?

That is the point here!

I have posted what is obviously battered women syndrome, not about what the Browns did or didn't do. Nicole hid the truth, and lied about it when she shouldn't have.

[old_soul]

Old Soul,

Marguerite gave an interview after the murders. There were the rumors that she had also been beaten by Simpson. She basically said that Simpson was a yeller and never hit her. Obviously, there probably wasn't a lot of love lost between the Simpson wives, however, Marguerite could have made a fortune if she said that Simpson did hit her.

I asked Marcia Clark, (she was doing an interview where you could e-mail her questions) if Nicole had killed Simpson, would she have been allowed to use the Battered Wife Syndrome as a defense. She praised the question but she said no, she would not have been able use this defense. There were not enough incidents to justify this defense. And while verbal abuse is horrible, you can't kill a person because they called you names, no matter how callous or vile.

Why do men get jealous over their own children? It happens. Why would a man call the mother of his children names, I don't know. Any more then I know why a wife would call the father of her children names. It happens and I can't post here and say that I have never said an unkind thing to mind. I can't said that I handled every situation in a mature manner. However, what I can say is if I had the chance, I would go back in time and take back ever nasty thing I have ever done to any one I knew I was hurting. I have learned through experience, that when something happens to a person you truly love, you don't first think of all the good memories, you think about all of the bad times and wonder how you could have let such trivial matters cause an estrangement. Simply, things that seem important to fight about before the murder or loss no longer is and you are disappointed in yourself for letting get that far.

AC Cowlings did come to Nicole's aid. There is no evidence that AC ever turned his back on Nicole. If I remember correctly, Nicole told him it only happened once. I believe he did describe incidents that he saw in the Simpson relationship and it was not one sided. However, there is evidence to support that AC was not shy about telling either one of them their behavior was way out of line.

Marguerite was glad to be out and away from the whole thing. What she didn't say means more to me than what she did say. She has her reasons for this.

I don't know how my earlier post got twisted, but I asked why AC didn't get help for his buddy, not Nicole. I'm sure OJ's not being able to handle his anger lent itself to other areas of his life. IMO ~ plenty of his peers knew it, but didn't bother saying a word, good Or bad.

[GreenIce]

Sigh.

Good grief, who's talking about what was introduced? Doesn't matter what was introduced! Is she beat up? Are there black and blues, GreenIce ?! Do you see the black and blue on the inside of her arm?

That is the point here!

I have posted what is obviously battered women syndrome, not about what the Browns did or didn't do. Nicole hid the truth, and lied about it when she shouldn't have.

Old Soul,

To be fair, my comments were on one picture that had no foundation which is why it was not introduced into evidence. The other three pictures were taken by the LAPD after the 1989 incident.

We know nothing about the other picture, we don't know when it was taken or why it was taken or who took it. However, lets just say that Nicole's face was not the work of a person who battered her but rather that of a make up artist. If this is the case, then the picture could not have been introduced into evidence.

The only evidence a jury is allowed to considered is what evidence has been introduced into evidence and that judge has allowed it. Judge Ito did not allow this picture into evidence. And it does matter if it was not introduced into evidence.

I have very strong views on this issue as you and others. It is best for me to move on on this subject because no matter how we state our opinons we still can't seem to understand where the other is coming from.

I will never change my mind about Nicole's friends or the LAPD on this issue. I do believe that they have been given a free a pass on this issue and the rage over the DV in this case should be directed at the LAPD and these so called friends. IMO.

[GreenIce]

William and Martin,

A while ago, I posted something I read from a book about the vial of Simpson's blood having an "evidence" certificate with it inside the envelope. It was Gerry Uleman's book. He says the date on this certificate was wrong and right there that is a huge, huge red flag.

In American Tragedy, Simpson's vial of blood was entered or labeled as item number 17 but then somehow got changed to item number 18. It also says that Gary Sims and I think it was Ed Blake noticed something about the wet transfers. The swatch that was found in side the envelope did not match the same pattern of the wet swatch.

Also, Dr. Lee makes a very interesting comment, if these swatches were mistaken put away wet, then there should have been 7 wet transfers, not 4.

I also wonder how many swatches did AM say she initialed and then said she was mistaken. I think it would be interesting to review all of AM's work and see where she did leave initials and where she did not. What I mean is, if she left her initials on 100 items, then how did she forget these 7?

[GreenIce]

when oj locked his bedroom door he was in the bed when nicole went to michaels room.i think nicole went to michael to see if she knew anything about the earings and to accuse her of assisting oj in his flings.Michael obviously didn't give nicole the answer she wanted and nicole attacked her.

Martin,

Did Michelle ever give a depo during the civil trial?

[fgump2]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9180514]Old Soul,

Marguerite gave an interview after the murders. There were the rumors that she had also been beaten by Simpson. She basically said that Simpson was a yeller and never hit her. Obviously, there probably wasn't a lot of love lost between the Simpson wives, however, Marguerite could have made a fortune if she said that Simpson did hit her.

************************************************** ******
My recollection is that Marguerite had filed a domestic violence charge when she was married to OJS, and then denied it at the time of the murder trial. I I think there was talk about giving her a subpoeana to answer questions about domestic abuse.

I give Nicole a partial pass because people who are being mistreated sometimes take it out on others. I realize if you hand out very many passes on this basis you get anarchy. I think you both had quite a few faults. If a marriage goes for 17 years you seldom find one partner a well adjusted person and the other a nut case.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9180514]Old Soul,

Marguerite gave an interview after the murders. There were the rumors that she had also been beaten by Simpson. She basically said that Simpson was a yeller and never hit her. Obviously, there probably wasn't a lot of love lost between the Simpson wives, however, Marguerite could have made a fortune if she said that Simpson did hit her.

************************************************** ******
My recollection is that Marguerite had filed a domestic violence charge when she was married to OJS, and then denied it at the time of the murder trial. I I think there was talk about giving her a subpoeana to answer questions about domestic abuse.

I give Nicole a partial pass because people who are being mistreated sometimes take it out on others. I realize if you hand out very many passes on this basis you get anarchy. I think you both had quite a few faults. If a marriage goes for 17 years you seldom find one partner a well adjusted person and the other a nut case.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n13_v87/ai_16433923/

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

A while ago, I posted something I read from a book about the vial of Simpson's blood having an "evidence" certificate with it inside the envelope. It was Gerry Uleman's book. He says the date on this certificate was wrong and right there that is a huge, huge red flag.

In American Tragedy, Simpson's vial of blood was entered or labeled as item number 17 but then somehow got changed to item number 18. It also says that Gary Sims and I think it was Ed Blake noticed something about the wet transfers. The swatch that was found in side the envelope did not match the same pattern of the wet swatch.

Also, Dr. Lee makes a very interesting comment, if these swatches were mistaken put away wet, then there should have been 7 wet transfers, not 4.

I also wonder how many swatches did AM say she initialed and then said she was mistaken. I think it would be interesting to review all of AM's work and see where she did leave initials and where she did not. What I mean is, if she left her initials on 100 items, then how did she forget these 7?

I think the most revolting thing about Simpson's blood sample was the staged exparte and, imho, rehearsed video of Thano Peratis. When I saw that video there was no doubt in my mind that blood was missing. If a man's liberty had not been at stake, the video would have easily won the best short comedy award, imho.

[GreenIce]

I think the most revolting thing about Simpson's blood sample was the staged exparte and, imho, rehearsed video of Thano Peratis. When I saw that video there was no doubt in my mind that blood was missing. If a man's liberty had not been at stake, the video would have easily won the best short comedy award, imho.

William,

IMO, any doubts the jury may have had about blood missing, were gone when that tape was played. Not only did the nurse not sell it, it proves at what lengths the DA's would go to. It made them look horrific.

Bill Pavelic, one of the defense investagtors said he saw a picture of the test tube and it was a mess. It didn't look right, he felt that blood had been spilled.

Also William Thomas wrote an article and I never picked up on this. Dr. Gerdes did find evidence of contamination in the Simpson case. Extra alleles consistent with OJ's appeared when both victims' blood was typed at the LAPD laboratory and at the two other laboratories that it was sent. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

He also testified that numerous times, controls designed to detect contamination were negative for contamination even when contamination clearly occured. I do not understand how the wet transfers could have taken place when, even according to the DA's, the swatches should have been dried within 55 minutes.

Also, do you know who brought it to AM's attention she did not initial the bindles? She testified that she initialed each of the bindles--were all of them missing her initals?

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9180514]Old Soul,

Marguerite gave an interview after the murders. There were the rumors that she had also been beaten by Simpson. She basically said that Simpson was a yeller and never hit her. Obviously, there probably wasn't a lot of love lost between the Simpson wives, however, Marguerite could have made a fortune if she said that Simpson did hit her.

************************************************** ******
My recollection is that Marguerite had filed a domestic violence charge when she was married to OJS, and then denied it at the time of the murder trial. I I think there was talk about giving her a subpoeana to answer questions about domestic abuse.

I give Nicole a partial pass because people who are being mistreated sometimes take it out on others. I realize if you hand out very many passes on this basis you get anarchy. I think you both had quite a few faults. If a marriage goes for 17 years you seldom find one partner a well adjusted person and the other a nut case.

fgump2,

I am staying away from this subject because of the emotions it boils in me. I feel very strongly about the obvious implications of the "evidence". However, I have read it as I will continue to read all of them, I just will not comment on them.

There is no doubt in my mind that others feel just as strongly as I do on this issue but their feelings are opposite of mine on this. I mean no disrespect to them but I find it impossible to hide my distain for the LAPD and Nicole's "friends" on this issue. So I am backing out and hopefully this will ease some tension---at least my tension!

[GreenIce]

William and Martin,

I also didn't know that LAPD detectives are trained in the collection of blood samples. Detectives have swatches and plastic bags for that purpose and often submit blood swatches to the Lab.

So Lange knew how to collect blood samples so why didn't he take the samples off Nicole's back and I think her leg?

What was the DNA count on those five drops of blood that was not Ron's, Nicole's and OJ's. Are these the same blood drops that were by Nicole's jeep in her driveway? How were those blood drops described by the police?

I remember Nicole's jeeps being left open, the garage door being left open, the coins found all appeared to be incriminating evidence, yet it wasn't. In Lange and Vanatter's book, they take exception to the fact that for some reason the number and type of coins were inaccurate. I wonder why they made such a big deal out of this and the fact that Lange kept that plastic heart in his desk for over year tells me something wasn't quite right with Lange on the crime scene and the investigation of it. I have often wondered if he made the choice to stay away from it because he knew that something was wrong. Maybe he figured if he doesn't go back over and do his walk through, doesn't make notes of the crime scene, then he really take responsibilitly for the diaster at Bundy but shift it off to the LAPD lab and others.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, any doubts the jury may have had about blood missing, were gone when that tape was played. Not only did the nurse not sell it, it proves at what lengths the DA's would go to. It made them look horrific.

Bill Pavelic, one of the defense investagtors said he saw a picture of the test tube and it was a mess. It didn't look right, he felt that blood had been spilled.

Also William Thomas wrote an article and I never picked up on this. Dr. Gerdes did find evidence of contamination in the Simpson case. Extra alleles consistent with OJ's appeared when both victims' blood was typed at the LAPD laboratory and at the two other laboratories that it was sent. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

He also testified that numerous times, controls designed to detect contamination were negative for contamination even when contamination clearly occured. I do not understand how the wet transfers could have taken place when, even according to the DA's, the swatches should have been dried within 55 minutes.

Also, do you know who brought it to AM's attention she did not initial the bindles? She testified that she initialed each of the bindles--were all of them missing her initals?

I agree with my entire fabric that the video made the prosecution look desperate. Peratis allegedly was too sick to undergo cross examination but not coddling from the prosecution in that video. If it does not fit...

I will have to review the testimony about the alleles. I am not ashamed to admit that the testimony about DNA was boring and hard to follow. The testimony that was easy to follow concerned EDTA, imho. Martz's testimony showed me that the evidence loomed large as to the possibility that the blood was planted.

There was evidence that the wet stains should not have been placed in plastic. However, that is what they did.

I am not sure who may have first brought it to Mazzola's attention that the envelopes were missing her initials but I do know that the defense did an excellent job exposing they were not and allowing an inference that the evidence suffered from tampering. IIRC, only certain of the envelopes were missing her initials. However, I will review that testimony also.

[William Anthony]

GreenIce,

In reviewing Lang's testimony, I found this portion, which I believe was on March 6th.

"Q: BY THE WAY, HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO REVIEW THESE DOCUMENTS HERE WHICH PURPORT TO HAVE COME EITHER FROM SOME KIND OF A BOOKLET OR SOMETHING INSIDE THE APARTMENT?

A: NOT RECENTLY.

Q: DID YOU EVER REVIEW THEM?

A: I BELIEVE INITIALLY I DID, YES.

Q: DID YOU FOLLOW UP ON ANY OF THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE CONTAINED IN THIS -- THIS INFORMATION?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF I SPECIFICALLY DID OR TIPPIN AND CARR DID OR IF IT WAS DONE AT ALL.

Q: DID YOU FIND OUT WHAT DESIGN WRAP IS?

MR. COCHRAN: DESIGN WRAP, W-R-A-P, YOUR HONOR.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT A BUSINESS THAT MR. GOLDMAN WAS INVOLVED IN?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: YOU NEVER LOOKED AT THAT EITHER?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT MR. GOLDMAN MAY HAVE BEEN THE TARGET OF THE ASSASSIN OR ASSASSINS THAT PARTICULAR NIGHT? DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT AT ALL?

A: THE TARGET OF AN ASSASSIN?

Q: NO. WAS HE THE TARGET --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: -- OF THE PERPETRATORS ON JUNE 12TH, THE PERPETRATOR OR PERPETRATORS ON JUNE 12TH, 1994 WHEN HE CAME TO MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE? DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT AS A POSSIBLE THEORY?

A: THAT HE WOULD BE THE TARGET?

Q: YES. LET ME SEE IF I CAN MAKE IT SO YOU UNDERSTAND IT. DID YOU EVER, AS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN THIS CASE, EVER CONSIDER ANY OTHER THEORY THAN THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS THE ONLY PERPETRATOR IN THIS CASE?

A: ANY OTHER THEORY?

Q: YES. ANY OTHER THEORY, ANY OTHER POSSIBILITIES?

A: I HAD ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER EVIDENCE THAT WOULD POINT ME IN ANY OTHER DIRECTION.

Q: DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT MR. GOLDMAN COULD HAVE BEEN A PERSON FOLLOWED TO THAT LOCATION? DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT AT ALL?

A: I THINK IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE HE WAS FOLLOWED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU THINK -- DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THAT SOMETHING REGARDING HIM OR HIS BACKGROUND MAY HAVE LED SOME PERSON OR PERSONS TO FOLLOW HIM THERE TO THAT LOCATION?

A: I HAD NO EVIDENCE AT ALL TO SUGGEST THAT.

Q: AND SO DID YOU EVER PURSUE THAT OR LOOK AT IT AT ALL?

A: THERE WAS NOTHING TO PURSUE. THERE WAS NOTHING TO SHOW ANY EVIDENCE TO THAT.

Q: YOU NEVER LOOKED AT ANY -- YOU NEVER LOOKED AT ANY OF THE PEOPLE IN HIS BOOK OR MADE ANY DETERMINATIONS ABOUT HIS BACKGROUND. YOU DIDN'T DO THAT?

A: AGAIN, I BELIEVE I DID GO THROUGH THE BOOK INITIALLY. I BELIEVE TIPPIN AND CARR DID, BUT THERE WAS NOTHING IN THAT BOOK TO LEAD IN ANY OTHER DIRECTION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT, RIGHT?

A: ABOUT --

Q: ABOUT FOLLOWING UP ON ANY OTHER LEADS OR ANYTHING REGARDING MR. GOLDMAN.

A: I DIDN'T SEE ANY OTHER LEADS TO FOLLOW UP ON. "

If Simpson was the murderer, how would he have known to follow Mr. RG? If you think he was followed, why not look into the people listed on the document found in his apartment? I will look to see if there is any testimony from Tippin and Carr.

[martin II]

William,

IMO, any doubts the jury may have had about blood missing, were gone when that tape was played. Not only did the nurse not sell it, it proves at what lengths the DA's would go to. It made them look horrific.

Bill Pavelic, one of the defense investagtors said he saw a picture of the test tube and it was a mess. It didn't look right, he felt that blood had been spilled.

Also William Thomas wrote an article and I never picked up on this. Dr. Gerdes did find evidence of contamination in the Simpson case. Extra alleles consistent with OJ's appeared when both victims' blood was typed at the LAPD laboratory and at the two other laboratories that it was sent. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

He also testified that numerous times, controls designed to detect contamination were negative for contamination even when contamination clearly occured. I do not understand how the wet transfers could have taken place when, even according to the DA's, the swatches should have been dried within 55 minutes.

Also, do you know who brought it to AM's attention she did not initial the bindles? She testified that she initialed each of the bindles--were all of them missing her initals?


It was either a da person or a lab supervisor that informed MAZZOLA about the sample envelope problem they had.

