Random Discussions On The Case

[William Anthony]

Being a naturally nosy person I have a lot of questions for him.

Do I see a prosecutor lurking within?

[William Anthony]

The jurors thought Dr. Lee was the most impressive witness of the trial. They said he had a warm smile.

Magnificent of the dream team to have him testify.

[martin II]

I haven't called MF anything that is not supported by the evidence or what he has admitted to.

You have beem very kind to furhman

[martin II]

Do I see a prosecutor lurking within?

It may have lurked but it is busting out now.
hahaha

[William Anthony]

You have beem very kind to furhman

I thought so too.

[GreenIce]

The jurors thought Dr. Lee was the most impressive witness of the trial. They said he had a warm smile.

TV,

I am really not trying to anger you with my comparisons. If I am reading your posts correctly about the juror, Miss Bess. You feel since she did not know that blood was on the Rockingham glove, you feel that this issue is something you can't overlook and because of this, you feel you can't trust their verdict, am I correct?

In reading your posts, I can feel your passion and true belief that the jurors did let down the people of CA. I can't change your mind nor would anyone really try because your passion is so deep.

However, don't you think it is fair to recognize our passions and true beliefs about this case? Why we can't respect the evidence? I have never said that I believed Simpson was innocent because of who he was, in fact, up until half way through the DA's case, I thought he was guilty, I knew they would never convict him but I believed he was guilty. When the defense destroyed the State's witnesses on some many issues, I started to believe he was not guilty and then later, I came to believe that he was innocent. The reasons why I feel he innocent is based on "witnesses" who were never called or never took the stand.

IMO, because of the evidence and both sides doing their best to spin it their way, I settled on issues that could not really be spun by either side, such as the timeline. Either he had the time to do it or he didn't.

I understand you can't stand the jurors who wrote the book and you referenced a comment they made about Dr. Lee's smile, but what about their comments about Phil Vanatter? What about the observations they made about him as well as Fuhrman? I was pretty impressed because even though I watched on TV, I never would have been able to see what they saw, heard what they heard.

The only thing I truly would like to get across is that there are two sides to every piece of evidence. Where one may see guilt another may see innocent.

I would also like to be able to make a valid a point with out it being considered a declaration of war and at least be acknowledged, "you know, I still see it your way, but I can see where you could get that". It is not changing sides.

Perfect example, a few days there were posts about a failed lie detector test, there is the debate did he finish it, when was it stopped, but it was clear that several people believed he failed the test. He couldn't have scored lowered if he tried. The reality of the situation is that Simpson should have failed the test. He should have failed every question that was asked of him regarding Nicole. Yet, when I mentioned this, everybody goes mum. People who came out like gangbusters and said the failed detector test is another nail in his guilt coffin never said a word when I spoke the truth. By failing that lie detector test, he was telling the truth.

[GreenIce]

AC taking the fifth doesn't enter in to my opinion that he helped OJ Simpson after the murders. I would think the same thing even if he hadn't taken the fifth. Even though it's my belief that AC helped a murderer I haven't called him any degrading names. I don't have a problem with you thinking that Mark Fuhrman is all the things you think he is but I wish you'd just admit it's your personal opinion with no evidece to back it up as I do with AC Cowlings.

TV,

There is evidence to support William's comments about Mark Fuhrman. Personally, I don't understand how to this day he has conned so many people. When I see him, he makes me sick to my stomach. He represents, to me, just how far people will go to not only try to justify his words and actions but to even go so far in this case, to find sympathy for him. I read posts by some G's that have blamed Fuhrman's testimony and lies on a Black DA. Everything that man did and said has been protected, justified or minimized.

I made a post awhile ago. For Martin and William to explain to us what it is like to be a black person in our country is like them trying to explain the color red to a blind man. Or how to describe the beauty of melody to a deaf person. In regards to music, they turn it up so loud that the deaf person can feel the beat and even dance to the beat, but never can this person hear the music.

For the most part they have been patient and have put with ignorant comments about the race of the jurors. They have every right to blast Fuhrman on this issue. They have every right to call him whatever names they want because MF has been calling blacks "names" for years. He did it on the job, he did it in front of civilians and he did in front a judge from Dallas. MF made it clear how he felt about black people. I don't have a problem with a black person posting about he feels about MF.

Don't forget TV, it wasn't just blacks, it was every minority, it was women, it was Jews he got us all. The only thing I can say about Fuhrman is that if he did plant the glove, he did not do it because of his racial views. I think the only thing MF loved more then hating was his name in the limelight. IMO.

[William Anthony]

TV,

There is evidence to support William's comments about Mark Fuhrman. Personally, I don't understand how to this day he has conned so many people. When I see him, he makes me sick to my stomach. He represents, to me, just how far people will go to not only try to justify his words and actions but to even go so far in this case, to find sympathy for him. I read posts by some G's that have blamed Fuhrman's testimony and lies on a Black DA. Everything that man did and said has been protected, justified or minimized.

I made a post awhile ago. For Martin and William to explain to us what it is like to be a black person in our country is like them trying to explain the color red to a blind man. Or how to describe the beauty of melody to a deaf person. In regards to music, they turn it up so loud that the deaf person can feel the beat and even dance to the beat, but never can this person hear the music.

For the most part they have been patient and have put with ignorant comments about the race of the jurors. They have every right to blast Fuhrman on this issue. They have every right to call him whatever names they want because MF has been calling blacks "names" for years. He did it on the job, he did it in front of civilians and he did in front a judge from Dallas. MF made it clear how he felt about black people. I don't have a problem with a black person posting about he feels about MF.

Don't forget TV, it wasn't just blacks, it was every minority, it was women, it was Jews he got us all. The only thing I can say about Fuhrman is that if he did plant the glove, he did not do it because of his racial views. I think the only thing MF loved more then hating was his name in the limelight. IMO.