After testifying on directr that she initialed all samples collected when she put them in envelopes she was told by a person that the envelopes entered into evidence did not show her initials.This caused her some problem so she
went searching inanother opart of the lab for her envelopes. after getting some clearance to do so she discovered that the envelopes that she prepared with her initials did not appear to be the one in front of her as there were no initials on them.

Under cross examination all of the samples entrered into evidence that was suppose to have collected by her were put in front of her on the stand and she was asked to identify those that contained her initials, she looked and could not find one let along all.
She was asked why she she dont know.

The obvious problem was the original samplea she collected with her initials were not the ones presented to her in court as her initials were absent.

i will try to find the name of the person that informed her.

[martin II]

I agree with my entire fabric that the video made the prosecution look desperate. Peratis allegedly was too sick to undergo cross examination but not coddling from the prosecution in that video. If it does not fit...

I will have to review the testimony about the alleles. I am not ashamed to admit that the testimony about DNA was boring and hard to follow. The testimony that was easy to follow concerned EDTA, imho. Martz's testimony showed me that the evidence loomed large as to the possibility that the blood was planted.

There was evidence that the wet stains should not have been placed in plastic. However, that is what they did.

I am not sure who may have first brought it to Mazzola's attention that the envelopes were missing her initials but I do know that the defense did an excellent job exposing they were not and allowing an inference that the evidence suffered from tampering. IIRC, only certain of the envelopes were missing her initials. However, I will review that testimony also.

I have wondered how many viles vanhatter walked out of parker center with.
Some times it is said he gave Fung a envelope containing a vile and at others it is viles. So the quesiton is would it take more than one vile to contain the amount of blood Paeratis said he collected?. 8cc.

Peratis was the nurse that drew the sample blood.He was at SID where all the blood is logged in.So why is it that he gave oj samples to Vanhatter when he should have given them directly to SID for recording. It makes no sense.

When vanhatter took the samples to Fung at the rockingham crime scene Fung said he was surprised that Vanhatter had brought blood samples to him as this had never happened to him before. SO exactly why did Vanhatter do this unless he was doing something wrong with the samples.

He took oj samples to rockingham where blood was being collected by Mazzola and Fung.

[William Anthony]

I have wondered how many viles vanhatter walked out of parker center with.
Some times it is said he gave Fung a envelope containing a vile and at others it is viles. So the quesiton is would it take more than one vile to contain the amount of blood Paeratis said he collected?. 8cc.

Peratis was the nurse that drew the sample blood.He was at SID where all the blood is logged in.So why is it that he gave oj samples to Vanhatter when he should have given them directly to SID for recording. It makes no sense.

When vanhatter took the samples to Fung at the rockingham crime scene Fung said he was surprised that Vanhatter had brought blood samples to him as this had never happened to him before. SO exactly why did Vanhatter do this unless he was doing something wrong with the samples.

He took oj samples to rockingham where blood was being collected by Mazzola and Fung.

I can hear Vanatter telling Peratis give that blood to me and Peratis asking is that enough.:)

[martin II]

William,

IMO, any doubts the jury may have had about blood missing, were gone when that tape was played. Not only did the nurse not sell it, it proves at what lengths the DA's would go to. It made them look horrific.

Bill Pavelic, one of the defense investagtors said he saw a picture of the test tube and it was a mess. It didn't look right, he felt that blood had been spilled.

Also William Thomas wrote an article and I never picked up on this. Dr. Gerdes did find evidence of contamination in the Simpson case. Extra alleles consistent with OJ's appeared when both victims' blood was typed at the LAPD laboratory and at the two other laboratories that it was sent. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

He also testified that numerous times, controls designed to detect contamination were negative for contamination even when contamination clearly occured. I do not understand how the wet transfers could have taken place when, even according to the DA's, the swatches should have been dried within 55 minutes.

Also, do you know who brought it to AM's attention she did not initial the bindles? She testified that she initialed each of the bindles--were all of them missing her initals?


The blood samples were put into a dryer i think and this was no different than how samples had been dried before by the lab. Normally they would dry in 55 minutes. These samples were left to dry overnight.So there should have no reason they would not have dried.
However when Dr Lee took the samples out for examination blood transfer was seen on the inside of the envelope where it should not have been seen.
It is obvious that other samples had been put into the envelope than the ones that were put there the night before.
This indicate definate tampering of blood samples and the defense did a good job of exposing this.The jury heard this testinmony also and they must have thought SOMETHING WRONG.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9180552]

fgump2,

I am staying away from this subject because of the emotions it boils in me. I feel very strongly about the obvious implications of the "evidence". However, I have read it as I will continue to read all of them, I just will not comment on them.

There is no doubt in my mind that others feel just as strongly as I do on this issue but their feelings are opposite of mine on this. I mean no disrespect to them but I find it impossible to hide my distain for the LAPD and Nicole's "friends" on this issue. So I am backing out and hopefully this will ease some tension---at least my tension!

I agree that the issue of whether oj hit Nicole 1-2-3 times is important for some that believe that this led him to killing her.I don't. But this imo is a side issue and does not go to the EVIDENCE in the case which gives us the basics to try to understand what happened.

[William Anthony]

The blood samples were put into a dryer i think and this was no different than how samples had been dried before by the lab. Normally they would dry in 55 minutes. These samples were left to dry overnight.So there should have no reason they would not have dried.
However when Dr Lee took the samples out for examination blood transfer was seen on the inside of the envelope where it should not have been seen.
It is obvious that other samples had been put into the envelope than the ones that were put there the night before.
This indicate definate tampering of blood samples and the defense did a good job of exposing this.The jury heard this testinmony also and they must have thought SOMETHING WRONG.

Martin,

I am certainly no expert but the small swatches I saw, would have dried in an hour to an hour and a half for sure, if they were air dried. Why leave them out overnight? Perhaps, I didn't get a proper impression of the size of the swatches but towels do not take that long to air dry. A blanket would. Am I missing something here?

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9180559]

I agree that the issue of whether oj hit Nicole 1-2-3 times is important for some that believe that this led him to killing her.I don't. But this imo is a side issue and does not go to the EVIDENCE in the case which gives us the basics to try to understand what happened.

While domestic violence is not to be condoned by any folks in any community and there is nothing to suggest it has, I agree that it had nothing to do with proving who murdered Ms. NBS or Mr. RG. The statistics utilized by some, 40% of abusers go on to commit murder, show that less than half commit murder and more than half don't. This would suggest that the probability is that Simpson was not the murder. I know that there is a great interest in discussing DV on this board and this is not to deter efforts by those so interested but just a reminder that it doesn't go to prove Simpson committed murder.

[martin II]

I can hear Vanatter telling Peratis give that blood to me and Peratis asking is that enough.:)

There was no reason for Peratis to use a syringe to draw ojs blood unless he wanted to be able to transfer it to another container.


If he had used a vaccutainer with butterfly the blood would have been drawn from ojs arm directly into the vile and would have remained there.

Using the syringe allowed him to draw blood and then transfer that blood into any container he wanted to.One vile two viles or a jar.
For some strange reason he drew the blood and gave it to Vanatter who then dissapeared for some time in la and finally showed up at Rockingham. A active crime scene.
Why did Vanhatter have to handle the blood and why did he have to go where he went with the blood.

[martin II]

Martin,

I am certainly no expert but the small swatches I saw, would have dried in an hour to an hour and a half for sure, if they were air dried. Why leave them out overnight? Perhaps, I didn't get a proper impression of the size of the swatches but towels do not take that long to air dry. A blanket would. Am I missing something here?

Well my connon sense tells me that the samples that were put out to dry that night were not the same samples that Lee found when he examined them.I see no other excuse.leaving the samples out in the open without putting them away for safe keeping just shows how sloppy that lab was.Unless there was a purpose for doing so.imo

[martin II]

I can hear Vanatter telling Peratis give that blood to me and Peratis asking is that enough.:)

Every syringe has calibrations printed on the side of the tube so there is no reason why Peratis did not know exactly how much blood he drew.

[martin II]

Martin,

Did Michelle ever give a depo during the civil trial?

I will look to see

[tv]

Every syringe has calibrations printed on the side of the tube so there is no reason why Peratis did not know exactly how much blood he drew.

If you think that the blood couldn't have been removed from a vacutainer you are wrong. They have removable rubber stoppers in them and are no more secure than a syringe. Your argument that the syringe shows that something shady was done doesn't hold water. As far how much he drew there was no reason for him to take not of or write down the exact amount of ml's. It wasn't protocol or procedure and wasn't requested of him by anyone.

[martin II]

The earing situation

When oj put niciole out of the bedroon he went back to bed. Nicole still angry went to Nicoiles room to see if she knew anything about the earings Nicole at this time had just lost it. nicole started some stuff with Michael and Michjel went to oj bedroon to tell him there was a problem with Nicole. OJ went Michaels room whhere Nicole was on a rampage still angry because oj had not given her the earings she thought he had baught for her. nicole slapped Michael and knocked her to the ground as oj tried to keep them seperate
Nicole then walked out the door.

If Nicole asked oj for the earings and he said i have no earings for you,her options would have been to simply say OK and gone back to sleep. But she didnt because she believe that she should get what she wants and she was not taking no for a answer.

[tv]

The earing situation

When oj put niciole out of the bedroon he went back to bed. Nicole still angry went to Nicoiles room to see if she knew anything about the earings Nicole at this time had just lost it. nicole started some stuff with Michael and Michjel went to oj bedroon to tell him there was a problem with Nicole. OJ went Michaels room whhere Nicole was on a rampage still angry because oj had not given her the earings she thought he had baught for her. nicole slapped Michael and knocked her to the ground as oj tried to keep them seperate
Nicole then walked out the door.

If Nicole asked oj for the earings and he said i have no earings for you,her options would have been to simply say OK and gone back to sleep. But she didnt because she believe that she should get what she wants and she was not taking no for a answer.

This doesn't support the testimony that OJ Simpson gave at the civil trial.

You're funny martin -- you always give yourself away about how you feel about the role of women. Nicole should have said 'okay' and gone back to sleep? Your dislike of Nicole is so obvious. It doesn't matter how much you dislike her -- she was the mother of Simpson's children and didn't deserve the verbal abuse, the beatings and then ultimately the slaughter.

[martin II]

Nicole was i think 18 and working in that bar/resturant as a waitress when oj came in to eat. I assume she had finished high school but was she scheduled to go to college at that time? Did her parent have educaitonal plans for her
or was she just working hoping to meet someone. How is it that she was receptive to a gown man like oj at his age. How was he able to pick her up so easily. what did her parents have to say about him putting her up in that apartment when he was married.
What did they say to her when she first put oj in front of them as her boyfriend. Didn't they have some feelings that she was in fact too young for this old experience football player.
What caused them to go along with this program.

[tv]

Nicole was i think 18 and working in that bar/resturant as a waitress when oj came in to eat. I assume she had finished high school but was she scheduled to go to college at that time? Did her parent have educaitonal plans for her
or was she just working hoping to meet someone. How is it that she was receptive to a gown man like oj at his age. How was he able to pick her up so easily. what did her parents have to say about him putting her up in that apartment when he was married.
What did they say to her when she first put oj in front of them as her boyfriend. Didn't they have some feelings that she was in fact too young for this old experience football player.
What caused them to go along with this program.
I think it's called DATING not a pick-up. My question is what was a man OJ Simpson's age doing looking for a girl Nicole's age while he was married? Wait, don't answer that. The answer is that he was a slime ball that cheated on every woman he ever had. A 17 or 18 year old girl was no match for the manipulations of OJ Simpson. Your comments about Nicole are derogatory and unnecessary. What happened to you being worried about what the Simpson kids will read on here?

[William Anthony]

There was no reason for Peratis to use a syringe to draw ojs blood unless he wanted to be able to transfer it to another container.


If he had used a vaccutainer with butterfly the blood would have been drawn from ojs arm directly into the vile and would have remained there.

Using the syringe allowed him to draw blood and then transfer that blood into any container he wanted to.One vile two viles or a jar.
For some strange reason he drew the blood and gave it to Vanatter who then dissapeared for some time in la and finally showed up at Rockingham. A active crime scene.
Why did Vanhatter have to handle the blood and why did he have to go where he went with the blood.

Vanatter winked at Peratis telling him he would handle the blood from here and Peratis smiled back saying don't you mean mishandle. :)

[William Anthony]

Well my connon sense tells me that the samples that were put out to dry that night were not the same samples that Lee found when he examined them.I see no other excuse.leaving the samples out in the open without putting them away for safe keeping just shows how sloppy that lab was.Unless there was a purpose for doing so.imo

I didn't think I was missing anything. :)

[William Anthony]

Every syringe has calibrations printed on the side of the tube so there is no reason why Peratis did not know exactly how much blood he drew.

There was no reason for him to have an improved memory almost a year later while being so sick he couldn't undergo examination. If it does not fit...

[tv]

Vanatter winked at Peratis telling him he would handle the blood from here and Peratis smiled back saying don't you mean mishandle. :)

Another one of your jokes, William?

[tv]

There was no reason for him to have an improved memory almost a year later while being so sick he couldn't undergo examination. If it does not fit...Can't the Simpson supporters do anything but parrot the defense? Garbage in, garbage out and If it doesn't fit...yes, we know the defense was into nursery rhymes to help indoctrinate the jury.

[weezer]

The earing situation

When oj put niciole out of the bedroon he went back to bed. Nicole still angry went to Nicoiles room to see if she knew anything about the earings Nicole at this time had just lost it. nicole started some stuff with Michael and Michjel went to oj bedroon to tell him there was a problem with Nicole. OJ went Michaels room whhere Nicole was on a rampage still angry because oj had not given her the earings she thought he had baught for her. nicole slapped Michael and knocked her to the ground as oj tried to keep them seperate
Nicole then walked out the door.

If Nicole asked oj for the earings and he said i have no earings for you,her options would have been to simply say OK and gone back to sleep. But she didnt because she believe that she should get what she wants and she was not taking no for a answer.

gosh martin -- I guess you would know what happened better than orenthal! LOL

BTW -- who is 'Michael'? maybe we're talking about two different incidents. . . .;)

[weezer]

Can't the Simpson supporters do anything but parrot the defense? Garbage in, garbage out and If it doesn't fit...yes, we know the defense was into nursery rhymes to help indoctrinate the jury.

I believe I read where someone on the criminal defense team said 'you have to speak to your audience'. ;)

[tv]

gosh martin -- I guess you would know what happened better than orenthal! LOL

BTW -- who is 'Michael'? maybe we're talking about two different incidents. . . .;)

Uh-oh...deja vu...remember James Woods?

[weezer]

maybe one of the NG's can provide proof/evidence that any of the crap the criminal defense threw against the wall actually happened. not theory. proof.

[Kate Sachel]

For I hope the last time, Nicole's slapping of the maid did not happen during the 1989 incident. Why are we continuing to post and discuss that misinformation?

Michelle gave a sworn statement, and I believe that I will attempt to find that so that this can be cleared once and for all.

Kate

[weezer]

Uh-oh...deja vu...remember James Woods?

ha -- I'd forgotten that.

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

Can you give 5 examples of how the Browns chose celebrity over their daughter's welfare?

If go back and read my post, I do basically say that even if this true about Nicole's family and friends, what excuse to the LAPD have? You and Old Soul have posted about how or why Nicole's family never did anything but neither of you spoke about the state agency who's job is to serve and protect.

Are you going to answer the question I put forth to you? You accuse me of two different things - of blaming the Browns and then of giving the Browns a free pass.

Kate

[tv]

maybe one of the NG's can provide proof/evidence that any of the crap the criminal defense threw against the wall actually happened. not theory. proof.
I don't usually make predictions but I don't think it's going to happen.

[weezer]

For I hope the last time, Nicole's slapping of the maid did not happen during the 1989 incident. Why are we continuing to post and discuss that misinformation?

Michelle gave a sworn statement, and I believe that I will attempt to find that so that this can be cleared once and for all.

Kate

I'm sorry -- is your interpretation of my post that I believe the incident happened in 1989? I understand that the incident did not happen that night. I posted what I believe started the night of the 1989 beating and Michelle's 'non-participation' that was as the basis for the tension between Nicole and Michelle.

[William Anthony]

Another one of your jokes, William?

There is often truth in jokes.

[William Anthony]

Can't the Simpson supporters do anything but parrot the defense? Garbage in, garbage out and If it doesn't fit...yes, we know the defense was into nursery rhymes to help indoctrinate the jury.

Let me try this one for you, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it".:)

[William Anthony]

I don't usually make predictions but I don't think it's going to happen.

The abundant evidence of planting has been supplied as was the evidence of cross contamination and contamination.

[tv]

Are you going to answer the question I put forth to you? You accuse me of two different things - of blaming the Browns and then of giving the Browns a free pass.

Kate
I'm still waiting for GreenIce to provide us with a source for her claim that Marc Klaas was furious about taking a polygraph. :shrug:

[tv]

The abundant evidence of planting has been supplied as was the evidence of cross contamination and contamination.

There was no evidence of planting entered into evidence in the criminal or civil trials. Please state what evidence you're talking about and also site which pieces of evidence were proven to be contaminated.

[William Anthony]

There was no evidence of planting entered into evidence in the criminal or civil trials. Please state what evidence you're talking about and also site which pieces of evidence were proven to be contaminated.

The evidence of planting was the testimonies, as was it with the contamination and cross contamination. I am sure that you understand the difference between evidence and proof. I am sure you understand which party has the burden of proof.

[weezer]

The evidence of planting was the testimonies, as was it with the contamination and cross contamination. I am sure that you understand the difference between evidence and proof. I am sure you understand which party has the burden of proof.

the party making the allegation -- so, we wait for you to supply the proof/evidence of the planting. :shrug:

[martin II]

I think it's called DATING not a pick-up. My question is what was a man OJ Simpson's age doing looking for a girl Nicole's age while he was married? Wait, don't answer that. The answer is that he was a slime ball that cheated on every woman he ever had. A 17 or 18 year old girl was no match for the manipulations of OJ Simpson. Your comments about Nicole are derogatory and unnecessary. What happened to you being worried about what the Simpson kids will read on here?

In Nicoles case as a waitress i am sure there were attemptrs by many to pick her up. men her age and men much older.It would have been her parents responsibility to give her informaiton to protect her.

I know if my daughter at 18 had come home with a man ojs age he would have been invited to leave imediately.
But he did not seem to have any problem getting her to agree.
Her parents had to know he had her i that apartment and they must have asked her about his status.

If oj had just been a regular old customer on a regular old job i wonder if Nicole and her parents would be as quick to approve the deal as they were.

Had Nicole had a problem getting boyfriend her age or was she looking for a celibrity loaded with cash.

[Kate Sachel]

I'm sorry -- is your interpretation of my post that I believe the incident happened in 1989? I understand that the incident did not happen that night. I posted what I believe started the night of the 1989 beating and Michelle's 'non-participation' that was as the basis for the tension between Nicole and Michelle.

Oh, no no no! It comes from martin's post regarding 1989 and that Nicole confronted Michelle that night to get more information about the earrings and then slapped Michelle and knocked her to the ground.

Kate

[martin II]

The evidence of planting was the testimonies, as was it with the contamination and cross contamination. I am sure that you understand the difference between evidence and proof. I am sure you understand which party has the burden of proof.

The evidence was in the cross eximination of prosecution witnesses where it was shown that the proseuctions witnesses could not be believed.
Mazzola Fung vanhatter and some others.

[tv]

The evidence of planting was the testimonies, as was it with the contamination and cross contamination. I am sure that you understand the difference between evidence and proof. I am sure you understand which party has the burden of proof. Oh, you're talking about the wild theories and speculation again. I see.

[William Anthony]

The evidence was in the cross eximination of prosecution witnesses where it was shown that the proseuctions witnesses could not be believed.
Mazzola Fung vanhatter and some others.

Exactly, even though some may not understand or want to believe it and in some instances it was provided on direct by the defense; one instance being Martz.

[tv]

In Nicoles case as a waitress i am sure there were attemptrs by many to pick her up. men her age and men much older.It would have been her parents responsibility to give her informaiton to protect her.

I know if my daughter at 18 had come home with a man ojs age he would have been invited to leave imediately.
But he did not seem to have any problem getting her to agree.
Her parents had to know he had her i that apartment and they must have asked her about his status.

If oj had just been a regular old customer on a regular old job i wonder if Nicole and her parents would be as quick to approve the deal as they were.

Had Nicole had a problem getting boyfriend her age or was she looking for a celibrity loaded with cash.

I'm not even going to dignify this trashing of Nicole with a response to it. It's against the rules of this forum to bash the victims.

[William Anthony]

Oh, you're talking about the wild theories and speculation again. I see.

No testimonies. The wild speculations were provided by Martz and MF and Park.

[tv]

Exactly, even though some may not understand or want to believe it and in some instances it was provided on direct by the defense; one instance being Martz.

I repeat -- wild theories and speculation. There is no proof that contamination or planting occurred.

[martin II]

I think it's called DATING not a pick-up. My question is what was a man OJ Simpson's age doing looking for a girl Nicole's age while he was married? Wait, don't answer that. The answer is that he was a slime ball that cheated on every woman he ever had. A 17 or 18 year old girl was no match for the manipulations of OJ Simpson. Your comments about Nicole are derogatory and unnecessary. What happened to you being worried about what the Simpson kids will read on here?

When a waitress is asked for her number by a new cusdtomer and she gives it and he comes back at some time to get her that is a pickup. the waitress has the option of refusing to be involved unless she is there fishing for a man.

What did her parents say when she presented oj to them.

[Kate Sachel]

I'm still waiting for GreenIce to provide us with a source for her claim that Marc Klaas was furious about taking a polygraph. :shrug:

And I am waiting for the link to the Paula Zahn interview in which Mr. Klaas apparently said things to the effect of not wanting to take the lie detector test, etc. I have googled and read now approximately 9 or so interviews that Mr. Klaas did with Paula Zahn and have not been able to find any statements he has made regarding not wanting to take the lie detector test. Perhaps I missed it, or simply have not read yet enough of the transcripts.

In addition, as I stated previously, she advised that if we googled Marc Klaas and lie detector test we would find all of this information supporting her claim of his anger and reluctance to take the test. So, as I also stated, I did just what she suggested and found everything to the contrary and not a single thing that supported her claims.

However, I am more than happy to correct myself if I can be pointed to something that shows otherwise.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I repeat -- wild theories and speculation. There is no proof that contamination or planting occurred.

It was Martz, who speculated he wasn't dead:), although the EDTA in the sock and gate stain indicated planting and the EDTA in his blood indicated he was dead.

[martin II]

I'm not even going to dignify this trashing of Nicole with a response to it. It's against the rules of this forum to bash the victims.

tv

my post is about how nicole met oj. it is not bashing so stop claimimg it is.

[tv]

It was Martz, who speculated he wasn't dead:), although the EDTA in the sock and gate stain indicated planting and the EDTA in his blood indicated he was dead.I'm not getting started on Martz -- no evidence was presented that proved contamination or planting. It's all theories and wild speculation.

[tv]

tv

my post is about how nicole met oj. it is not bashing so stop claimimg it is.

It's bashing to say he picked her up easily and that she was working there to find a celebrity loaded with cash.

[tv]

And I am waiting for the link to the Paula Zahn interview in which Mr. Klaas apparently said things to the effect of not wanting to take the lie detector test, etc. I have googled and read now approximately 9 or so interviews that Mr. Klaas did with Paula Zahn and have not been able to find any statements he has made regarding not wanting to take the lie detector test. Perhaps I missed it, or simply have not read yet enough of the transcripts.

In addition, as I stated previously, she advised that if we googled Marc Klaas and lie detector test we would find all of this information supporting her claim of his anger and reluctance to take the test. So, as I also stated, I did just what she suggested and found everything to the contrary and not a single thing that supported her claims.

However, I am more than happy to correct myself if I can be pointed to something that shows otherwise.

Kate

I've also googled extensively to find an answer and have come up with the same results as you have. I'll also admit to being wrong if I see something that supports her claim.

[martin II]

I'm not getting started on Martz -- no evidence was presented that proved contamination or planting. It's all theories and wild speculation.

The prosecution went to the FBI to get Martz they asked him to assist them
to prove theior claims.
when he was finished they realized he was a idiot and did not call him. the defence decided to show the jury the nonsense and silliness of the prosecutions claims. he was a total dud.

[Kate Sachel]

In Nicoles case as a waitress i am sure there were attemptrs by many to pick her up. men her age and men much older.It would have been her parents responsibility to give her informaiton to protect her.

I know if my daughter at 18 had come home with a man ojs age he would have been invited to leave imediately.
But he did not seem to have any problem getting her to agree.
Her parents had to know he had her i that apartment and they must have asked her about his status.

If oj had just been a regular old customer on a regular old job i wonder if Nicole and her parents would be as quick to approve the deal as they were.

Had Nicole had a problem getting boyfriend her age or was she looking for a celibrity loaded with cash.

Well, let's hit this point per point.

OJ's closest friends have said that Nicole had no idea who OJ Simpson was or that he was rich or that he was famous. I think we can dispel any notion that she was on the hunt for celebrity loaded with cash.

At 18 years of age, and when she was no longer living with her parents, it was not up to Lou or Juditha Brown to give their approval. I am not sure what you mean by "protect her". Do you believe that Katie Holmes needs protection from Tom Cruise considering that he is something like 14 years her senior?

OJ Simpson said himself that Juditha Brown accepted him immediately without any understanding that he was famous and wealthy. He spoke of how much he appreciated that. Regarding Lou, I have no idea.

Kate

[tv]

No testimonies. The wild speculations were provided by Martz and MF and Park.Not according to Judge Ito.

[William Anthony]

I'm not getting started on Martz -- no evidence was presented that proved contamination or planting. It's all theories and wild speculation.

I understand why you do not want to talk about Martz because his testimony showed that the gate and sock stain had to be planted. MF confirmed this when he said that he "investigated" and "found no evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters prior to him". Some here use the worn out cliche, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. While that may be true, it is evidence of an absence of proof. The prosecution had to prove that Simpson dropped the glove back behind Kato's quarters and the defense provided evidence that Simpson did not and that MF could have.

[martin II]

It's bashing to say he picked her up easily and that she was working there to find a celebrity loaded with cash.

no
those are the facts if you don't believe it then you tell me how he got her to come with him.

[William Anthony]

Not according to Judge Ito.

Ah, you see no one is perfect. Judge Ito's purview was the law and the jury's purview was to determine the facts by reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. In that regard, judge ito's statements carried less weight than the jurors'.

[tv]

I understand why you do not want to talk about Martz because his testimony showed that the gate and sock stain had to be planted. MF confirmed this when he said that he "investigated" and "found no evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters prior to him". Some here use the worn out cliche, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. While that may be true, it is evidence of an absence of proof. The prosecution had to prove that Simpson dropped the glove back behind Kato's quarters and the defense provided evidence that Simpson did not and that MF could have.

I don't want to talk about Martz because you and bobaugust finished beating that horse to death long ago. There is no evidence of planting and contamination. No evidence was admitted that showed Det. Fuhrnan dropped the glove behind Kato's room. His DNA wasn't on the glove but the DNA of OJS, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman was.

[martin II]

When Nicole and her parents asked oj 'What is your name' and he SAID OJ SIMPSON
they knew exactly who he was.

[tv]

When Nicole and her parents asked oj 'What is your name' and he SAID OJ SIMPSON
they knew exactly who he was.Not necessarily so. Marcia Clarke had no idea who he was.

[William Anthony]

I don't want to talk about Martz because you and bobaugust finished beating that horse to death long ago. There is no evidence of planting and contamination. No evidence was admitted that showed Det. Fuhrnan dropped the glove behind Kato's room. His DNA wasn't on the glove but the DNA of OJS, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman was.

Let's not take a limited view of the evidence but do as the jury was instructed to do and, as far as I am concerned, did, which is to consider all the evidence. When we do this, we see that MF said the word "them" when specifically asked about seeing one glove at Bundy and MF investigated and found no evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters prior to his being back there were he allegedly found the glove and we know that MF was subsequently convicted of perjury.

Martz's testimony provides evidence of planting on other items. The prosecution's failure to call him and acknowledge this, forcing the defense to call him, evidences their cognition of the significance of Martz's testimony in regard to the evidence of planting, imho.

[tv]

no
those are the facts if you don't believe it then you tell me how he got her to come with him.How do you know that he didn't visit the place where she worked several times and struck up a relationship with her and then asked her out? That's how dating works in my world but apparently not in yours.

[William Anthony]

Not necessarily so. Marcia Clarke had no idea who he was.

Judging from the changes in hair styles, Ms. Clark may not have known who she was.:)

[tv]

Let's not take a limited view of the evidence but do as the jury was instructed to do and, as far as I am concerned, did, which is to consider all the evidence. When we do this, we see that MF said the word "them" when specifically asked about seeing one glove at Bundy and MF investigated and found no evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters prior to his being back there were he allegedly found the glove and we know that MF was subsequently convicted of perjury.

Martz's testimony provides evidence of planting on other items. The prosecution's failure to call him and acknowledge this, forcing the defense to call him, evidences their cognition of the significance of Martz's testimony in regard to the evidence of planting, imho.I'm not discussing the use of the word 'them' either. Another subject you've completely worn out because you have nothing else to hang onto. Det. Fuhrman's perjury has nothing to do with finding the glove behind the bungalow.

[Kate Sachel]

How do you know that he didn't visit the place where she worked several times and struck up a relationship with her and then asked her out? That's how dating works in my world but apparently not in yours.

According to OJ's closest friends at the time, who were with him because he would have them go to lunch with him at the Daisy to see Nicole, they have said that he pursued her for a couple of weeks and continuously asked her out. Eventually she said yes.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Judging from the changes in hair styles, Ms. Clark may not have known who she was.:)

What a ridiculous statement.

Kate

[tv]

Judging from the changes in hair styles, Ms. Clark may not have known who she was.:)I don't think changing hairsyles twice during a nine-month period of time is unusual. I recall her telling people commenting on it to get a life.

[William Anthony]

I'm not discussing the use of the word 'them' either. Another subject you've completely worn out because you have nothing else to hang onto. Det. Fuhrman's perjury has nothing to do with finding the glove behind the bungalow.

Well you asked me for the evidence and when I supply it, you don't want to discuss it. Alrighty then.:) Falsus in onus, falsus in omibus.

[tv]

Well you asked me for the evidence and when I supply it, you don't want to discuss it. Alrighty then.:) Falsus in onus, falsus in omibus.
Because what you're talking about proves nothing.

[tv]

According to OJ's closest friends at the time, who were with him because he would have them go to lunch with him at the Daisy to see Nicole, they have said that he pursued her for a couple of weeks and continuously asked her out. Eventually she said yes.

Kate

Thank you, Kate.

[William Anthony]

What a ridiculous statement.

Kate

I choose not to make offensive comments about other poster's statements, unless I feel that someone has attacked me and, therefore, I feel justified in responding in fashion. Perhaps, you did not see the smiley icon after my post. In any event, whether you did or did not, is not important. We have engaged in lighthearted banter in an unoffensive manner and that is the way I wish to proceed. If however you feel you cannot do this, please feel free to ignore any of my comments that you consider ridiculous in the future. Thanks in anticipation for you cooperation.

[William Anthony]

Because what you're talking about proves nothing.

An open heart and mind will allow you to see things in a different brighter light rather than the light that may have previously limited you view.:) However, I respect your decision not to want to see that light or to discuss what you asked me to supply.

[weezer]

Let's not take a limited view of the evidence but do as the jury was instructed to do and, as far as I am concerned, did, which is to consider all the evidence. When we do this, we see that MF said the word "them" when specifically asked about seeing one glove at Bundy and MF investigated and found no evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters prior to his being back there were he allegedly found the glove and we know that MF was subsequently convicted of perjury.

Martz's testimony provides evidence of planting on other items. The prosecution's failure to call him and acknowledge this, forcing the defense to call him, evidences their cognition of the significance of Martz's testimony in regard to the evidence of planting, imho.

as interesting as it may be to you to come up with these theories, you really should at least try to base some of it on facts. imho

in numerous investigations during and since, there has never been any proof that the crap the criminal defense threw against the wall ever happened. not theory. not wishful thinking. proof.

[William Anthony]

I don't think changing hairsyles twice during a nine-month period of time is unusual. I recall her telling people commenting on it to get a life.

I think she was trying to get one.:)

[tv]

An open heart and mind will allow you to see things in a different brighter light rather than the light that may have previously limited you view.:) However, I respect your decision not to want to see that light or to discuss what you asked me to supply.

Characterize it in what ever way you want. I'm not going to participate in baseless speculation. I asked for proof and you've provided none.

[Kate Sachel]

I choose not to make offensive comments about other poster's statements, unless I feel that someone has attacked me and, therefore, I feel justified in responding in fashion. Perhaps, you did not see the smiley icon after my post. In any event, whether you did or did not, is not important. We have engaged in lighthearted banter in an unoffensive manner and that is the way I wish to proceed. If however you feel you cannot do this, please feel free to ignore any of my comments that you consider ridiculous in the future. Thanks in anticipation for you cooperation.

I do believe I will respond as I see fit, and you can also choose to ignore those responses if you wish. Thanks in anticipation for your cooperation.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Characterize it in what ever way you want. I'm not going to participate in baseless speculation. I asked for proof and you've provided none.

You asked for "proof/evidence" and I simply tried to explain to you that they are not the same; provided evidence, which you chose not to discuss after I supplied the evidence and that is your right. :)

[tv]

You asked for "proof/evidence" and I simply tried to explain to you that they are not the same; provided evidence, which you chose not to discuss after I supplied the evidence and that is your right. :)I should have said 'evidence that proves' -- is that more clear?

[weezer]

I should have said 'evidence that proves' -- is that more clear?

this should prove interesting!

[William Anthony]

I do believe I will respond as I see fit, and you can also choose to ignore those responses if you wish. Thanks in anticipation for your cooperation.

Kate

You may respond as you see fit as long as they are within the rules, according to my understanding. I have already so done as there are some comments that I consider ridiculous but out or respect for another poster I have not commented on them, unless they have previously treated me in a manner untoward. So you see, I have already cooperated.

[William Anthony]

I should have said 'evidence that proves' -- is that more clear?