Very, very eloquently stated. America has turned a new page but the MFs of America remained locked in the past. The one thing I give MF credit for is that he voiced his true feelings, imho. I saw on the news yesterday where they were asking should President Obama take credit for rescuing the hostages held by the pirates. Some Americans do not have the integrity to say what they really feel, which, imho, deters from any open and honest communication that will heal the egregious wounds suffered because of racism. The reason I mentioned the incident in regard to President Obama is that those who feel it was the right thing to attack Iraq have never asked should President have taken the credit for capturing Saddam. True those opposed to the attack on Iraq or the capture of Saddam have said that President Bush should have been brought up on war crimes. However, no one thinks that the rescue of the hostages from the pirates was the wrong thing to do but they do question whether it was proper to give credit to President Obama, saying the credit should go to the navy seals. Should not the credit for capturing Saddam go to the troops? Why has not one asked that question about President Bush? I think it is wise to remember that wolves sometimes appear in sheep clothing.

[tv]

Do I see a prosecutor lurking within?I'm afraid that train has already left the station. :)

[William Anthony]

I'm afraid that train has already left the station. :)

Has the humming turned into a roar?:)

[tv]

Prosecution, defence jury and witnesses know they should not appear to be what Clarke appeared to be.I'm sorry, martin, I don't understand what you're saying. My oldtimer's is flaring up today. :tongue:

[tv]

Has the humming turned into a roar?:)

No, it will always remain a hum. :)

[martin II]

I'm sorry, martin, I don't understand what you're saying. My oldtimer's is flaring up today. :tongue:

everyone put forth a pleasing manner but clarke.

[tv]

everyone put forth a pleasing manner but clarke.
Okey, dokey.

[martin II]

TV,

There is evidence to support William's comments about Mark Fuhrman. Personally, I don't understand how to this day he has conned so many people. When I see him, he makes me sick to my stomach. He represents, to me, just how far people will go to not only try to justify his words and actions but to even go so far in this case, to find sympathy for him. I read posts by some G's that have blamed Fuhrman's testimony and lies on a Black DA. Everything that man did and said has been protected, justified or minimized.

I made a post awhile ago. For Martin and William to explain to us what it is like to be a black person in our country is like them trying to explain the color red to a blind man. Or how to describe the beauty of melody to a deaf person. In regards to music, they turn it up so loud that the deaf person can feel the beat and even dance to the beat, but never can this person hear the music.

For the most part they have been patient and have put with ignorant comments about the race of the jurors. They have every right to blast Fuhrman on this issue. They have every right to call him whatever names they want because MF has been calling blacks "names" for years. He did it on the job, he did it in front of civilians and he did in front a judge from Dallas. MF made it clear how he felt about black people. I don't have a problem with a black person posting about he feels about MF.

Don't forget TV, it wasn't just blacks, it was every minority, it was women, it was Jews he got us all. The only thing I can say about Fuhrman is that if he did plant the glove, he did not do it because of his racial views. I think the only thing MF loved more then hating was his name in the limelight. IMO.

Your post indicates great compassion and insight on your part.
Thanks for posting your views on this issue.:beer::beer::beer:
martin II

[martin II]

William

i never knew there was anything in C Besss book other than her comments about oj and the glove.I had the impression that that was all she wrote about in the entire book.
Damm.

[William Anthony]

William

i never knew there was anything in C Besss book other than her comments about oj and the glove.I had the impression that that was all she wrote about in the entire book.
Damm.

That's all I ever heard of.

[martin II]

Let's not forget the fingernail in the Spector trial.

Spector was convicted today

[martin II]

That's all I ever heard of.

One sided report.

[tv]

Spector was convicted today
I just heard that. I don't know how anyone could think that the poor victim just decided to kill herself in his home. He's a nut.

[weezer]

I just heard that. I don't know how anyone could think that the poor victim just decided to kill herself in his home. He's a nut.

henry lee thought she did -- but then he also thought trowell marks were footprints. :shrug:

[tv]

henry lee thought she did -- but then he also thought trowell marks were footprints. :shrug:
Wonder why he manipulated the evidence? Could it have been $$$? Something wrong!

[weezer]

Wonder why he manipulated the evidence? Could it have been $$$? Something wrong!

just another 'expert' with a for sale sign on his testimony -- ;)

[William Anthony]

Wonder why he manipulated the evidence? Could it have been $$$? Something wrong!

Too bad the evidence in the Simpson murder trial suggests he did not manipulate it as much as the prosecution.

[weezer]

Too bad the evidence in the Simpson murder trial suggests he did not manipulate it as much as the prosecution.

so some is okay?

[William Anthony]

I seem to hear the humming of a distant train, singing a sad refrain.

[weezer]

I seem to hear the humming of a distant train, singing a sad refrain.

can't think of anything that rhymes? :punch:

[tv]

I seem to hear the humming of a distant train, singing a sad refrain.

Can I start calling you Boxcar Willie?

[William Anthony]

Can I start calling you Boxcar Willie?

You can call me William or You can call me Bill or you can call me Billy but you mustn't call me Willie.

[tv]

You can call me William or You can call me Bill or you can call me Billy but you mustn't call me Willie.Hmm...how about Boxcar Billy?

[tv]

so some is okay?

The defense knew all about evidence manipulation -- look what the defendant did with the gloves.

[William Anthony]

Hmm...how about Boxcar Billy?

As long as you don't call me late for dinner.:)

[weezer]

The defense knew all about evidence manipulation -- look what the defendant did with the gloves.

the defense did testing on their own and I've often wondered why the defense never released any of those findings.

[William Anthony]

The defense knew all about evidence manipulation -- look what the defendant did with the gloves.

The defense did not claim to have found one after it allegedly got dropped during a struggle an lay neatly arranged on the ground; nor did the defense claim to have found the other in a place inconsistent with the evidence of blood or evidence of anyone being back there were the glove was allegedly found; nor did the defense produce a receipt that had no size or color of the glove; nor did the defense require Simpson to put on gloves that did not fit; nor did the defense try to say the gloves would have fit had they not have shrank. What is it you claim the defense did with the gloves?

[William Anthony]

I seem to hear the humming of a distant train, singing a sad refrain.

[tv]

The defense did not claim to have found one after it allegedly got dropped during a struggle an lay neatly arranged on the ground; nor did the defense claim to have found the other in a place inconsistent with the evidence of blood or evidence of anyone being back there were the glove was allegedly found; nor did the defense produce a receipt that had no size or color of the glove; nor did the defense require Simpson to put on gloves that did not fit; nor did the defense try to say the gloves would have fit had they not have shrank. What is it you claim the defense did with the gloves?

They coached OJ Simpson to grimace and mutter his way through the trying on of the gloves, what else?

On a side note, Johnnie Cochran said they would have asked for the demonstration if the prosecution hadn't.

[tv]

the defense did testing on their own and I've often wondered why the defense never released any of those findings.I had forgotten about that. Maybe Boxcar Billy can spin that for us.

[tv]

As long as you don't call me late for dinner.:)

You've missed dinner at my house. All leftovers from Easter dinner but not too bad.

[William Anthony]

I had forgotten about that. Maybe Boxcar Billy can spin that for us.

They weren't required to Ms. Out of the Boxdinner.

[William Anthony]

You've missed dinner at my house. All leftovers from Easter dinner but not too bad.

Ah, it just like money; all food isn't meant for you (a Williamism).

[tv]

They weren't required to Ms. Out of the Boxdinner.

Or could it be that the results weren't helpful to the defense?

[tv]

Ah, it just like money; all food isn't meant for you (a Williamism). If you say so. :shrug:

[GreenIce]

. They coached OJ Simpson to grimace and mutter his way through the trying on of the gloves, what else?

On a side note, Johnnie Cochran said they would have asked for the demonstration if the prosecution hadn't.

TV,

Johnnie Cochran and Bob Shapiro did not "coach" about the gloves. Shapiro told him to hold the gloves up like the Olympic Torch he carried through LA when the games were held there. He told Simpson that Cochran that he tried on the gloves and they were tight on him, they were not going to fit.

Johnnie Cochran then went out and tried them on because his hands were larger then Shapiro's. Because they knew the gloves weren't going to fit, they had no reason to tell him to "fake it".

Also, I think it was FLB who told Darden if he didn't do it, the defense would. In fact, didn't Darden tell Clark the same thing, that the defense was going to do it anyway? I think Clark responsed something like, "well let them do it!" IMO, every single lawyer there, including Darden knew the latex gloves would not hamper the fit. Use, it would make it tad harder to put them but not hamper the fit.

IMO, Clark's reaction and words are proof she was not going to ask Simpson to put those gloves on because she was not confident with this piece of evidence. But she had no problem with Darden doing it.

And again, you haven't commented on the fact that the DA's could have ordered Simpson to put the gloves back on without the latex. They had all the control in this demonstration and Clark gave it away so Darden would take the fall. IMO.

Also, if Simpson was "acting" while putting on the gloves, he didn't fool at least two jurors. IMO, I think Simpson knew enough that "acting" while putting on the gloves was going to hurt him more then help him. IMO.

[tv]

I think that AC took the 5th so as not to open a can of worms that could have put a negative personal light on oj and nicole.He loved nicole and i don't
think he would have covered for anyone that had murdered her.
Remember AC had worked for the mob guy that had some owership in that mazzoula resturant where ron worked and he was a drug distributor from there and around Brentwood.I just saw this. This is the first time I've heard AC was a drug dealer. Do you have a source for this?

[GreenIce]

That's all I ever heard of.

William and Martin,

I thought their book was great. There were a lot of things that I missed, like MF testifying that he did not tell VA about Kato's thumps and VA saying that MF told him about it.

IMO, MF was not a shock to the jurors and that had the believed that the glove was not planted, MF's tapes would have meant nothing.

They felt strongly that VA was more untrustworthy then MF. Lange wasn't too bad but on certain issues they felt he was evading and along with VA, they were playing "CYA" as if their life depended on it.

I was truly shock at the anger the jurors had at the Lab. It wasn't just Fung and Mozzola. It was Michelle Kestler, as well. One thing that stood out to them is that she had attended meetings regarding the evidence in this case, she took no notes. One of the jurors who was a department head, I think, could not understand why she didn't take notes or why she didn't make sure that notes were being taken. With her not taking notes, this struck a similiar pattern of Lange and VA not taking any notes either. Again, how many times can this happen in one case?

Kato, well what is unique about him, jurors in both trials felt he was holding back and he knew more then what he was tellling. It appears to me that the general feeling was Kato did not play a huge role with the jurors in either trial.

[GreenIce]

everyone put forth a pleasing manner but clarke.

Martin,

I don't know what this post is in reference to but if it is about Clark's demeanor in court, then I have to defend her. Woman who choose to become DA's are judged much more harshly in the eyes of the jurors then a male. It is the same old story, when a man performs in court as Clark did, as being aggressive and no nonsense, he is a leader, he is awesome. When it is a woman, she is called a witch but only change the w with a b.

Clark was nailed for changing her hair style, for her divorce, for the clothes she wore. While I was not pleased with Clark's behavior, I do not think a man would have been judge that harshly.

I will say that I did hear comments about JC's clothes and I don't know how the man did but he wore the ugly colored suits and ties but he made it work! I also remember the price of the defense lawyers suits beign tossed out by TV commentators but nothing like Clark got. The length of her skirts should not have been an issue.

I also feel that she was judged more harshly for "petty" comments she made when at one time or another, all the lawyers made petty comments. Her comments were consider the emotional ravings of a woman--while Darden's, JC's were considered to men who were just pissed off.

Again, I am no fan of hers but I do think she was judged way to harsh on issues that had nothing to the trial and her male counterparts weren't. IMO.