Lady,

(I did not want to say my fair lady for fear that someone would find that inappropriate,:)). Evidence proves nothing it is the inferences drawn from the evidence, which is given weight and credibility, that proves (determines what the facts are) things.

[weezer]

Nicole was i think 18 and working in that bar/resturant as a waitress when oj came in to eat. I assume she had finished high school but was she scheduled to go to college at that time? Did her parent have educaitonal plans for her
or was she just working hoping to meet someone. How is it that she was receptive to a gown man like oj at his age. How was he able to pick her up so easily. what did her parents have to say about him putting her up in that apartment when he was married.
What did they say to her when she first put oj in front of them as her boyfriend. Didn't they have some feelings that she was in fact too young for this old experience football player.
What caused them to go along with this program.

the bashing of victims and/or families are against the rules.

[weezer]

In Nicoles case as a waitress i am sure there were attemptrs by many to pick her up. men her age and men much older.It would have been her parents responsibility to give her informaiton to protect her.

I know if my daughter at 18 had come home with a man ojs age he would have been invited to leave imediately.
But he did not seem to have any problem getting her to agree.
Her parents had to know he had her i that apartment and they must have asked her about his status.

If oj had just been a regular old customer on a regular old job i wonder if Nicole and her parents would be as quick to approve the deal as they were.

Had Nicole had a problem getting boyfriend her age or was she looking for a celibrity loaded with cash.

bashing victims and/or families are against the rules. #2

[tv]

Lady,

(I did not want to say my fair lady for fear that someone would find that inappropriate,:)). Evidence proves nothing it is the inferences drawn from the evidence, which is given weight and credibility, that proves (determines what the facts are) things.
When you want to talk about cold, hard facts let me know. Right now you only have theories thrown out by the defense.

[weezer]

Lady,

(I did not want to say my fair lady for fear that someone would find that inappropriate,:)). Evidence proves nothing it is the inferences drawn from the evidence, which is given weight and credibility, that proves (determines what the facts are) things.

then maybe you're willing to provide evidence and let the board draw their own inferences? not theory. not wishful thinking. concrete evidence/proof. you know, that thing that you believe LE didn't provide to convict. your turn.

[William Anthony]

When you want to talk about cold, hard facts let me know. Right now you only have theories thrown out by the defense.

Perhaps, you don't understand. There were no facts presented by either side, other than the stipulations. There was evidence that a person could weigh and give credibility. Let me see if I can give you the facts, Simpson was arrested, charged, tried and found not guilty.

[Kate Sachel]

You may respond as you see fit as long as they are within the rules, according to my understanding. I have already so done as there are some comments that I consider ridiculous but out or respect for another poster I have not commented on them, unless they have previously treated me in a manner untoward. So you see, I have already cooperated.

I see, well let me change my statement that I made to the following:

What a ridiculous statement:)

It seems that if I include a smiley at the end of my postings, then it is simply to be taken as lighthearted banter and I am able to disguise what I actually mean as an insult.

This begs the question; you are such a proponent of equality - ahem, pretend to be - and yet silence ensues when partner martin blatantly posts that what another individual has stated is ridiculous or is garbage, or when he tells them they need to clean their glasses. What a surprise.

So let the moderator log in and admonish appropriately all parties that have made statements taken as offensive or as an attack on another poster and I will take my hit accordingly. Until such time, I will just post away with the smileys after my statements and allow myself the belief that those smileys render my postings as non-offensive. Because I certainly don't believe that you're playing by the rules, I think you're simply failing at attempting to find creative ways around being called on it.

Kate

[weezer]

Perhaps, you don't understand. There were no facts presented by either side, other than the stipulations. There was evidence that a person could weigh and give credibility. Let me see if I can give you the facts, Simpson was arrested, charged, tried and found not guilty.

don't forget these facts:

* 9:36 P.M. Simpson, wearing a dark sweat suit, is seen by Kato Kaelin

* 9:30-9:45 Charles Cale, walking his dog by Simpson's Rockingham residence, does not see Bronco.

* 10:02 Simpson attempts to call Paula Barbieri on the cell phone from his Bronco.

* 10:15 (prosecution)-10:40 (defense) Period during which murders took place.

* 10:22-10:30 Limo driver Allan Park, scheduled to take Simpson to airport, does not see Bronco on Rockingham.

* 10:40, 10:43, 10:49 Allan Park buzzes Simpson's intercom, but gets no response.

* 10:50 White or light bronco observed at the intersection of Bundy and Dorothy.

* 10:51 or 10:52 Kato Kaelin hears three thumps on the wall outside his room.

* 10:54 Allan Park sees a man wearing dark clothes, about 6-feet tall and 200 pounds, walk across the driveway of the Simpson residence.

* 10:55 Simpson lies to Allan Park.

[weezer]

Perhaps, you don't understand. There were no facts presented by either side, other than the stipulations. There was evidence that a person could weigh and give credibility. Let me see if I can give you the facts, Simpson was arrested, charged, tried and found not guilty.

and these:

1. The 9-1-1 call and the history of Simpson's violence directed at Nicole Brown.

2. Hair evidence: (1) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on cap at Bundy residence, (2) hairs consistent with that of Simpson found on Ron Goldman's shirt.

3. Fiber evidence: (1) cotton fibers consistent with the carpet in the Bronco found on glove at Rockingham, (2) fibers consistent with the carpet from the Bronco found on cap at Bundy residence.

4. Blood evidence: (1) killer dropped blood near shoe prints at Bundy, (2) blood dropped at Bundy was of same type as Simpson's (about 0.5% of population would match), (3) Simpson had fresh cuts on left hand on day after murder, (4) blood found in Bronco, (5) blood found in foyer and master bedroom of Simpson home, (5) blood found on Simpson's driveway, (6) blood on socks in OJ's home matched Nicole's.

5. Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.

6. Shoe evidence: (1) shoe prints found at Bundy were from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, (2) bloody shoe impression on Bronco carpet is consistent with a Magli shoe, (3) Simpson wore a size 12 shoe.

7. Other evidence: (1) flight in Bronco, (2) strange reaction to phone call informing him of Nicole Brown's death, etc.

[weezer]

and these:

1. Simpson did not testify at his criminal trial. Defense attorneys will almost always call as a witness an articulate client that they believe to be innocent.
2. Subsequent to the trial defense attorneys talking about the trial have been careful to say "the jury did the right thing," while not stating that Simpson was in fact innocent.

3. Subsequent to the trial, Simpson has devoted no real effort to tracking down the "real killer," nor has any significant evidence surfaced suggesting that the killer was anyone other than Simpson.

4. The jury was not allowed to hear testimony concerning Simpson's rumored jailhouse confession to Rosie Grier.

5. Subsequent to the criminal trial other evidence of Simpson's guilt surfaced. The most significant of the new evidence may have been photographs of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes. The new evidence, together with much of the evidence considered in the criminal trial, convinced a civil jury that Simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.


6. In his 2007 book, If I Did It, Simpson (for all intents and purposes) confessed. The book describes in detail events leading up to the moment of the murders.

[Jayme K]

Man I run away for spring break (lol, I sound all college-y) and I come back about 100 pages behind. I've got a TON of catching up to do!

[weezer]

and this:

ROCKINGHAM PROPERTY
Rockingham trail (item 6) 0 2 OJS
Rockingham trail (item 7) 0 5 OJS
Rockingham foyer 5 6 OJS
Rockingham master bathroom floor 0 1 OJS
BUNDY CRIME SCENE
Blood pool by Nicole Brown Simpson 0 1 NBS
Blood drop by Nicole Brown Simpson 0 7 OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 48) 0 7 OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 49) 0 6 OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 50) 0 7 OJS
Bundy walk blood drop (item 52) 5 7 OJS
Shoe impression 0 5 NBS
Blood drop on Goldman boot 5 6 NBS & RG
Brown Simpson's fingernails 0 7 NBS
Back gate (item 115) 0 2 OJS
Back gate (item 116) 0 2 OJS
Back gate (item 117) 0 2 OJS
Rockingham Glove
Inside/ back of wrist 0 1 NBS & RG
Inside/ back of index finger 5 2 NBS & RG
Inside/ side of middle finger 5 2 NBS & RG
Inside/ back of ring finger 8 2 RG
Inside/ back of hand 5 2 NBS & RG
Inside/ by wrist notch 0 2 OJS & RG
Outside/ near wrist notch (item G-11) 0 1 OJS, NBS & RG
Outside/ near wrist notch (item G-12) 0 1 NBS & RG
Stitching/ wrist notch 0 1 OJS, NBS & RG
Inside/ back of cuff 0 1 NBS & RG
Rockingham Socks
Ankle 14 7 NBS
Near ankle (item 42-B1) 0 2 NBS
Near ankle (item 42-B2) 0 2 NBS
Upper sock/ opposite side 0 2 OJS
Upper sock/ same side 9 2 OJS
Upper toe 0 2 OJS
Simpson's Bronco
Driver door interior 0 1 OJS
Instrument panel 0 1 OJS
Driver side carpet 0 1 OJS
Steering wheel 0 6 OJS & NBS
Center console (item 30) 0 2 OJS
Center console (item 31) 0 2 OJS
Driver side wall 0 1 OJS
Driver side carpet 0 1 NBS
Center console (combination of 3 below) 4 * OJS
Center console (item 303) * 2 OJS
Center console (item 304) * 2 OJS
Center console (item 305) * 2 OJS
45 Total blood stains tested

[William Anthony]

I see, well let me change my statement that I made to the following:

What a ridiculous statement:)

It seems that if I include a smiley at the end of my postings, then it is simply to be taken as lighthearted banter and I am able to disguise what I actually mean as an insult.

This begs the question; you are such a proponent of equality - ahem, pretend to be - and yet silence ensues when partner martin blatantly posts that what another individual has stated is ridiculous or is garbage, or when he tells them they need to clean their glasses. What a surprise.

So let the moderator log in and admonish appropriately all parties that have made statements taken as offensive or as an attack on another poster and I will take my hit accordingly. Until such time, I will just post away with the smileys after my statements and allow myself the belief that those smileys render my postings as non-offensive. Because I certainly don't believe that you're playing by the rules, I think you're simply failing at attempting to find creative ways around being called on it.

Kate

Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
Judging from the changes in hair styles, Ms. Clark may not have known who she was.


What a ridiculous statement.

Kate
[/QUOTE]

As you see you didn't say that you found my statement offensive and, according to my understanding bashing of the prosecutors or defense is allowed. I did not bash Ms. Clark but I did make a joke about her change in hair dos and I am not the first on this board or elsewhere. However, putting all that aside, there is no reason for you to now claim that you found my post offensive, because I said that I found your post, calling my statement ridiculous to be offensive. I cannot tell you how to post but when I include an icon in my post that is what I mean. At this point I would suggest that we both go back to discussions about the cases.

[William Anthony]

Man I run away for spring break (lol, I sound all college-y) and I come back about 100 pages behind. I've got a TON of catching up to do!

Good to have you back.

[Kate Sachel]

[



[/QUOTE]

As you see you didn't say that you found my statement offensive and, according to my understanding bashing of the prosecutors or defense is allowed. I did not bash Ms. Clark but I did make a joke about her change in hair dos and I am not the first on this board or elsewhere. However, putting all that aside, there is no reason for you to now claim that you found my post offensive, because I said that I found your post, calling my statement ridiculous to be offensive. I cannot tell you how to post but when I include an icon in my post that is what I mean. At this point I would suggest that we both go back to discussions about the cases.[/QUOTE]

When I say that something is a ridiculous statement, I say such because it offends me and I find it ridiculous.

By all means, let's get back to discussing the case.:)

Kate

[tv]

Weezer, thanks for posting the evidence. Even though I know there's a lot of it I'm always amazed at the sheer amount of it when I see it all in one place. :)

[Jayme K]

TV,

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

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

Ummm ... kicking in a door and ranting and raving is threatening, intimidating and abusive!!! It doesn't matter if he approached her or threatened her physically for God's sake.

[weezer]

Weezer, thanks for posting the evidence. Even though I know there's a lot of it I'm always amazed at the sheer amount of it when I see it all in one place. :)

you're welcome. anyone have the DNA numbers? you know, the ones that show where it would be something like 9.1 billion other than orenthal's blood?

[Jayme K]

Good to have you back.

Hey thanks. It's gonna take me forever to catch up on all this. So to EVERYBODY, I'm gonna have alot of random postings while i bulldoze through and pick and choose.

[William Anthony]

As you see you didn't say that you found my statement offensive and, according to my understanding bashing of the prosecutors or defense is allowed. I did not bash Ms. Clark but I did make a joke about her change in hair dos and I am not the first on this board or elsewhere. However, putting all that aside, there is no reason for you to now claim that you found my post offensive, because I said that I found your post, calling my statement ridiculous to be offensive. I cannot tell you how to post but when I include an icon in my post that is what I mean. At this point I would suggest that we both go back to discussions about the cases.[/QUOTE]

When I say that something is a ridiculous statement, I say such because it offends me and I find it ridiculous.

By all means, let's get back to discussing the case.:)


Kate[/QUOTE]

I call upon your honesty in an effort to clear something up. Would you please explain that there are no facts in a case, other than those stipulated to or taken judicial notice of, and the facts of the case are decided by the jury based on their view of what the evidence proves, other than those previously mentioned and any other evidence introduced is subject to controversy. Thank in anticipation for your cooperation in resolving this matter, if you should choose to respond.:)

[William Anthony]

Hey thanks. It's gonna take me forever to catch up on all this. So to EVERYBODY, I'm gonna have alot of random postings while i bulldoze through and pick and choose.

Post away and we will agree or disagree. :)

[Jayme K]

no
those are the facts if you don't believe it then you tell me how he got her to come with him.

Oh get real! Those are the facts? HOW DO YOU KNOW? And yeah I'm yelling this at you because you freak out on anybody else that posts things that you think they couldn't know as facts.

Ante up here buddy - how's that the facts? I'm dying to know!

[Jayme K]

Post away and we will agree or disagree. :)

I'm PRETTY sure we'll be disagreeing on most of it ... lol ... cause you're forever p*ssing me off and I think I do the same to you.

[Kate Sachel]

As you see you didn't say that you found my statement offensive and, according to my understanding bashing of the prosecutors or defense is allowed. I did not bash Ms. Clark but I did make a joke about her change in hair dos and I am not the first on this board or elsewhere. However, putting all that aside, there is no reason for you to now claim that you found my post offensive, because I said that I found your post, calling my statement ridiculous to be offensive. I cannot tell you how to post but when I include an icon in my post that is what I mean. At this point I would suggest that we both go back to discussions about the cases.

When I say that something is a ridiculous statement, I say such because it offends me and I find it ridiculous.

By all means, let's get back to discussing the case.:)


Kate[/QUOTE]

I call upon your honesty in an effort to clear something up. Would you please explain that there are no facts in a case, other than those stipulated to or taken judicial notice of, and the facts of the case are decided by the jury based on their view of what the evidence proves, other than those previously mentioned and any other evidence introduced is subject to controversy. Thank in anticipation for your cooperation in resolving this matter, if you should choose to respond.:)[/QUOTE]

Yes, you are correct.

Kate

[weezer]

Legal Facts and Evidence

Legal facts are the information on which lawyers base their arguments, in order to win cases in courts of law. The evidence presented during a trial is designed to prove the facts supporting one's argument. Evidence is the key element in convincing the judge or jury that your facts are the proper ones on which to base a final decision. It is up to each side in a trial to prove, to the satisfaction of the court and through the presentation of evidence, the facts needed to support its case.[1]

The most common way in which evidence is presented in court is through oral testimony. Oral testimony occurs when a witness swears to tell the truth or be subject to the penalty of perjury, and then relates his or her experiences. Other forms of evidence such as objects from a crime scene, or a signed contract in a civil suit, can be submitted to the court as well. Concrete pieces of evidence like this are called physical evidence.[2]

Sarah Cobb describes her goals as an intervenor as helping people reframe their narratives.

Some facts are proven with circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is "evidence that may allow a judge or jury to deduce a certain fact from other facts, which have been proven."[3] A lawyer may support an eyewitness account with evidence about the circumstances of the situation, which helps the judge or jury logically deduce or reasonably infer facts that cannot be proven directly. Fingerprints are a perfect example of circumstantial evidence. There may be no eyewitness to place an alleged burglar at the scene of a crime, but if the defendant's fingerprints were found at the scene, it can be inferred that he or she was there.[4] "Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case. Many convictions for various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence."[5]

[William Anthony]

I'm PRETTY sure we'll be disagreeing on most of it ... lol ... cause you're forever p*ssing me off and I think I do the same to you.

Not true on behalf. I enjoy a discussion with opposing points of views, as it helps me to hone the skills necessary for the burden of persuasion. We have been able to disagree civilly, for the most part,:) and I look forward to discussing our opposing views and points of agreement.

[old_soul]

no
those are the facts if you don't believe it then you tell me how he got her to come with him.



pick up
'To meet someone, usually at a bar or party, and persuade them to leave with you in order to have sex. Used for in-person encounters, as opposed to hookup, which can also be used for internet meetings for sex'.


The words 'pick up' are not appropro....I believe we can say he wooed, courted, and dazzled her but he did not pick her up. She was working, he and she flirted back and forth, and ultimately dated. How he impressed her is a whole nother ball of wax.