[GreenIce]

If you want to use that as a yardstick for measurement then we can say AC Cowlings invoked the 5th amendment so he wouldn't reveal his involvement in the murders. I'm sure he evaded several issues by doing so.

I think William would agree that taking the fifth amendment is our protection under the law against self-incrimination.

TV,

I don't know remember when AC took the 5th or why. I really don't know. I do know that Kato took the 5th on his lawyer's advice during the grand jury hearing. His lawyer told him to take the 5th until he could be in the courtroom with him. He was acting on legal advice. Of course the Grand Jury wasn't happy with him and I think Clark wanted to ring his neck, but he would not budge about not having a lawyer.

The DA's could have forced AC to take the stand and then they could have asked him all the questions they wanted. But to do so, they would have had to enter the Bronco Chase into the trial as well as Simpson's mental state during this time.

During the civil trial, AC was praised because he did testify against Simpson. Not one reporter said that he was trying to mislead the jury. IMO, if Petrocelli believed he was involved, he would have said so in his book, instead of Arnelle. IMO, I don't think Simpson would have asked either one of them but if he did, AC was the more likely person then his daughter, IMO.

IMO, the DA's could have filed charges against AC and they would have won for the Bronco Chase, they opted not to. They did not want that chase to enter the criminal trial, IMO.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce and Martin,

There have been several posts made about a grand conspiracy, which I don't think any of us have said. Those that made those particular statements seemed to have bought into the prosecution's argument. I ask you to consider a portion of Ron Shipp's testimony in which he said that he did not want to be the one to bring Simpson down and Carl Douglass responded that he wouldn't be. Let's look at what Shipp was saying, my testimony will bring down Simpson. Careers and fame were made on what was termed "The Trial of the Century". What greater fame could there have been for someone than to provide the testimony that convicted Simpson of murder? This could help us understand the seeming willingness for prosecution witnesses to slant their testimonies. There was no similar motive for the defense witnesses, as they have suffered the slings and errors for helping who most of America think guilty of murder to get acquitted. There may have been other motivations for the defense witnesses but I don't believe a desire for infamy was one.

William and Martin,

I did not know that the detectives had been trained to collect blood evidence at the scene and they are allowed to submit these samples to the lab--which means he had access to the crime lab. Another book you two might want to read is Hank Goldberg's--really it is good. But not for the state's case, IMO.

In regards to Ron Shipp, I do believe that if Simpson did ask him about DNA tests, as in how long it takes for the results, is a perfectly normal question. How this was spun into something sinister makes no sense to me. Simpson gave his blood, he was claiming he was innocent, perhaps asking Shipp how long it would take to get the results was to get an idea when this nightmare was going to end to him in regards to being a suspect.

What I do find odd is that Simpson already told Lange and VA that he was having weird thoughts about Nicole and that is why he wanted to learn more about lie detector tests. Wanting to know if they were "true blue". IMO, I think Shipp did know about his and he just embellished it.

Please remember, I said "if" Simpson asked him about DNA--but again, doesn't it make more sense that he would Shipp about a lie detector before a question about DNA?

I do not believe that it would have taken many people to have played with the evidence. However, I do believe that many people, in the state's agencies did work very hard at turning their heads and not wanting to see the obvious.

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

First off, was it AM's testimony that she did say that she did initial the bindles and doesn't know why they weren't on them or did she say that she must have just thought she did but didn't?

Also, I can't find a list of witnesses from the Grand Jury, do you know where I can find it?

If certain witnesses did testify in the grand jury, it could mean a lot. IMO.

Also, did you know about another possible footprint that was seen on a piece of paper by Nicole's head? That this piece of paper was not collected?

[martin II]

Martin and William,

First off, was it AM's testimony that she did say that she did initial the bindles and doesn't know why they weren't on them or did she say that she must have just thought she did but didn't?

Also, I can't find a list of witnesses from the Grand Jury, do you know where I can find it?

If certain witnesses did testify in the grand jury, it could mean a lot. IMO.

Also, did you know about another possible footprint that was seen on a piece of paper by Nicole's head? That this piece of paper was not collected?


Grand jury and prelim

http://walraven.org/simpson/#prelim

In her testimony before the criminal trial Mazzola testified that she initialed the envelopes.

In the criminal trial she was asked to identify the envelopes with her initials.
She could not. when asked why she said i don't know.She was pushed on this answer and she finally said maby i did not initial them.

the only thing she could have said is i initiled them period.

[William Anthony]

If you say so. :shrug:

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that I was pleased to have missed your Easter dinner, only that there may have been a reason for me to have missed it and I appreciate the invitation, even those circumstances prevent me from accepting at the present time. Can I have a rain check?

[martin II]

I just saw this. This is the first time I've heard AC was a drug dealer. Do you have a source for this?

tv

i never said ac was a drug dealer.

i should have been more clear
The article says AC was a limo driver for the drug distributor. Not that ac sold drugs.

[martin II]

They coached OJ Simpson to grimace and mutter his way through the trying on of the gloves, what else?

On a side note, Johnnie Cochran said they would have asked for the demonstration if the prosecution hadn't.

The defence did know the glove would not fit. Darden didn't

[martin II]

Wonder why he manipulated the evidence? Could it have been $$$? Something wrong!

tv
That was a accusation by the prosecution. Not sure it was proven that he did.

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

I thought their book was great. There were a lot of things that I missed, like MF testifying that he did not tell VA about Kato's thumps and VA saying that MF told him about it.

IMO, MF was not a shock to the jurors and that had the believed that the glove was not planted, MF's tapes would have meant nothing.

They felt strongly that VA was more untrustworthy then MF. Lange wasn't too bad but on certain issues they felt he was evading and along with VA, they were playing "CYA" as if their life depended on it.

I was truly shock at the anger the jurors had at the Lab. It wasn't just Fung and Mozzola. It was Michelle Kestler, as well. One thing that stood out to them is that she had attended meetings regarding the evidence in this case, she took no notes. One of the jurors who was a department head, I think, could not understand why she didn't take notes or why she didn't make sure that notes were being taken. With her not taking notes, this struck a similiar pattern of Lange and VA not taking any notes either. Again, how many times can this happen in one case?

Kato, well what is unique about him, jurors in both trials felt he was holding back and he knew more then what he was tellling. It appears to me that the general feeling was Kato did not play a huge role with the jurors in either trial.

Kestler came across more arrogant and evasive than MF, imho. She also seemed to be protected by judge Ito, imho. I wondered why she received such obviously favorable treatment and I thought it was due to Ito's displeasure with Neufield. I sensed Ito's displeasure with Neufield but I did not understand why, although I will admit there was something about his questioning and voice that annoyed me. However, after a while, watching how judge Ito treated him, I began to feel empathy for Neufield. I think Ito's annoyance with him came across clearly in Neufield's questioning of Kestler. It was clear to me that Kestler wasn't being forthright and, at times, showed complete disregard for the judicial process.

Kato ruffled Ms. Clark's feathers when she asked the question about did Simpson seem to pleased to have him come (trip to McDonalds) and he responded with something like, wouldn't you, and the courtroom burst out in laughter. I think he was trying to show his Kato cuteness and Ms. Clark did not appreciate it. I will look to find that testimony and see what happened afterward.

[GreenIce]

Grand jury and prelim

http://walraven.org/simpson/#prelim

In her testimony before the criminal trial Mazzola testified that she initialed the envelopes.

In the criminal trial she was asked to identify the envelopes with her initials.
She could not. when asked why she said i don't know.She was pushed on this answer and she finally said maby i did not initial them.

the only thing she could have said is i initiled them period.

Martin,

Read the witness list in the prelim hearing. Do you notice anything?

I just read Jill's testimony, are you kidding me? Her selling of her story was not the reason she did not testify, IMO, Clark knew if she was telling the truth, then no amount of money would change her story. But it would destroy her case, IMO.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

I don't know what this post is in reference to but if it is about Clark's demeanor in court, then I have to defend her. Woman who choose to become DA's are judged much more harshly in the eyes of the jurors then a male. It is the same old story, when a man performs in court as Clark did, as being aggressive and no nonsense, he is a leader, he is awesome. When it is a woman, she is called a witch but only change the w with a b.

Clark was nailed for changing her hair style, for her divorce, for the clothes she wore. While I was not pleased with Clark's behavior, I do not think a man would have been judge that harshly.

I will say that I did hear comments about JC's clothes and I don't know how the man did but he wore the ugly colored suits and ties but he made it work! I also remember the price of the defense lawyers suits beign tossed out by TV commentators but nothing like Clark got. The length of her skirts should not have been an issue.

I also feel that she was judged more harshly for "petty" comments she made when at one time or another, all the lawyers made petty comments. Her comments were consider the emotional ravings of a woman--while Darden's, JC's were considered to men who were just pissed off.

Again, I am no fan of hers but I do think she was judged way to harsh on issues that had nothing to the trial and her male counterparts weren't. IMO.

I agree for the most part on Ms. Clark's demeanor but I will say this and it is to the defense's credit. They managed in those exchanges between the lawyers to rattle Ms. Clark and Darden, causing them to lose focus, imho. I am not saying that they were wrong to engage in those exchanges but I am saying they should not have become rattled by them to the degree I believe they did.

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

I did not know that the detectives had been trained to collect blood evidence at the scene and they are allowed to submit these samples to the lab--which means he had access to the crime lab. Another book you two might want to read is Hank Goldberg's--really it is good. But not for the state's case, IMO.

In regards to Ron Shipp, I do believe that if Simpson did ask him about DNA tests, as in how long it takes for the results, is a perfectly normal question. How this was spun into something sinister makes no sense to me. Simpson gave his blood, he was claiming he was innocent, perhaps asking Shipp how long it would take to get the results was to get an idea when this nightmare was going to end to him in regards to being a suspect.

What I do find odd is that Simpson already told Lange and VA that he was having weird thoughts about Nicole and that is why he wanted to learn more about lie detector tests. Wanting to know if they were "true blue". IMO, I think Shipp did know about his and he just embellished it.

Please remember, I said "if" Simpson asked him about DNA--but again, doesn't it make more sense that he would Shipp about a lie detector before a question about DNA?

I do not believe that it would have taken many people to have played with the evidence. However, I do believe that many people, in the state's agencies did work very hard at turning their heads and not wanting to see the obvious.

What state's case, :)?

[martin II]

William and Martin,

I thought their book was great. There were a lot of things that I missed, like MF testifying that he did not tell VA about Kato's thumps and VA saying that MF told him about it.

IMO, MF was not a shock to the jurors and that had the believed that the glove was not planted, MF's tapes would have meant nothing.

They felt strongly that VA was more untrustworthy then MF. Lange wasn't too bad but on certain issues they felt he was evading and along with VA, they were playing "CYA" as if their life depended on it.

I was truly shock at the anger the jurors had at the Lab. It wasn't just Fung and Mozzola. It was Michelle Kestler, as well. One thing that stood out to them is that she had attended meetings regarding the evidence in this case, she took no notes. One of the jurors who was a department head, I think, could not understand why she didn't take notes or why she didn't make sure that notes were being taken. With her not taking notes, this struck a similiar pattern of Lange and VA not taking any notes either. Again, how many times can this happen in one case?

Kato, well what is unique about him, jurors in both trials felt he was holding back and he knew more then what he was tellling. It appears to me that the general feeling was Kato did not play a huge role with the jurors in either trial.

Thats odd because the jury seems to direct their anger at the same place i do
that lapd lab.The most logical place for manipulating of the blood evidence to have taken place and we know all the mistakes that took place there.
When people have meetings and don't take notes it is because they want to reserve denial.Same for detectives in the field.