Typical male - female behavior that's been going on forever.

[martin II]

Not necessarily so. Marcia Clarke had no idea who he was.

m clarke was a biker bar drunk right. she may not have knowm who m clarke was.

But Nicole. Denise and her parents knew who oj simpson was.

[William Anthony]

When I say that something is a ridiculous statement, I say such because it offends me and I find it ridiculous.

By all means, let's get back to discussing the case.:)


Kate

I call upon your honesty in an effort to clear something up. Would you please explain that there are no facts in a case, other than those stipulated to or taken judicial notice of, and the facts of the case are decided by the jury based on their view of what the evidence proves, other than those previously mentioned and any other evidence introduced is subject to controversy. Thank in anticipation for your cooperation in resolving this matter, if you should choose to respond.:)[/QUOTE]

Yes, you are correct.

Kate[/QUOTE]

Thank you very much and you remain one of my favorite posters. Note there is no smiley icon.

[Jayme K]

[QUOTE=martin II;9180388]I see you are still talking about what YOU THINK the kids should have done by now,You KNOW they should have gone public and made a big public DUMP
BECAUSE you know they must have what you KNOW on their minds.When you
don';t know what is on their minds and based on their behavior so far they have nothing that they want or need to say as they just could alereadty be at peace on the suibject.

QUOTE]

Thought I'd prove up my point about you hammer other posters about what you say they THINK they know.

I so totally wish I coudl name call right now.

[martin II]

pick up
'To meet someone, usually at a bar or party, and persuade them to leave with you in order to have sex. Used for in-person encounters, as opposed to hookup, which can also be used for internet meetings for sex'.


The words 'pick up' are not appropro....I believe we can say he wooed, courted, and dazzled her but he did not pick her up. She was working, he and she flirted back and forth, and ultimately dated. How he impressed her is a whole nother ball of wax.

Typical male - female behavior that's been going on forever.

Oj went to eat and in addition to the food he bit onto the hook.

What did her parents say when she brought this old black guy to their eyes and said here is oj simpson.

[Kate Sachel]

I call upon your honesty in an effort to clear something up. Would you please explain that there are no facts in a case, other than those stipulated to or taken judicial notice of, and the facts of the case are decided by the jury based on their view of what the evidence proves, other than those previously mentioned and any other evidence introduced is subject to controversy. Thank in anticipation for your cooperation in resolving this matter, if you should choose to respond.:)

Yes, you are correct.

Kate[/QUOTE]

Thank you very much and you remain one of my favorite posters. Note there is no smiley icon.[/QUOTE]

I take the law very seriously, you know that.

Kate

[William Anthony]

"The evidence presented during a trial is designed to prove the facts supporting one's argument. Evidence is the key element in convincing the judge or jury that your facts are the proper ones on which to base a final decision."

Kate,

I need your honesty, again. The defense is only required to prove an affirmative defense, according to my understanding, and I ask does that square with you understanding as there may be some misleading information in a post due to its brevity, which I understand but others may not. The test of other evidence is relevancy and which means that it must be more probative than prejudicial, meaning having a tendency to prove or disprove a contested issue without causing undue harm to either party, inter alia, in order to be admitted.

[Jayme K]

Oj went to eat and in addition to the food he bit onto the hook.

What did her parents say when she brought this old black guy to their eyes and said here is oj simpson.

You're so offensive.

[William Anthony]

Yes, you are correct.

Kate

Thank you very much and you remain one of my favorite posters. Note there is no smiley icon.[/QUOTE]

I take the law very seriously, you know that.

Kate[/QUOTE]

So, you think that you are one of my favorite posters for no reason.:)

[weezer]

m clarke was a biker bar drunk right. she may not have knowm who m clarke was.

But Nicole. Denise and her parents knew who oj simpson was.

more piggish statements from the kind of folk who make those kinds of statements. :punch:

[Kate Sachel]

"The evidence presented during a trial is designed to prove the facts supporting one's argument. Evidence is the key element in convincing the judge or jury that your facts are the proper ones on which to base a final decision."

Kate,

I need your honesty, again. The defense is only required to prove an affirmative defense, according to my understanding, and I ask does that square with you understanding as there may be some misleading information in a post due to its brevity, which I understand but others may not. The test of other evidence is relevancy and which means that it must be more probative than prejudicial, meaning having a tendency to prove or disprove a contested issue without causing undue harm to either party, inter alia, in order to be admitted.

You are correct. The defense has no obligation to defend anything other than an affirmative defense, an example being if the defendant admits that he committed the crime but pleads insanity. That is an affirmative defense and then the defense must set out to prove such.

Kate

[weezer]

"The evidence presented during a trial is designed to prove the facts supporting one's argument. Evidence is the key element in convincing the judge or jury that your facts are the proper ones on which to base a final decision."

Kate,

I need your honesty, again. The defense is only required to prove an affirmative defense, according to my understanding, and I ask does that square with you understanding as there may be some misleading information in a post due to its brevity, which I understand but others may not. The test of other evidence is relevancy and which means that it must be more probative than prejudicial, meaning having a tendency to prove or disprove a contested issue without causing undue harm to either party, inter alia, in order to be admitted.

Circumstantial Evidence: Entire Case. New York State Unified Court System.
Available at: Click here for more info.
This document clearly outlines the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence and how they each relate to facts and to the outcome of a trial. The explanation also includes some good examples.

Facts are Not What Win Cases: Perceptions Do!.
Available at: http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jun/1/127702.html.
This article discusses the importance of perceptions in a trial setting versus the importance of facts, in terms of outcomes. The author argues that facts are not necessarily as critical as how they are presented and the perceptions that judges and jurors develop of them.


Offline (Print) Sources
Anderson, Terrence and William Twining. Analysis of Evidence: How to do Things with Facts Based on Wigmore's Science of Judicial Proof. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, October 1998.
This work provides a guide for "mastering a necessary set of skills in fact analysis (the development, analysis, and marshaling of raw data): constructing, reconstructing, and criticizing arguments about disputed questions of fact; developing techniques for structuring problems and organizing masses of data; and developing techniques for detailed analysis and evaluation of particular data in the context of complex arguments" (Back cover of book).

Garner, Bryan A., ed. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Standard Edition. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1999.
This dictionary is the leading reference on legal terminology. Using this resource, one could learn more about the types of evidence that are used to support facts in court.

Murphy, Peter, ed. Evidence, Proof, and Facts: A Book of Sources. Oxford: Oxford University Press, May 2003.
This edited volume presents a range of essays on the concept and law of evidence in legal matters. Many of the essays go back to the philosophical underpinnings of today's U.S. legal system including essays by Aristotle, Jeremy Bentham, John Maynard Keynes, and John Locke.

Bergman, Paul and David A. Binder. Fact Investigation: From Hypothesis to Proof. Belmont, CA: West Wadsworth, April 1984.
This work "[d]escribes how facts are proved at trial, examining the principal categories of rational and psychological evidence, which is the basis of trial 'stories.' How, at trial, does each party tell a story bolstering its own legal position and detracting from that of its adversary? What attributes of stories tend to make them persuasive? From these attributes, the authors derive a set of investigatory objectives that generally apply, regardless of the nature of the case. With objectives in place, [the book] turns to the thought processes that lawyers employ to analyze and develop evidence." (Description from Amazon.com)

[martin II]

bashing victims and/or families are against the rules. #2

Then you shoul;d stop basshing Arnell Simpson

talking about how nicole and oj met is not bashing.

[weezer]

Then you shoul;d stop basshing Arnell Simpson

talking about how nicole and oj met is not bashing.

arnelle is an integral part of the story of orenthal. in fact, I would go so far as to say some refer to her as orenthal's co-conspirator. we know she was for at least the '89 beating and some say she was for the clean up the night he murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

[William Anthony]

You are correct. The defense has no obligation to defend anything other than an affirmative defense, an example being if the defendant admits that he committed the crime but pleads insanity. That is an affirmative defense and then the defense must set out to prove such.

Kate

Thanks again as there seems to be some misunderstanding as to what evidence is or, if you will, what its purpose is. I know you understand that the purpose of cross examination in a criminal defense case is to raise reasonable doubt about the evidence as presented. I think that there may be a misunderstanding that, because the prosecution presented evidence, it established a fact that could not be refuted and in fact it might not have to be refuted, just shown that it cannot be trusted. An example, if the prosecution charges a person with murder by shooting someone with a gun held in their right hand and the defense puts on evidence that the defendant could not pull a trigger with any of his right hand fingers, if believed by the trier of fact.

[weezer]

ahhh -- I see where the problem is -- william believes he's part of the criminal defense team.

Everyone understands that there are those who believe the criminal trial offered reasonable doubt -- for whatever reasons. you, however, have made statements that there was planting and tampering and God-only-knows-what-else -- we're simply asking that as a poster on a message board, you give us what that evidence/proof is.

[martin II]

When mazzola under cross examinitation said she did not know why her initioals were not on the blood envelopes she may not have lied at that moment as she may not have a party to the switching if the blood in the lab.

It may be that someone else in the lab switched ojs blood samples and she did not know it.

[weezer]

When mazzola under cross examinitation said she did not know why her initioals were not on the blood envelopes she may not have lied at that moment as she may not have a party to the switching if the blood in the lab.

It may be that someone else in the lab switched ojs blood samples and she did not know it.

who do you think switched out orenthal's lingerie and sweatsuit from the washing machine at rockingham?

[William Anthony]

The germane part of the discussion on evidence of planting, began with post 4816, IIRC. However, this will place the conversation in context and not what posters claim I have said but what I actually said.

The abundant evidence of planting has been supplied as was the evidence of cross contamination and contamination.

I ask that it be noted that I did not say there was planting but evidence of planting.

[martin II]

ahhh -- I see where the problem is -- william believes he's part of the criminal defense team.

Everyone understands that there are those who believe the criminal trial offered reasonable doubt -- for whatever reasons. you, however, have made statements that there was planting and tampering and God-only-knows-what-else -- we're simply asking that as a poster on a message board, you give us what that evidence/proof is.

NO
The issue is William has obtained a higher understanding of the law and you believe you are M Clarke. It does not appear to me that you understand that the defense has no obligation to prove anything but you insist that you be given the defence proof of something.

The concept of Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt seems to mean nothing to you.You seem to want to replace this with public opinion.

[weezer]

NO
The issue is William has obtained a higher understanding of the law and you believe you are M Clarke. It does not appear to me that you understand that the defense has no obligation to prove anything but you insist that you be given the defence proof of something.

The concept of Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt seems to mean nothing to you.You seem to want to replace this with public opinion.

well there you go martin -- you've got it all figured out. NOT

william is making statements of fact that there was planting -- he's not on the criminal defense -- he's posting on a message board. he should at least offer proof/evidence that what he says happened. not his theory. not what he would like to believe happened. proof/evidence. that thing that he keeps saying LE didn't have to prove orenthal was the murderer. proof.

[William Anthony]

I have asked someone to show where I said there was planting in this case and suggested even looking into the archives of my posts. It seems that even though I post what I actually said it will be disputed and claimed that I said it without any support for that claim. Oh well, alrighty then.

[tv]

The germane part of the discussion on evidence of planting, began with post 4816, IIRC. However, this will place the conversation in context and not what posters claim I have said but what I actually said.



I ask that it be noted that I did not say there was planting but evidence of planting.

I guess this means you and I agree there was no planting. What you call evidence I call speculation.

[weezer]

I have asked someone to show where I said there was planting in this case and suggested even looking into the archives of my posts. It seems that even though I post what I actually said it will be disputed and claimed that I said it without any support for that claim. Oh well, alrighty then.

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

[weezer]

I guess this means you and I agree there was no planting. What you call evidence I call speculation.

:beer::beer:

[William Anthony]

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

No where in this did I say MF planted the glove.

[William Anthony]

I guess this means you and I agree there was no planting. What you call evidence I call speculation.

I use the definition of evidence as used by legal professionals and practitioners. I do not know upon what you speculate evidence to mean.

[martin II]

more piggish statements from the kind of folk who make those kinds of statements. :punch:

i will let the moderator decide what to do with your post using that word again.

[weezer]

I use the definition of evidence as used by legal professionals and practitioners. I do not know upon what you speculate evidence to mean.

I think she means back up your accusations/theories/fantasies with proof/fact/evidence.

[weezer]

i will let the moderator decide what to do with your post using that word again.

oh I certainly hope she's reading what warranted that statement.

[William Anthony]

For the umpteenth time, evidence is not fact. The facts are derived from the evidence and that is indicative of what one believes the evidence proves. At this point, I feel compelled to ask, do southerners have a different meaning from evidence as the rest or the United States?:)

[weezer]

For the umpteenth time, evidence is not fact. The facts are derived from the evidence and that is indicative of what one believes the evidence proves. At this point, I feel compelled to ask, do southerners have a different meaning from evidence as the rest or the United States?:)

same use of the word -- same requirements when we make statements that aren't supportable. put up or shut up.

so let's use whatever word you want: evidence, fact, proof -- that supports your posts that any of the crap the criminal defense threw against the wall happened. anything? you know. concrete proof/evidence. like the stuff you say LE was not able to produce. proof.

[tv]

No where in this did I say MF planted the glove.

Yes, you have stated that but I don't feel like searching through all the locked threads in this forum to find it.

[martin II]

For the umpteenth time, evidence is not fact. The facts are derived from the evidence and that is indicative of what one believes the evidence proves. At this point, I feel compelled to ask, do southerners have a different meaning from evidence as the rest or the United States?:)

It seems that way.

[William Anthony]

Yes, you have stated that but I don't feel like searching through all the locked threads in this forum to find it.

Lady,

I have never stated that. You bring up issues and then do not want to discuss them or search for them. I will simply request that at this point and until you can produce such a statement that you and others stop the false accusations. Thanks in anticipation for your cooperation and professional courtesy.

[tv]

Oj went to eat and in addition to the food he bit onto the hook.

What did her parents say when she brought this old black guy to their eyes and said here is oj simpson.

Why do you say things like this? :shrug:

[William Anthony]

I do not take kindly to being told to shut up and I think that is against the rules. However, I think that some here do not want to believe what evidence means, which is not proof or facts, as agreed upon by a poster who has been previously relied on by those same posters as to the law. Perhaps, if I point to a link, then we can resolve the issue.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Evidence

I will go further to say that this is the most commonly accepted definition of evidence from that link.

“EVIDENCE. That which demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue; 3 Bl. Com. 367; or it is whatever is exhibited to a court or jury, whether it be by matter of record, or writing, or by the testimony of witnesses, in order to enable them to pronounce with certainty; concerning the truth of any matter in dispute; Bac. Ab. Evidence, in pr.; or it is that which is legally submitted to a jury, to enable them to decide upon the questions in dispute or issue, as pointed out by the pleadings and distinguished from all comment or argument. 1 Stark. Ev. 8. “

P.S. I am kindly requesting that posters refrain from telling me to shut up in any form or fashion.

[weezer]

tvdinner, don't you still have ito's quote when he ruled against the planting nonsense?

[weezer]

I do not take kindly to being told to shut up and I think that is against the rules. However, I think that some here do not want to believe what evidence means, which is not proof or facts, as agreed upon by a poster who has been previously relied on by those same posters as to the law. Perhaps, if I point to a link, then we can resolve the issue.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Evidence

I will go further to say that this is the most commonly accepted definition of evidence from that link.

“EVIDENCE. That which demonstrates, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of the very fact or point in issue; 3 Bl. Com. 367; or it is whatever is exhibited to a court or jury, whether it be by matter of record, or writing, or by the testimony of witnesses, in order to enable them to pronounce with certainty; concerning the truth of any matter in dispute; Bac. Ab. Evidence, in pr.; or it is that which is legally submitted to a jury, to enable them to decide upon the questions in dispute or issue, as pointed out by the pleadings and distinguished from all comment or argument. 1 Stark. Ev. 8. “

we understand what 'evidence' is -- it's that which you cannot produce to support your accusations/theories/fantasies about planting in this case. :rolleyes:

[tv]

Lady,

I have never stated that. You bring up issues and then do not want to discuss them or search for them. I will simply request that at this point and until you can produce such a statement that you and others stop the false accusations. Thanks in anticipation for your cooperation and professional courtesy.

I don't owe you professional courtesy, William. This is a message board used as a recreational activity. It might help if you'd check your surroundings and realize you're sitting in front of a computer conversing with members of a crime forum not sitting at a defense table in a real life court room.

[William Anthony]

I don't owe you professional courtesy, William. This is a message board used as a recreational activity. It might help if you'd check your surroundings and realize you're sitting in front of a computer conversing with members of a crime forum not sitting at a defense table in a real life court room.

I choose to be professional in any setting and, of course, it is your right to choose not to be. I did not say you owed me professional courtesy but I thought you might want to display it.

[tv]

tvdinner, don't you still have ito's quote when he ruled against the planting nonsense?

Oh, absolutely. :)


...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support.

[weezer]

Oh, absolutely. :)


...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support.

thank you tv. see we're not so stupid -- we understand what 'evidence' is. ;)

[tv]

I choose to be professional in any setting and, of course, it is your right to choose not to be. I did not say you owed me professional courtesy but I thought you might want to display it.