[GreenIce]

Kestler came across more arrogant and evasive than MF, imho. She also seemed to be protected by judge Ito, imho. I wondered why she received such obviously favorable treatment and I thought it was due to Ito's displeasure with Neufield. I sensed Ito's displeasure with Neufield but I did not understand why, although I will admit there was something about his questioning and voice that annoyed me. However, after a while, watching how judge Ito treated him, I began to feel empathy for Neufield. I think Ito's annoyance with him came across clearly in Neufield's questioning of Kestler. It was clear to me that Kestler wasn't being forthright and, at times, showed complete disregard for the judicial process.

Kato ruffled Ms. Clark's feathers when she asked the question about did Simpson seem to pleased to have him come (trip to McDonalds) and he responded with something like, wouldn't you, and the courtroom burst out in laughter. I think he was trying to show his Kato cuteness and Ms. Clark did not appreciate it. I will look to find that testimony and see what happened afterward.

Michelle Kestler's is a cop's wife. I don't know his position within the LAPD but Ito was protecting "family".

[William Anthony]

3-22

"Q: AND SO -- AND WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: I GAVE HIM THE MONEY AND HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO GET A HAMBURGER AND I SAID, "CAN I GO?"

Q: YOU INVITED YOURSELF TO GO WITH HIM?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WAS HIS RESPONSE TO THAT?

A: "SURE."

Q: DID HE SEEM REAL EXCITED TO HAVE YOU COME?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE WITNESS: WOULDN'T YOU? "

I think this is the line of questioning and responses that caused the Ms. Clark's and Kato's rapport to degenerate.

[William Anthony]

Michelle Kestler's is a cop's wife. I don't know his position within the LAPD but Ito was protecting "family".

Ah, yes I had forgotten that and I remember wondering what her husband looked and acted like. :)

[martin II]

Martin,

I don't know what this post is in reference to but if it is about Clark's demeanor in court, then I have to defend her. Woman who choose to become DA's are judged much more harshly in the eyes of the jurors then a male. It is the same old story, when a man performs in court as Clark did, as being aggressive and no nonsense, he is a leader, he is awesome. When it is a woman, she is called a witch but only change the w with a b.

Clark was nailed for changing her hair style, for her divorce, for the clothes she wore. While I was not pleased with Clark's behavior, I do not think a man would have been judge that harshly.

I will say that I did hear comments about JC's clothes and I don't know how the man did but he wore the ugly colored suits and ties but he made it work! I also remember the price of the defense lawyers suits beign tossed out by TV commentators but nothing like Clark got. The length of her skirts should not have been an issue.

I also feel that she was judged more harshly for "petty" comments she made when at one time or another, all the lawyers made petty comments. Her comments were consider the emotional ravings of a woman--while Darden's, JC's were considered to men who were just pissed off.

Again, I am no fan of hers but I do think she was judged way to harsh on issues that had nothing to the trial and her male counterparts weren't. IMO.

I agree how women are treated in a court room and in corpoprate america.

Many of the negative comments about Clarks hair clothes etc were made by women.

I didn't pay any attention to her clothes hair as itr meant nothing to me.She looked like any other women in a dress to me.I was focused on the trial info.

[martin II]

Martin,

Read the witness list in the prelim hearing. Do you notice anything?

I just read Jill's testimony, are you kidding me? Her selling of her story was not the reason she did not testify, IMO, Clark knew if she was telling the truth, then no amount of money would change her story. But it would destroy her case, IMO.

i know.
Wagner gave a account that the real reason was Clarke wanted JS to change her times and she refused.

[martin II]

3-22

"Q: AND SO -- AND WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: I GAVE HIM THE MONEY AND HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO GET A HAMBURGER AND I SAID, "CAN I GO?"

Q: YOU INVITED YOURSELF TO GO WITH HIM?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WAS HIS RESPONSE TO THAT?

A: "SURE."

Q: DID HE SEEM REAL EXCITED TO HAVE YOU COME?

MR. SHAPIRO: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE WITNESS: WOULDN'T YOU? "

I think this is the line of questioning and responses that caused the Ms. Clark's and Kato's rapport to degenerate.

That would tee clark off.

[William Anthony]

That would tee clark off.

It's a good thing she did not have a golf club handy.:)

[bobaugust]

Why would I not see the testimony since I posted it and brought it to your attention to show your speculation or assumption was not supported by the testimony? Your statement was.



Park's testimony, WELL, NOT COME DOWN, BUT I SAW A FIGURE COME INTO THE ENTRANCEWAY OF THE HOUSE....Q: WAS MR. KAELIN EVER ON THE DRIVEWAY AT THE SAME TIME AS THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON THAT WENT INTO THE HOUSE?

A: NOT THAT I REMEMBER, NO.

If you were familiar with the Rockingham estate you would understand that Park was saying he saw Simpson come from the driveway into the light of the entranceway of the house. Park never said Simpson came from the house going to the driveway. In the civil trial Park said, “I saw somebody come from the driveway area into the house, or go into the house.”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Park's actual testimony as to where Kato was.


Park was perfectly clear that he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house on the Ashford side path with a flashlight. It's very clear that Kaelin was coming from his room to investigate the noises he had just heard on his back wall. Park said almost simultaneously he saw Simpson walk up into the front entranceway of the house and enter the front door. When Park was asked if he remembered where Kaelin was after Simpson entered his house, Park said from what he remembered Kaelin was still standing on the sidewalk (the Ashford side path.)

March 28, 1995 Allan Park

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

Q CAN YOU SHOW US ON THE DIAGRAM, DIRECT THE POINTER TO WHERE YOU SAW HIM ON THE SIDE YARD?
A RIGHT THERE WHERE THE ARROW WAS WHERE THE PATH -- WHERE THE PATH COMES OUT FROM BEHIND THE HOUSE.
HE CAME OUT TO JUST ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY, RIGHT THERE, (INDICATING).
Q WAS HE ON THE DRIVEWAY OR WAS HE ON THE GRASS?
A NO, HE WAS OFF A COUPLE FEET.
Q OKAY. TELL THE POINTER WHERE TO GO.
A JUST RIGHT -- RIGHT THERE, (INDICATING).
Q OKAY. WAS HE ON THE GRASS OR ON THE PATH?
A I COULDN'T SEE.
Q YOU COULDN'T TELL?
A NO.
Q SO IS THAT THE GENERAL LOCATION WHERE HE WAS?
A YES.

Q WHAT WAS HE DOING WHEN YOU SAW HIM?

A HE WAS JUST STANDING THERE, FROM WHAT I OBSERVED.
Q OKAY.
COULD YOU TELL WHERE HE WAS LOOKING OR WHAT HE WAS DOING?
A HE LOOKED AT ME AND THEN HE JUST -- HE STARTED TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, IN THE AREA OF THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY.
Q NOW, WHEN HE WAS LOOKING AT YOU, WHERE WERE YOU?
A I WAS INSIDE THE CAR ON THE PHONE.
Q TALKING TO YOUR BOSS?
A YES.

Q HOW LONG -- NOW, AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU SAW KATO KAELIN IN THE SIDE YARD, DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE?
A YES. I SAW A FIGURE COME DOWN -- WELL, NOT COME DOWN, BUT I SAW A FIGURE COME INTO THE ENTRANCEWAY OF THE HOUSE JUST ABOUT WHERE THE -- WHERE THE DRIVEWAY STARTS.

Q AFTER THAT SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE, DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHERE MR. KAELIN WAS?
A FROM WHAT I REMEMBERED, HE WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK.
Q DID HE ACKNOWLEDGE YOU IN ANY WAY AFTER THAT PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE?
A FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, HE KIND OF GAVE ME A HAND GESTURE TO LET ME KNOW HE WAS THERE

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

q: Okay. Was he on the grass or on the path?

A: I couldn't see.

Q: You couldn't tell?

A: No.

Evidently you are still unaware of what the Rockingham estate looks like. There is grass on both sides of the path. Park couldn’t tell if Kaelin was actually walking on the path or on the grass next to the path. All Park could see was Kaelin and his flashlight coming from the behind the house following the Ashford side path to where it meets the driveway.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Yes, but it is inconsistent with Park saying he saw Kato standing and still standing as Kato testified he did not stop when he exited his quarters on his way to do his first cursory search and is inconsistent with Kato's testimony as to Kato finishing his first cursory search, which you admit was when Kato buzzed the limo in and the only time Kato could have been standing or still standing as testified to by Park.

Once again you are referring to a minor discrepancy between two witness’s recollections. Kaelin may have simply paused at the same time Park saw Simpson enter his house and Park recalled that as still standing. But that in no way means Kaelin wasn’t on (or next to) the Ashford side path where Park said he saw him.

Your reasoning doesn’t make any sense since when Kaelin testified about returning from his first investigation he never said he stopped then either, he said he went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

March 22, 1995 Kaelin

Q OKAY. AND SO YOU BACKED OUT AGAIN?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHERE DID YOU GO THEN?
A I WENT BACK OUT.
Q OKAY.
A AND THE LIMO WAS STILL THERE AND I THOUGHT MAYBE I SHOULD LET THIS GUY IN, SO I WENT TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX, THERE IS A BUTTON, PRESSED AND IT OPENS UP.

Q OKAY.
SO YOU WALKED DOWN THE DRIVEWAY AROUND THE GARAGE TO THE SOUTH PATHWAY, CAME BACK OUT, WALKED BACK UP THE DRIVEWAY AND THE LIMO DRIVER -- THE LIMOUSINE WAS STILL OUTSIDE THE ASHFORD GATE?
A YES.
Q WHEN YOU SAID YOU WENT TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX, YOU POINTED TO AN AREA ON PEOPLE'S 66. IS THAT WHERE IT IS INDICATED BY THAT TREE?
A YES.
Q AND THEN DID THE GATE OPEN?
A YES, IT DID.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

i have not said that park was wrong about seeing kato on or near the ashford sidewalk. I am saying it was either suggested to him that he saw kato come from behind the house or he was wrong. At the time park saw kato standing or still standing, kato had finished his first cursory search and walked to that point, which is where park first saw him. That is consistent with park waiting thirty seconds after he claimed to have seen simpson go into the house, going to the ashford gate and buzzing and having simpson answer immediately and twenty to thirty seconds thereafter, after seeing kato still standing, being buzzed in by kato. It defies common sense to have kato walk to the south walkway, do a cursory search, walk back to the ashford walkway area, contemplate letting the limo in, seeing he was not buzzed in and walk to the gate box, all within thirty seconds, which is how long he waited to buzz again after seeing kato and who he claimed was simpson, because park said kato was still standing in that area. Kato shared the name with a dog not superman.

Kaelin never said he stopped and contemplated when he came back from his first search, he said he went to the gated control box and opened the gate.

Park never said it was only thirty seconds from the time he saw Simpson enter his house to when Kaelin opened the gate. Park estimated it was about two minutes. Park said he saw first saw Simpson about thirty seconds before he finished his telephone call to Dale. Park said he then sat and waited for about another thirty seconds before he got out of the limo, rang the intercom and spoke with Simpson. That’s about another thirty seconds. Park said he returned to the limo and waited another thirty seconds before Kaelin opened the gate.

Park was only estimating how much time past, he didn’t look at the clock.

Based on what Kaelin said he did on that first partial trip to the south path, I believe it’s reasonable to estimate it took Kaelin maybe two to three minutes to make that trip and return to the gate control box and open the gate. If you look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate you would be able to see that for yourself.