Right now I'm relaxing in front of my computer wearing my bedroom slippers and drinking iced tea. I choose to just be me right now. What do you think professional courtesy on a message board should be? Do you have some guidelines for the professionally challenged?

[Jayme K]

more piggish statements from the kind of folk who make those kinds of statements. :punch:


:beer:

[tv]

thank you tv. see we're not so stupid -- we understand what 'evidence' is. ;) and we know what the lack of evidence is. ;)

[William Anthony]

Oh, the brilliant Bailey. After putting forth a magnificent argument judge Ito made the following ruling.

MARCH 14TH

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS WHAT CAN COUNSEL USE WITH REGARDS TO THESE ITEMS FOR THE CROSS-EXAMINATION -- CONTINUING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THERE BEING NO OBJECTION TO THE FLASHLIGHT, THE MAG LIGHT, THAT WILL BE ALLOWED. THE COURT WILL SUSTAIN THE PROSECUTION OBJECTION TO THE USE OF THE GLOVES FOR THIS REASON: THE GLOVE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS AN EXTRA LARGE GLOVE. ITS SPECIFIC BULK AND DIMENSION, AS MENTIONED BY THE DEFENSE THEORY, IS THEREFORE CRITICAL TO HOW IT COULD BE TRANSPORTED BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, GIVEN HIS GARMENTS THAT PARTICULAR EVENING, HOW HE WAS DRESSED AND WHAT MEANS HE HAD AVAILABLE TO HIM. I WILL PRELIMINARILY ALLOW THE PLASTIC BAG, HOWEVER, TO BE USED IF, MR. BAILEY, YOU CAN ESTABLISH A FOUNDATION THAT A SIMILAR BAG OF SIMILAR SIZE WAS AVAILABLE TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IN THE HOMICIDE KIT. AND AS TO THE LETTER, I'M GOING TO RESERVE JUDGMENT ON THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO READ IT SENTENCE BY SENTENCE AND I DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY NOW. I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST PROCEED WITH WHAT YOU HAVE LEFT WITH THE JURY THIS MORNING

MARCH 14TH

A: YOU WOULD HAVE RULERS, TAPE MEASURES, ANY NECESSARY REPORTS, PLASTIC BAGS, ENVELOPES, WRITING UTENSILS, GREASE PENCILS, RULERS, COMPASS.

Q: PLASTIC BAGS IN VARYING SIZES PERHAPS?

A: YES.

Q: INTENDED FOR THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD ANY BE FOUND?

A: YES.

Q: ANYTHING ELSE OF SIGNIFICANCE OF A STANDARD LAPD HOMICIDE KIT?

A: THERE'S QUITE A -- THERE'S QUITE A FEW ITEMS, BUT I'M SURE I'VE LEAVING OUT SEVERAL, BUT --

Q: BUT THESE ARE ALL TOOLS THAT MIGHT BE USED AT THE SCENE OF A GIVEN HOMICIDE?

A: YES.

MARCH 15TH

BY MR. BAILEY:

Q: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YESTERDAY, WHEN YOU WERE QUIZZED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE HOMICIDE KIT IN THE VEHICLE THAT YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS PICKED UP, ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT WAS CARRIED IN THESE KITS WAS PLASTIC BAGS?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WERE THERE ANY OF ROUGHLY THIS TYPE OF COMMERCIAL ZIPLOC SANDWICH BAG SIZE AND TYPE OF PLASTIC IN THE HOMICIDE KIT (INDICATING)?

A: NO, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ZIPLOC BAGS.

Q: YOU DON'T?

A: NO. WE HAVE A -- I'M SORRY.

Q: TELL ME WHAT YOU DO HAVE.

A: A JAIL BAG, WHAT YOU PUT A -- AN ARRESTEE'S PROPERTY IN. THEN IT'S HEAT SEALED WITH A HEAT SEAL THAT'S KEPT IN THE JAIL.

Q: OKAY. AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT DIFFERENT SIZE BAGS; IS THAT TRUE?

A: WELL, THE JAIL BAGS ARE ONE SIZE THAT I KNOW IS IN THERE AND THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE VERY SMALL ONES USED FOR NARCOTICS.

Q: OKAY.

THE COURT: LET THE RECORD REFLECT WHAT MR. BAILEY HAS SHOWN TO THE WITNESS IS A SANDWICH SIZE ZIPLOC BAG.

MR. BAILEY: ROUGHLY SIX BY SEVEN AND A HALF INCHES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. IN OTHER WORDS, PLASTIC BAGS OF VARIOUS SIZES ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE?

A: TWO THAT COMES TO MY IMMEDIATE MEMORY, YES.

You do understand that the brilliant Bailey produced evidence in his examination of MF that allowed the evidence of planting to come in, don't you?

[William Anthony]

and we know what the lack of evidence is. ;)

I am sure you do if you studied the prosecution's case.

[William Anthony]

Right now I'm relaxing in front of my computer wearing my bedroom slippers and drinking iced tea. I choose to just be me right now. What do you think professional courtesy on a message board should be? Do you have some guidelines for the professionally challenged?

Yes, do not make accusations or rely on the accusations of others and try to reinforce them, unless when called on them, you are prepared to back those accusations up.

[William Anthony]

Oh, absolutely. :)


...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support.

More from the brilliant Bailey.

MARCH 13TH

A: IN OTHER WORDS, WE WERE CHRONOLOGICALLY GOING THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE.

Q: WELL, LOOK, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT TESTIMONY, ISN'T THERE, THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE VIEW THROUGH THE FENCE?

A: NO, THERE ISN'T.

Q: THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, ISN'T THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN DISCUSSING THIS EVENT IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVE, YOUR TONGUE SLIPPED AND YOU SAID "THEM," DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAVE EXAMINED THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU KNOW IT HAS BEEN PLAYED ON VIDEO TO THE JURY? THE WORD "THEM" IS CLEAR?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?

A: NO.

[William Anthony]

Oh, absolutely. :)


...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support.

I think judge Ito was wise enough to change his mind when he realized that there was evidence of record to support an accusation of planting and allowed the line of inquiry, because he realized there was evidence of record.

[tv]

Yes, do not make accusations or rely on the accusations of others and try to reinforce them, unless when called on them, you are prepared to back those accusations up.

I hope you're going to comply with your own guidelines.

[weezer]

More from the brilliant Bailey.

MARCH 13TH

A: IN OTHER WORDS, WE WERE CHRONOLOGICALLY GOING THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE.

Q: WELL, LOOK, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THAT TESTIMONY, ISN'T THERE, THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE VIEW THROUGH THE FENCE?

A: NO, THERE ISN'T.

Q: THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION, ISN'T THERE, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN DISCUSSING THIS EVENT IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVE, YOUR TONGUE SLIPPED AND YOU SAID "THEM," DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAVE EXAMINED THAT IN THE TRANSCRIPT, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU KNOW IT HAS BEEN PLAYED ON VIDEO TO THE JURY? THE WORD "THEM" IS CLEAR?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS A SLIP OF THE TONGUE?

A: NO.

hmmm -- throw it against the wall and watch this jury salivate..............

[William Anthony]

I don't owe you professional courtesy, William. This is a message board used as a recreational activity. It might help if you'd check your surroundings and realize you're sitting in front of a computer conversing with members of a crime forum not sitting at a defense table in a real life court room.

Surely, you aren't suggesting that, because this is a public recreational forum, you are allowed to make false accusations against me.

[William Anthony]

I hope you're going to comply with your own guidelines.

Always have much to the chagrin of many.

[weezer]

Oh, the brilliant Bailey. After putting forth a magnificent argument judge Ito made the following ruling.

MARCH 14TH

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS WHAT CAN COUNSEL USE WITH REGARDS TO THESE ITEMS FOR THE CROSS-EXAMINATION -- CONTINUING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. THERE BEING NO OBJECTION TO THE FLASHLIGHT, THE MAG LIGHT, THAT WILL BE ALLOWED. THE COURT WILL SUSTAIN THE PROSECUTION OBJECTION TO THE USE OF THE GLOVES FOR THIS REASON: THE GLOVE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS AN EXTRA LARGE GLOVE. ITS SPECIFIC BULK AND DIMENSION, AS MENTIONED BY THE DEFENSE THEORY, IS THEREFORE CRITICAL TO HOW IT COULD BE TRANSPORTED BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, GIVEN HIS GARMENTS THAT PARTICULAR EVENING, HOW HE WAS DRESSED AND WHAT MEANS HE HAD AVAILABLE TO HIM. I WILL PRELIMINARILY ALLOW THE PLASTIC BAG, HOWEVER, TO BE USED IF, MR. BAILEY, YOU CAN ESTABLISH A FOUNDATION THAT A SIMILAR BAG OF SIMILAR SIZE WAS AVAILABLE TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IN THE HOMICIDE KIT. AND AS TO THE LETTER, I'M GOING TO RESERVE JUDGMENT ON THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO READ IT SENTENCE BY SENTENCE AND I DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY NOW. I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST PROCEED WITH WHAT YOU HAVE LEFT WITH THE JURY THIS MORNING

MARCH 14TH

A: YOU WOULD HAVE RULERS, TAPE MEASURES, ANY NECESSARY REPORTS, PLASTIC BAGS, ENVELOPES, WRITING UTENSILS, GREASE PENCILS, RULERS, COMPASS.

Q: PLASTIC BAGS IN VARYING SIZES PERHAPS?

A: YES.

Q: INTENDED FOR THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD ANY BE FOUND?

A: YES.

Q: ANYTHING ELSE OF SIGNIFICANCE OF A STANDARD LAPD HOMICIDE KIT?

A: THERE'S QUITE A -- THERE'S QUITE A FEW ITEMS, BUT I'M SURE I'VE LEAVING OUT SEVERAL, BUT --

Q: BUT THESE ARE ALL TOOLS THAT MIGHT BE USED AT THE SCENE OF A GIVEN HOMICIDE?

A: YES.

MARCH 15TH

BY MR. BAILEY:

Q: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, YESTERDAY, WHEN YOU WERE QUIZZED ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE HOMICIDE KIT IN THE VEHICLE THAT YOU AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS PICKED UP, ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT WAS CARRIED IN THESE KITS WAS PLASTIC BAGS?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WERE THERE ANY OF ROUGHLY THIS TYPE OF COMMERCIAL ZIPLOC SANDWICH BAG SIZE AND TYPE OF PLASTIC IN THE HOMICIDE KIT (INDICATING)?

A: NO, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ZIPLOC BAGS.

Q: YOU DON'T?

A: NO. WE HAVE A -- I'M SORRY.

Q: TELL ME WHAT YOU DO HAVE.

A: A JAIL BAG, WHAT YOU PUT A -- AN ARRESTEE'S PROPERTY IN. THEN IT'S HEAT SEALED WITH A HEAT SEAL THAT'S KEPT IN THE JAIL.

Q: OKAY. AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT DIFFERENT SIZE BAGS; IS THAT TRUE?

A: WELL, THE JAIL BAGS ARE ONE SIZE THAT I KNOW IS IN THERE AND THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE VERY SMALL ONES USED FOR NARCOTICS.

Q: OKAY.

THE COURT: LET THE RECORD REFLECT WHAT MR. BAILEY HAS SHOWN TO THE WITNESS IS A SANDWICH SIZE ZIPLOC BAG.

MR. BAILEY: ROUGHLY SIX BY SEVEN AND A HALF INCHES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. IN OTHER WORDS, PLASTIC BAGS OF VARIOUS SIZES ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE?

A: TWO THAT COMES TO MY IMMEDIATE MEMORY, YES.

You do understand that the brilliant Bailey produced evidence in his examination of MF that allowed the evidence of planting to come in, don't you?

no I don't understand -- what exactly what do you think this proved? there was no evidence of planting. there were no pictures, no video, no clothing, no bags produced to prove this little criminal defense accusation. unless, of course, you know something and want to share................

[fgump2]

William and Martin,



Also, Dr. Lee makes a very interesting comment, if these swatches were mistaken put away wet, then there should have been 7 wet transfers, not 4.

I also wonder how many swatches did AM say she initialed and then said she was mistaken. I think it would be interesting to review all of AM's work and see where she did leave initials and where she did not. What I mean is, if she left her initials on 100 items, then how did she forget these 7?
*********************************************
Henry Lee and Dennis Fung had different methods of drying the bindles (or swatches or whatever it was that made some transfer stains).
Henry Lee had a method that dried them more completely than Mr. Fung's method. After the trial some people reproduced Mr. Fungs testing, and got similar results. Some of the swatches/bindles left transfer stains, some didn't. The prosecution tried to show that there were several innocent explanations for "something wrong". Part of the problem was that the jury was uneducated, not very smart and distrusted the police. This was one of the high points of the trial for the defense, and yet it seemed to many that it was an innocent mistake that didn't reduce the reliability of the evidence. Henry Lee had a way of talking which implied the evidence is close to being worthless, and yet he never said it was. I distrust this kind of talk. I think Mr. Lee also tried to make the evidence seem more complicated than it was in an effort to confuse the jury.

As for Mazzola’s mistakes on not initialing things, I think this is the sort of absent mindedness that everyone is guilty of at times. Initialing is an error check, but the fact that it wasn’t done shouldn’t invalidate the evidence, at most it should reduce the credibility by a small amount. If someone was falsifing evidence the would have been more careful than usual. It would probably easy to fake someone else's initials. If someone was falsifying evidence they would have been more careful than usual. It would probably easy to fake someone else's initials

[One2Snoop]

Search: Keyword(s): Furman planted glove ; Forum: O.J. Simpson

http://boards.library.trutv.com/search.php?searchid=755304

[William Anthony]

I don't think it is my responsibility to explain testimony. However, being that I am a person easy to get along with, I will offer again show this portion of the testimony,

Q: TELL ME WHAT YOU DO HAVE.

A: A JAIL BAG, WHAT YOU PUT A -- AN ARRESTEE'S PROPERTY IN. THEN IT'S HEAT SEALED WITH A HEAT SEAL THAT'S KEPT IN THE JAIL.

Q: OKAY. AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT DIFFERENT SIZE BAGS; IS THAT TRUE?

A: WELL, THE JAIL BAGS ARE ONE SIZE THAT I KNOW IS IN THERE AND THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE VERY SMALL ONES USED FOR NARCOTICS.

Q: OKAY.

THE COURT: LET THE RECORD REFLECT WHAT MR. BAILEY HAS SHOWN TO THE WITNESS IS A SANDWICH SIZE ZIPLOC BAG.

MR. BAILEY: ROUGHLY SIX BY SEVEN AND A HALF INCHES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. IN OTHER WORDS, PLASTIC BAGS OF VARIOUS SIZES ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE?

A: TWO THAT COMES TO MY IMMEDIATE MEMORY, YES.

Now I will show the argument put forth by the brilliant Bailey that allowed this portion of the testimony.

MARINES TEND TO CARRY THINGS IN THEIR SOCKS, THE SAME WAY SOME DETECTIVES CARRY AN ANKLE HOLSTER FOR A BACK-UP WEAPON. THIS PACKAGE COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN KEPT IN A MAN'S SOCK, SHORT OR TALL, FOR THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY FROM THE FINDING OF THE GLOVE, IF IT OCCURRED WHEN WE BELIEVE IT DID, ON HIS VISIT TO THE NORTH FENCE DESCRIBED IN DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT WAYS ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS IN WAYS THAT CAN'T BE RECONCILED. IT COULD HAVE BEEN CONCEALED UP TO THE TIME THAT HE BOLTED OUT OF THE HOUSE WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE AND MAKING SURE EVERYBODY ELSE WAS OCCUPIED AND FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES DID SOMETHING, WHICH WE BELIEVE EXPLAINS THE PRESENCE OF THE GLOVE, THE BLOOD IN THE BRONCO, ET CETERA. AND WE ASK YOUR HONOR TO NOTE THAT THIS MAN SAID THAT FOR FIVE TO SEVEN MINUTES HE INVESTIGATED THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE WONDERING WHO DROPPED THE GLOVE AND WHERE HE HAD GONE AND FAILED TO NOTICE A SET OF STEPS AND A DOOR LEADING INTO THE HOUSE. IF THAT DOES NOT CONTRADICT ANY POSSIBILITY THAT HE OCCUPIED HIS TIME, AS HE SAYS, I CAN'T IMAGINE A STRONGER CONTRADICTION. A DOOR IS HARD TO MISS AND MR. FUHRMAN HAS EXPERIENCE WITH DOORS, AS WE WILL SHOW YOU IN THE GOULD CASE. NOW, BASED ON ALL THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, I THINK IT FAIR TO ASK DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO PUT A GLOVE IN A PLASTIC BAG TO WHICH HE HAD ACCESS AND TO STICK IT IN HIS SOCK AND TO LATER PULL IT OUT AND DISPOSE OF THE PLASTIC BAG. NOT A COMPLICATED QUESTION, NOT ONE HE WILL HAVE TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING, BUT A FAIR QUESTION, IT SEEMS TO ME, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY THE JURY IS GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE, BETWEEN THE CHOICES GIVEN THEM, WHETHER THIS DEFENDANT JUMPED OVER A FENCE OR DID SOMETHING UNREASONABLE AND DROPPED A BLOODY GLOVE ON HIS PROPERTY, WHETHER A KILLER, WISHING TO DIVERT THE POLICE, AND IF THIS HAPPENED, HE WAS EMINENTLY SUCCESSFUL, FROM ANY ATTENTION TO HIMSELF, DEPOSITED THE GLOVE SIMPLY BY THROWING IT OVER THE FENCE, AS IS EASY TO DO FROM THE PROPERTY WHERE ROSA LOPEZ LIVES, OR WHETHER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHO WELL COULD HAVE AND HAD THE MOTIVE, AND WE SAY THE OPPORTUNITY, CARRIED THAT GLOVE -- EXCUSE ME -- FROM WHERE HE FOUND IT AT THE CRIME SCENE AND DEPOSITED IT IN A WAY THAT WOULD ACCOMPLISH TWO THINGS: NO. 1, IT WOULD KEEP HIM INEXORABLY IN THE LAWSUIT, AND NO. 2, IT WOULD PUNISH A BLACK MAN WHO HAD THE TEMERITY TO ASSOCIATE WITH A WHITE WOMAN IN A ROMANTIC WAY. NOW,

[fgump2]

I understand why you do not want to talk about Martz because his testimony showed that the gate and sock stain had to be planted. MF confirmed this when he said that he "investigated" and "found no evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters prior to him". Some here use the worn out cliche, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. While that may be true, it is evidence of an absence of proof. The prosecution had to prove that Simpson dropped the glove back behind Kato's quarters and the defense provided evidence that Simpson did not and that MF could have.
**************************************************
That isn't the way I understood it. I think you are refering to the EDTA evidence. I remeber the the EDTA level was somewhere in between the expected level for planting, and for non planting. After the trial another chemist named Lee (not Henry) backed the prosecution's version, saying the the level of EDTA was over stated. This was the first time EDTA testing had been done in a criminal trial, so it was not surprising that some mistakes were made.

It also seems strange that MF would plant the glove, and then give testimony implying that nobody had been back there. I think he testified that he saw no evidence of anyone being back there, not that he was sure that nobody had been back there. At night it would be hard to see everything.
I believe on the next day someone photographed a hedge that had been mashed as though someone had pushed their way through it.

[William Anthony]

Search: Keyword(s): Furman planted glove ; Forum: O.J. Simpson

http://boards.library.trutv.com/search.php?searchid=755304

Exactly what is supposed to be shown in that?

[weezer]

I don't think it is my responsibility to explain testimony. However, being that I am a person easy to get along with, I will offer again show this portion of the testimony,

Q: TELL ME WHAT YOU DO HAVE.

A: A JAIL BAG, WHAT YOU PUT A -- AN ARRESTEE'S PROPERTY IN. THEN IT'S HEAT SEALED WITH A HEAT SEAL THAT'S KEPT IN THE JAIL.

Q: OKAY. AND I BELIEVE YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT DIFFERENT SIZE BAGS; IS THAT TRUE?

A: WELL, THE JAIL BAGS ARE ONE SIZE THAT I KNOW IS IN THERE AND THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE VERY SMALL ONES USED FOR NARCOTICS.

Q: OKAY.

THE COURT: LET THE RECORD REFLECT WHAT MR. BAILEY HAS SHOWN TO THE WITNESS IS A SANDWICH SIZE ZIPLOC BAG.

MR. BAILEY: ROUGHLY SIX BY SEVEN AND A HALF INCHES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. IN OTHER WORDS, PLASTIC BAGS OF VARIOUS SIZES ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE?

A: TWO THAT COMES TO MY IMMEDIATE MEMORY, YES.

Now I will show the argument put forth by the brilliant Bailey that allowed this portion of the testimony.

MARINES TEND TO CARRY THINGS IN THEIR SOCKS, THE SAME WAY SOME DETECTIVES CARRY AN ANKLE HOLSTER FOR A BACK-UP WEAPON. THIS PACKAGE COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN KEPT IN A MAN'S SOCK, SHORT OR TALL, FOR THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY FROM THE FINDING OF THE GLOVE, IF IT OCCURRED WHEN WE BELIEVE IT DID, ON HIS VISIT TO THE NORTH FENCE DESCRIBED IN DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT WAYS ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS IN WAYS THAT CAN'T BE RECONCILED. IT COULD HAVE BEEN CONCEALED UP TO THE TIME THAT HE BOLTED OUT OF THE HOUSE WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE AND MAKING SURE EVERYBODY ELSE WAS OCCUPIED AND FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES DID SOMETHING, WHICH WE BELIEVE EXPLAINS THE PRESENCE OF THE GLOVE, THE BLOOD IN THE BRONCO, ET CETERA. AND WE ASK YOUR HONOR TO NOTE THAT THIS MAN SAID THAT FOR FIVE TO SEVEN MINUTES HE INVESTIGATED THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE WONDERING WHO DROPPED THE GLOVE AND WHERE HE HAD GONE AND FAILED TO NOTICE A SET OF STEPS AND A DOOR LEADING INTO THE HOUSE. IF THAT DOES NOT CONTRADICT ANY POSSIBILITY THAT HE OCCUPIED HIS TIME, AS HE SAYS, I CAN'T IMAGINE A STRONGER CONTRADICTION. A DOOR IS HARD TO MISS AND MR. FUHRMAN HAS EXPERIENCE WITH DOORS, AS WE WILL SHOW YOU IN THE GOULD CASE. NOW, BASED ON ALL THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, I THINK IT FAIR TO ASK DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO PUT A GLOVE IN A PLASTIC BAG TO WHICH HE HAD ACCESS AND TO STICK IT IN HIS SOCK AND TO LATER PULL IT OUT AND DISPOSE OF THE PLASTIC BAG. NOT A COMPLICATED QUESTION, NOT ONE HE WILL HAVE TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING, BUT A FAIR QUESTION, IT SEEMS TO ME, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY THE JURY IS GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE, BETWEEN THE CHOICES GIVEN THEM, WHETHER THIS DEFENDANT JUMPED OVER A FENCE OR DID SOMETHING UNREASONABLE AND DROPPED A BLOODY GLOVE ON HIS PROPERTY, WHETHER A KILLER, WISHING TO DIVERT THE POLICE, AND IF THIS HAPPENED, HE WAS EMINENTLY SUCCESSFUL, FROM ANY ATTENTION TO HIMSELF, DEPOSITED THE GLOVE SIMPLY BY THROWING IT OVER THE FENCE, AS IS EASY TO DO FROM THE PROPERTY WHERE ROSA LOPEZ LIVES, OR WHETHER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHO WELL COULD HAVE AND HAD THE MOTIVE, AND WE SAY THE OPPORTUNITY, CARRIED THAT GLOVE -- EXCUSE ME -- FROM WHERE HE FOUND IT AT THE CRIME SCENE AND DEPOSITED IT IN A WAY THAT WOULD ACCOMPLISH TWO THINGS: NO. 1, IT WOULD KEEP HIM INEXORABLY IN THE LAWSUIT, AND NO. 2, IT WOULD PUNISH A BLACK MAN WHO HAD THE TEMERITY TO ASSOCIATE WITH A WHITE WOMAN IN A ROMANTIC WAY. NOW,

this is still flee's and the criminal defense's theory. there was no proof, no evidence that this happened. in your hatred for LE, you have accepted the word of a disbarred lawyer -- a lawyer who during the trial was caught lying about talking to the marine witness. I don't know william, seems to me that so far, you've posted the criminal defense and your theories/fantasies but no proof.

[weezer]

Search: Keyword(s): Furman planted glove ; Forum: O.J. Simpson

http://boards.library.trutv.com/search.php?searchid=755304

thank you o2s!

[William Anthony]

**************************************************
That isn't the way I understood it. I think you are refering to the EDTA evidence. I remeber the the EDTA level was somewhere in between the expected level for planting, and for non planting. After the trial another chemist named Lee (not Henry) backed the prosecution's version, saying the the level of EDTA was over stated. This was the first time EDTA testing had been done in a criminal trial, so it was not surprising that some mistakes were made.

It also seems strange that MF would plant the glove, and then give testimony implying that nobody had been back there. I think he testified that he saw no evidence of anyone being back there, not that he was sure that nobody had been back there. At night it would be hard to see everything.
I believe on the next day someone photographed a hedge that had been mashed as though someone had pushed their way through it.

The level of EDTA found in the sock and in the blood of Martz, which he claimed was his own non preserved blood was a thousand times that which was found in non preserved human blood or simply put Martz testified to finding EDTA in the parts per million when non preserved human blood should have been in the parts per million. Dr. Terry Lee then had to try to rehabilitate Martz by talking about a carry over effect or ghosting effect, which I affectionately call the ghost in the machine, :). Dr. Terry Lee also testified that Martz did not know that he should have found no EDTA in his blood or the sock and gate stain, if they had been from non preserved blood, because the machine detection limits were higher than the parts per billion range.

I have said that MF testified to finding no evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters after investigating. The art of cross examination is to search for the truth and some legal practitioners and professionals have stated it is the greatest vehicle for reaching the truth. Please, don't ask me for names?:)

[William Anthony]

Find it if you can or admit that it is not there. Yes, thank you O2.

[fgump2]

i will let the moderator decide what to do with your post using that word again.

************************************************** ********A lot of people have shown bad manners on this board, me included. But I think that Martin probably shows the worst manners. Like writing that some of Bobaugusts arguments are almost comical, asking me 'do you make that up as you go along?'.

I have shed no tears about insults on this board, but I feel disrespect for people who can dish it out, but not take it.

I also notice that WA is rather selective about noticing other people's bad manners or unprofessional way of communicating.

[William Anthony]

I am almost totally convinced that there is a difference in the way southerners communicate. Did I not say "evidence of".:)

[William Anthony]

************************************************** ********A lot of people have shown bad manners on this board, me included. But I think that Martin probably shows the worst manners. Like writing that some of Bobaugusts arguments are almost comical, asking me 'do you make that up as you go along?'.

I have shed no tears about insults on this board, but I feel disrespect for people who can dish it out, but not take it.

I also notice that WA is rather selective about noticing other people's bad manners or unprofessional way of communicating.

Have you also noticed that others here have not commented on poster's rude, offensive and insulting posts or are your observations limited to WA? Believe me, I am not shedding any tears about your limited observations. :)

[fgump2]

The level of EDTA found in the sock and in the blood of Martz, which he claimed was his own non preserved blood was a thousand times that which was found in non preserved human blood or simply put Martz testified to finding EDTA in the parts per million when non preserved human blood should have been in the parts per million. Dr. Terry Lee then had to try to rehabilitate Martz by talking about a carry over effect or ghosting effect, which I affectionately call the ghost in the machine, :). Dr. Terry Lee also testified that Martz did not know that he should have found no EDTA in his blood or the sock and gate stain, if they had been from non preserved blood, because the machine detection limits were higher than the parts per billion range.
************************************************** **
One what basis do you dismiss T. Lee's testimony, do you know enough about chemistry to refute him, or do you have some reason for questioning his honesty?
***************************

I have said that MF testified to finding no evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters after investigating. The art of cross examination is to search for the truth and some legal practitioners and professionals have stated it is the greatest vehicle for reaching the truth. Please, don't ask me for names?:)
************************************************** *****
I am not in favor of abolishing cross examination. I must admit that I have't studied much about the area where the gloves were found. I don't think that MF would have planted the gloves there, and then testifiy that he was the only one who had been back there during the available time period.

[weezer]

************************************************** *****
I am not in favor of abolishing cross examination. I must admit that I have't studied much about the area where the gloves were found. I don't think that MF would have planted the gloves there, and then testifiy that he was the only one who had been back there during the available time period.

and have no other evidence that the glove had been handled -- no other fiber except that tracked directly back to orenthal, no other DNA except that of the victims and orenthal, no blood on Fuhrman, no blood on Fuhrman's clothes. go figure.

[William Anthony]

************************************************** *****
I am not in favor of abolishing cross examination. I must admit that I have't studied much about the area where the gloves were found. I don't think that MF would have planted the gloves there, and then testifiy that he was the only one who had been back there during the available time period.

He did not testify to that. He testify that he investigated and found no evidence of anyone being back there. In other words, the prosecution failed to provide evidence that anyone had been back there before MF's admission. You do have an unidentifed Caucasian hair found in the glove.

[weezer]

I am almost totally convinced that there is a difference in the way southerners communicate. Did I not say "evidence of".:)

nope -- and you and I both know that. See you later with the list.

[William Anthony]

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

[weezer]

He did not testify to that. He testify that he investigated and found no evidence of anyone being back there. In other words, the prosecution failed to provide evidence that anyone had been back there before MF's admission.

so why would he say that? why wouldn't he say that there was evidence? if he was going to plant the glove, why not fix the rest of it to show intrusion? more speculation/theory/fantasy crap that the criminal defense threw against the wall to see what would stick. still waiting on concrete proof that any of allegations happened. not theory/scenario/fantasy. proof. just like the stuff you said LE didn't have to convict orenthal. proof that there was planting. concrete proof.

[William Anthony]

Even the best laid plans of mice and men, aft gang astray. Evidence of, evidence of...

[GreenIce]

Can't the Simpson supporters do anything but parrot the defense? Garbage in, garbage out and If it doesn't fit...yes, we know the defense was into nursery rhymes to help indoctrinate the jury.

TV,

Perhaps you can explain why alleles consistent with Simpson's was found in Nicole's and Ron's samples when they were typed at the LAPD crime lab and the two other labs they sent it to.

I believe the biggest complaint about Dr. Gerdes is that he did not find any contamination in the Simpson case, well it appears that he did. Perhaps you have a theory how this happened?

[GreenIce]

Are you going to answer the question I put forth to you? You accuse me of two different things - of blaming the Browns and then of giving the Browns a free pass.

Kate

Kate,

I will no long reply or post my feelings on the subject. It makes my blood boil that the LAPD and Nicole's friends get a free pass. Yet, even knowing the LAPD and the friends have serious credibility issues, the Browns and Nicole are being blamed for the beatings---yet you have no proof of the Browns' feelings nor do you have proof that there were other 911 phone calls.

It is not worth my emotion to read posts that blame the family and the victim herself. It is not worth my emotions to again read how the LAPD were "careless" in their documentation of these events. I'm done. I really am.

[GreenIce]

There was no evidence of planting entered into evidence in the criminal or civil trials. Please state what evidence you're talking about and also site which pieces of evidence were proven to be contaminated.

TV,

Again, not true. When the news leak came out about the LAPD source who leaked the results of DNA tests on the socks---before the socks were even sent out was--Judge Ito made the ruling because the defense could not prove that the "source" was the person who did the planting, he threw it out.

The same with Judge Fujisaki, the defense had to name names, times, when, where, how and why. Judge Fujisaki also had an advantage over Ito, he said it didn't matter how it was collected, who collected, when, it was collected, the only thing that counted were the final results.

However, he did allow the defense to present evidence that the glove may have been planted---he doubted it, but there must have been something for him to allow it. But then again, since he was not going to allow any of Fuhrman's legal issues that really didn't matter. However, one Juror, Deena Mullin, on the Late, Late, Late Show with Tom Synder (who is since passed away) she did say that she thought Fuhrman did plant the glove, but she could not speculate on how he did it and the bottom line was she didn't care because Simpson's blood was found on it.

Why Clark and Darden trashed Judge Ito, I'll never know--he was their best friend more times then not.

[martin II]

**************************************************
That isn't the way I understood it. I think you are refering to the EDTA evidence. I remeber the the EDTA level was somewhere in between the expected level for planting, and for non planting. After the trial another chemist named Lee (not Henry) backed the prosecution's version, saying the the level of EDTA was over stated. This was the first time EDTA testing had been done in a criminal trial, so it was not surprising that some mistakes were made.

It also seems strange that MF would plant the glove, and then give testimony implying that nobody had been back there. I think he testified that he saw no evidence of anyone being back there, not that he was sure that nobody had been back there. At night it would be hard to see everything.
I believe on the next day someone photographed a hedge that had been mashed as though someone had pushed their way through it.

no such photo was taken showing anyone mashed through the growth.

[GreenIce]

Ummm ... kicking in a door and ranting and raving is threatening, intimidating and abusive!!! It doesn't matter if he approached her or threatened her physically for God's sake.

JaymeK,

I am staying away from this issue. However, what you posted that doesn't matter, yes it does, in the eyes of the law.

It is good to have you back and I hope your studies are progressing well.

[GreenIce]

Oh, absolutely. :)


...there must be some evidence in the record from which counsel might argue, however reasonably or unreasonably, that Fuhrman moved a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the defendant's Rockingham residence for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal murders upon the defendant...This assertion [that Fuhrman planted the glove] is not supported by the record. The underlying assumption requires a leap in both law and logic that is too broad to be made based upon the evidence before the jury. It is a theory without factual support.

TV,

Please note, just like in his ruling with regards to the socks--he never said that the glove was planted---he only ruled that the defense did not prove that Mark Fuhrman did it.

However, his ruling makes no sense because he allowed testimony regarding MF's feelings toward inter-racial couples. He did not allow the part of the tape when Fuhrman is bragging about the glove.

IMO, Ito was out of line with this ruling because the defense did provide logical facts---not one shred of trace evidence found. The DA's never even provided a theory on how he got back there.

Ito knew his DA's were getting their butts kicked, he knew that it seemed every single ranking person in the crime lab was married to a member of the LAPD and to top it off, he was married to the highest ranking female member of the LAPD and she had to commit perjury for Fuhrman. His ruling on this is IMO, made no sense accept to give the lap dogs of the LAPD and DA's something to hold on to--no matter how thin it was. IMO.

[William Anthony]

**************************************************
That isn't the way I understood it. I think you are refering to the EDTA evidence. I remeber the the EDTA level was somewhere in between the expected level for planting, and for non planting. After the trial another chemist named Lee (not Henry) backed the prosecution's version, saying the the level of EDTA was over stated. This was the first time EDTA testing had been done in a criminal trial, so it was not surprising that some mistakes were made.


January 16th-Dr. Terry Lee on cross

Q. That's a poor question. I apologize. The levels that he found in
his blood is inconsistent with life, correct?
A. If you're saying that it would be impossible for him to have
found EDTA levels at those levels in his own blood, that is true,
but he didn't know that at the time.
Q. He was alive; he knew that, didn't he?
A. Yes. But he didn't know it was impossible for him to have EDTA
levels that high in his own blood; he did not know that.

That level was consistent with what he found on the gate and sock stains, according to Martz's testimony and Martz went further to opine that he had established that EDTA could be found in non preserved human blood, which was dead (pun intended) wrong. If you so desire, I can supply the testimony, evidencing Dr. Lee slanted his testimony.

[martin II]

I am almost totally convinced that there is a difference in the way southerners communicate. Did I not say "evidence of".:)

not all just a backwards part of one place.

[martin II]

TV,

Perhaps you can explain why alleles consistent with Simpson's was found in Nicole's and Ron's samples when they were typed at the LAPD crime lab and the two other labs they sent it to.

I believe the biggest complaint about Dr. Gerdes is that he did not find any contamination in the Simpson case, well it appears that he did. Perhaps you have a theory how this happened?

We will see if she can.

[martin II]

Kato heard the noise at 10:45 there is no doubt about that.

[William Anthony]

not all just a backwards part of one place.

Thanks for a moment I thought I was in a foreign land.

[weezer]

TV,

Perhaps you can explain why alleles consistent with Simpson's was found in Nicole's and Ron's samples when they were typed at the LAPD crime lab and the two other labs they sent it to.

I believe the biggest complaint about Dr. Gerdes is that he did not find any contamination in the Simpson case, well it appears that he did. Perhaps you have a theory how this happened?

the fact that orenthal's DNA was in a mixture with the victims' samples is exactly what points to orenthal as the butcher of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.

not only did gerdes not find contamination in the simpson case, he didn't perform any tests or examine any of the evidence.

"Microbiologist John Gerdes conceded under cross-examination, however, that with the exception of a couple of samples, there was ''no direct evidence'' of contamination, only of risky collection techniques and unusual results."

[weezer]

Kate,

I will no long reply or post my feelings on the subject. It makes my blood boil that the LAPD and Nicole's friends get a free pass. Yet, even knowing the LAPD and the friends have serious credibility issues, the Browns and Nicole are being blamed for the beatings---yet you have no proof of the Browns' feelings nor do you have proof that there were other 911 phone calls.

It is not worth my emotion to read posts that blame the family and the victim herself. It is not worth my emotions to again read how the LAPD were "careless" in their documentation of these events. I'm done. I really am.

no one but the NG's blame Nicole and her family for the beatings. the rest of us understand that orenthal was to blame for the beatings.

[weezer]

TV,

Again, not true. When the news leak came out about the LAPD source who leaked the results of DNA tests on the socks---before the socks were even sent out was--Judge Ito made the ruling because the defense could not prove that the "source" was the person who did the planting, he threw it out.

Before the glove arguments, the defense tried to question a television reporter about a story she broadcast September 21, 1994 about one of the socks found at the foot of Simpson's bed. She reported that DNA testing had disclosed Nicole Brown Simpson's blood in its fibers. Since her report gave DNA results before the tests were conducted, the defense suggests the anonymous source of the leak knew what the results would be because the evidence had been planted.

Tracie Savage of KNBC-TV said she got the information from "knowledgeable sources close to the case" but refused to identify them further, saying she "gave my word as a journalist that I would not reveal their identities."

She then invoked the California Shield Law, which protects reporters from being forced to disclose confidential sources.

Judge Ito did not immediately decide if her information is so crucial to Simpson's defense that she must divulge it despite the shield. He said he would study the issue.

Lawyers for O. J. Simpson took time off to regroup yesterday after Judge Lance Ito rejected their request to probe internal police files and question two reporters about DNA news leaks last year.

Ito ruled today after having another judge take over the issue Tuesday because Ito's wife is a police captain who recently joined the unit that conducted the police internal investigation. But Judge John Reid, who heard arguments on the issue Tuesday, said Ito must first decide whether the defense request was proper in light of all the evidence in the case. Ito's ruling yesterday eliminated the need for any further rulings from Reid.

Ito ruled that the defense had not shown how confidential information about the news leaks would ``materially assist'' their case, a decision that freed journalists Tracie Savage and Joseph Bosco from having to reveal their sources or face jail.

The same with Judge Fujisaki, the defense had to name names, times, when, where, how and why. Judge Fujisaki also had an advantage over Ito, he said it didn't matter how it was collected, who collected, when, it was collected, the only thing that counted were the final results.

However, he did allow the defense to present evidence that the glove may have been planted---he doubted it, but there must have been something for him to allow it. But then again, since he was not going to allow any of Fuhrman's legal issues that really didn't matter.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki gave the glove a starring role in the Simpson civil-case sequel, ruling that the defense would be allowed to argue that former L.A.P.D. detective Mark Fuhrman planted it--and by doing so, framed Simpson. Judge Fujisaki called the evidence of a planting theory "slim" but explained that Fuhrman's plea of no contest to perjury gave him no choice.

However, one Juror, Deena Mullin, on the Late, Late, Late Show with Tom Synder (who is since passed away) she did say that she thought Fuhrman did plant the glove, but she could not speculate on how he did it and the bottom line was she didn't care because Simpson's blood was found on it.

Juror Number Five: 58 Days of Duty on the O.J. Simpson Civil Trial
Show Description, Cast & Crew

A juror in the O.J. Simpson civil trial, Deena Mullen, relates her experiences in the courtroom and jury room. The documentary highlights theatrical monologues filmed in front of an audience, plus documentary and archival footage, and stylized reenactments.

Why Clark and Darden trashed Judge Ito, I'll never know--he was their best friend more times then not.

maybe because ito let the celebrity atmosphere get to him and lost control of his courtroom.

[weezer]

TV,

Please note, just like in his ruling with regards to the socks--he never said that the glove was planted---he only ruled that the defense did not prove that Mark Fuhrman did it.

However, his ruling makes no sense because he allowed testimony regarding MF's feelings toward inter-racial couples. He did not allow the part of the tape when Fuhrman is bragging about the glove.

I thought he was out of line allowing the tapes of the screenplay and denied Nicole's diary.

IMO, Ito was out of line with this ruling because the defense did provide logical facts---not one shred of trace evidence found. The DA's never even provided a theory on how he got back there.

Ito knew his DA's were getting their butts kicked, he knew that it seemed every single ranking person in the crime lab was married to a member of the LAPD and to top it off, he was married to the highest ranking female member of the LAPD and she had to commit perjury for Fuhrman. His ruling on this is IMO, made no sense accept to give the lap dogs of the LAPD and DA's something to hold on to--no matter how thin it was. IMO.

I've always thought that the fact that his wife was one of the players talked about in the screenplay was why he allowed the irrelevent screenplay tapes in.

[weezer]

SNIPPED *** ". . .However, one Juror, Deena Mullin, on the Late, Late, Late Show with Tom Synder (who is since passed away) she did say that she thought Fuhrman did plant the glove, but she could not speculate on how he did it and the bottom line was she didn't care because Simpson's blood was found on it. . ."

"The further I continued, certain things that they wanted me to infer, I felt that I was getting into the area of speculation, and I was ordered not to do that," said Mullen, who works as a stage manager for a non-profit theater.

She said she wanted proof to be more than beyond a reasonable doubt. She wanted evidence "beyond a shadow of a doubt." And she found it, she said."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns219.htm

Juror Deena Lynn Mullen, 40, disagreed with the notion that Simpson got nailed because the civil trial jury used the preponderance of evidence standard, rather than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard used at the criminal trial.

"What I needed, to be able to walk out of that room, was not just a reasonable doubt, but beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I was willing to stay there for a month if that's what it took to answer all of those questions for myself,'' she said.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns223.htm

"Mullen thinks Simpson is guilty as hell, and her account and insights should give even Simpson's few supporters second thoughts."
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-590746.html

""We spent a lot of time talking about blood drops," said Simpson civil juror Deena Mullen. "We didint spend a lot of time talking about that evidence because it didn't have much to do with the crime itself."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/10/national/main13686.shtml

"Juror No. 266, a woman in her 40's later identified as Deena Mullen, said her decision was based on everything she heard in court, especially the evidence that by now has become part of the nation's legal lore: the bloody-soled shoes, the incidents of wife-beating, the bloody gloves, the sweat-suited figure in the dark, Mr. Simpson's taking the stand. ''He was not credible,'' she said."
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/11/us/jury-decides-simpson-must-pay-25-million-in-punitive-award.html?n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FPe ople%2FS%2FSimpson%2C%20Nicole%20Brown

I'm just not finding anything on your statement -- can you post a link please.

[weezer]

Lady,

I have never stated that. You bring up issues and then do not want to discuss them or search for them. I will simply request that at this point and until you can produce such a statement that you and others stop the false accusations. Thanks in anticipation for your cooperation and professional courtesy.

first of a very long list:

Originally posted by William Anthony (Join date 08/01/2006)
0909-13-2006, 12:49 PM: Tell me how Mr. Simpson could have gotten the glove to Bundy without leaving an imprint on a glove that was wet for so long. MF on the other hand was trained in the collection, and maybe, in the depositing of evidence without leaving evidence of the deposit. MF also had the tools availabe to do this.

09-14-2006, 06:15 AM: AS to the fibers, the MF was all over the crime scene and could have placed the glove in comtact with evidence not yet collected.

12-16-2006, 08:03 AM: It would have been easy for him at Bundy to dispose of the latex gloves he used to collect the glove, after placing the glove in a bag and inside his sock. Once gaining, imo, illegal entry into Simpson's estate, and hearing the statement of the thumps, he could have on his solo jouney to the dark area behind Kato's quarters to look for a suspect, without his weapon drawn, gotten laytex gloves from his inside his suit jacket pocket or other sock, or pants pocket, withdrawn the glove from the bag, planted it, placed the laytes gloves inside the bag and back into his socks.

12-16-2006, 09:26 AM: He waited around to hear what the neighbors had seen. He would have only gone to jail if they could prove he planted the glove. The blankety blank was not concerned with whose blood it was; only planting evidence that would give Simpson complicity in the murders. He learned what Simpson had done and the last time he was seen from Kato, before going to plant the glove.

12-16-2006, 09:53 AM: It was/could have been easy for the blankety blank MF to have planted the glove and avoided detection, as speculation shows he did.

12-20-2006, 01:49 PM: The one thing that is missing bobaugust is that the gloves did not fit Simpson's hands and the blankety blank MF could have handled all the evidence at the murder scene and transfered the trace onto the glove when he planted them, imho.

[William Anthony]

Originally posted by William Anthony (Join date 08/01/2006)
0909-13-2006, 12:49 PM: Tell me how Mr. Simpson could have gotten the glove to Bundy without leaving an imprint on a glove that was wet for so long. MF on the other hand was trained in the collection, and maybe, in the depositing of evidence without leaving evidence of the deposit. MF also had the tools availabe to do this.

Nothing in this post says MF planted the glove.

[William Anthony]

09-14-2006, 06:15 AM: AS to the fibers, the MF was all over the crime scene and could have placed the glove in comtact with evidence not yet collected.

Nothing in this posts says MF planted the glove; in fact it says "could have" and has nothing to do with the planting of the glove.

[weezer]

Nothing in this post says MF planted the glove.

you're the one that likes to draw 'reasonable inferences' -- well I draw a 'reasonable inference' from this post that you are accusing Furhman of planting evidence.

of course, that's all there is -- your inference -- baseless accusations -- since there's no evidence during or since that that happened.

[William Anthony]

12-16-2006, 08:03 AM: It would have been easy for him at Bundy to dispose of the latex gloves he used to collect the glove, after placing the glove in a bag and inside his sock. Once gaining, imo, illegal entry into Simpson's estate, and hearing the statement of the thumps, he could have on his solo jouney to the dark area behind Kato's quarters to look for a suspect, without his weapon drawn, gotten laytex gloves from his inside his suit jacket pocket or other sock, or pants pocket, withdrawn the glove from the bag, planted it, placed the laytes gloves inside the bag and back into his socks.

Nothing in this posts says that MF planted the glove; it says would and could have.

[William Anthony]

I have always said that a reasonable inference could be drawn that MF planted the glove from the inference. Thanks for agreeing with my inference.

[weezer]

01-04-2007, 03:08 PM: Even in the face of black and white, upon which you so heavily rely, you attempt to find a way out. I do believe he said we had probable cause, unless he was referring to the glove in the bag in his sock.

03-21-2007, 12:37 PM: and I may choose to believe that he possibly got away with it because LE possibly tampered with, planted, fabricated, and invented evidence and that both Simpson and LE were possibly clever enough not to be exposed.

03-16-2007, 08:56 AM: It is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that the MF, the only one who claimed to have seen them on the dates mentioned above, placed LE in an awkward position due to his demonstrated and admitted proclivity to fabricate/falsify/plant/tamper with evidence and to lie.

03-15-2007, 01:28 PM Hence, since the MF, who admitted to evidence tampering/planting/fabricating/destruction, was the only person to recall seeing the stains/smears, the reasonable inference is that he placed them there.

[William Anthony]

I am offended by the use of the curse word and it is totally inappropriate.

[weezer]

I have always said that a reasonable inference could be drawn that MF planted the glove from the inference. Thanks for agreeing with my inference.

LOL -- you're not even man enough to own up to your beliefs.

[William Anthony]

What I believe and what you claim I said are too entirely different things. I believe a lot of things I haven't said.

[William Anthony]

12-16-2006, 09:53 AM: It was/could have been easy for the blankety blank MF to have planted the glove and avoided detection, as speculation shows he did.

Nothing in this post that says MF planted the glove; in fact it says "was/could have been".

[William Anthony]

01-04-2007, 03:08 PM: Even in the face of black and white, upon which you so heavily rely, you attempt to find a way out. I do believe he said we had probable cause, unless he was referring to the glove in the bag in his sock.

Nothing in this post says MF planted a glove.

[William Anthony]

03-21-2007, 12:37 PM: and I may choose to believe that he possibly got away with it because LE possibly tampered with, planted, fabricated, and invented evidence and that both Simpson and LE were possibly clever enough not to be exposed.

Nothing in this posts says MF planted the glove, only that I believe he possibly got away with it.

[William Anthony]

03-16-2007, 08:56 AM: It is not a stretch of the imagination to believe that the MF, the only one who claimed to have seen them on the dates mentioned above, placed LE in an awkward position due to his demonstrated and admitted proclivity to fabricate/falsify/plant/tamper with evidence and to lie.

Nothing in this post says MF planted the glove, only that is not a stretch to believe he did.

[William Anthony]

03-15-2007, 01:28 PM Hence, since the MF, who admitted to evidence tampering/planting/fabricating/destruction, was the only person to recall seeing the stains/smears, the reasonable inference is that he placed them there.

Nothing in this post says MFplanted the glove, only that a reasonable inference can be drawn that he did. I still have two to place in context.

[William Anthony]

The links do not seem to be working so I will do my own search so that I can place the remaining two posts in context.

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

I will no long reply or post my feelings on the subject. It makes my blood boil that the LAPD and Nicole's friends get a free pass. Yet, even knowing the LAPD and the friends have serious credibility issues, the Browns and Nicole are being blamed for the beatings---yet you have no proof of the Browns' feelings nor do you have proof that there were other 911 phone calls.

It is not worth my emotion to read posts that blame the family and the victim herself. It is not worth my emotions to again read how the LAPD were "careless" in their documentation of these events. I'm done. I really am.

I do not particularly care whether or not you are done; you wanted to begin this discussion and cannot answer the most simple question I have put to you, which is if you can make up your mind on whether I am blaming the Brown's or providing a free pass.

Who, by the way, other than possibly martin, has blamed Nicole or the Browns for any beatings? Regardless of whether her family let her down and turned a blind eye only OJ Simpson is to blame for what he has done. I'd like to see those postings because apparently I missed them.

Answer me another simple question since this post was directed to me; when did I say that there were other 911 phone calls? Or perhaps that is too difficult for you to answer as well?

Many things make my blood boil as well; one of them is people who have an unsightly manner of turning another individual's post into what they personally want it to be in an effort to be insulting and to inject nonsense where it doesn't belong.

Kate