March 28, 1995

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

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

Q AND AFTER THIRTY SECONDS WHAT DID YOU DO?
A THAT IS WHEN I GOT BACK UP AND OUT OF THE CAR AND RANG THE INTERCOM. THIS TIME THERE WAS AN ANSWER, WHICH WAS MR. SIMPSON. HE TOLD ME THAT HE OVERSLEPT AND HE JUST GOT OUT OF THE SHOWER AND HE WOULD BE DOWN IN A MINUTE

Q BY MS. CLARK: AND AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON ON THE INTERCOM, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I GOT BACK INTO THE CAR AND WAITED ANOTHER TWENTY, THIRTY SECONDS AND BEFORE MR. KAELIN CAME OVER AND OPENED THE GATE.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

If you were familiar with the Rockingham estate you would understand that Park was saying he saw Simpson come from the driveway into the light of the entranceway of the house. Park never said Simpson came from the house going to the driveway. In the civil trial Park said, “I saw somebody come from the driveway area into the house, or go into the house.”

bobaugust

I think that you will agree that a person's memory of events doesn't improve over time. In any event your post proves nothing, because this is what Park said in the later civil trial, “I saw somebody come from the driveway area into the house, or go into the house.” However, this was your original claim, he saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up from the driveway to the front entrance and enter his house,". I hope you can see that your assertion, speculation and assumption are not supported by the testimony, or in other words, driveway area is not the same as walking up the driveway.:)

[William Anthony]

Park was perfectly clear that he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house on the Ashford side path with a flashlight. It's very clear that Kaelin was coming from his room to investigate the noises he had just heard on his back wall. Park said almost simultaneously he saw Simpson walk up into the front entranceway of the house and enter the front door. When Park was asked if he remembered where Kaelin was after Simpson entered his house, Park said from what he remembered Kaelin was still standing on the sidewalk (the Ashford side path.)

March 28, 1995 Allan Park

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

Q CAN YOU SHOW US ON THE DIAGRAM, DIRECT THE POINTER TO WHERE YOU SAW HIM ON THE SIDE YARD?
A RIGHT THERE WHERE THE ARROW WAS WHERE THE PATH -- WHERE THE PATH COMES OUT FROM BEHIND THE HOUSE.
HE CAME OUT TO JUST ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY, RIGHT THERE, (INDICATING).
Q WAS HE ON THE DRIVEWAY OR WAS HE ON THE GRASS?
A NO, HE WAS OFF A COUPLE FEET.
Q OKAY. TELL THE POINTER WHERE TO GO.
A JUST RIGHT -- RIGHT THERE, (INDICATING).
Q OKAY. WAS HE ON THE GRASS OR ON THE PATH?
A I COULDN'T SEE.
Q YOU COULDN'T TELL?
A NO.
Q SO IS THAT THE GENERAL LOCATION WHERE HE WAS?
A YES.

Q WHAT WAS HE DOING WHEN YOU SAW HIM?

A HE WAS JUST STANDING THERE, FROM WHAT I OBSERVED.
Q OKAY.
COULD YOU TELL WHERE HE WAS LOOKING OR WHAT HE WAS DOING?
A HE LOOKED AT ME AND THEN HE JUST -- HE STARTED TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, IN THE AREA OF THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY.
Q NOW, WHEN HE WAS LOOKING AT YOU, WHERE WERE YOU?
A I WAS INSIDE THE CAR ON THE PHONE.
Q TALKING TO YOUR BOSS?
A YES.

Q HOW LONG -- NOW, AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU SAW KATO KAELIN IN THE SIDE YARD, DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE?
A YES. I SAW A FIGURE COME DOWN -- WELL, NOT COME DOWN, BUT I SAW A FIGURE COME INTO THE ENTRANCEWAY OF THE HOUSE JUST ABOUT WHERE THE -- WHERE THE DRIVEWAY STARTS.

Q AFTER THAT SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE, DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHERE MR. KAELIN WAS?
A FROM WHAT I REMEMBERED, HE WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK.
Q DID HE ACKNOWLEDGE YOU IN ANY WAY AFTER THAT PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE?
A FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, HE KIND OF GAVE ME A HAND GESTURE TO LET ME KNOW HE WAS THERE

bobaugust

I don't know why you continue to argue this point as the obvious is clear. you have agreed that Kato let Park in after Kato finished his first cursory search. Park testified to where Kato was standing and still standing when he first saw him. Kato testified that he did not stop when he came from in back of the house but continued on to do his first cursory search. kato did not go back behind the house to get to the north parkway but walked up the driveway by the testimony. He walked to the place Park said he saw him after finishing his first cursory search, saw the limo, waited for the limo to be buzzed in, it wasn't, so he did it himself. It is obvious that Park was mistaken as to seeing Kato come from behind the house and it could have been suggested to him that he had but the defense on cross, the best vehicle for the search for the truth, brought forth that.

[William Anthony]

Kaelin never said he stopped and contemplated when he came back from his first search, he said he went to the gated control box and opened the gate.

Park never said it was only thirty seconds from the time he saw Simpson enter his house to when Kaelin opened the gate. Park estimated it was about two minutes. Park said he saw first saw Simpson about thirty seconds before he finished his telephone call to Dale. Park said he then sat and waited for about another thirty seconds before he got out of the limo, rang the intercom and spoke with Simpson. That’s about another thirty seconds. Park said he returned to the limo and waited another thirty seconds before Kaelin opened the gate.

Park was only estimating how much time past, he didn’t look at the clock.

Based on what Kaelin said he did on that first partial trip to the south path, I believe it’s reasonable to estimate it took Kaelin maybe two to three minutes to make that trip and return to the gate control box and open the gate. If you look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate you would be able to see that for yourself.

March 28, 1995

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

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

Q AND AFTER THIRTY SECONDS WHAT DID YOU DO?
A THAT IS WHEN I GOT BACK UP AND OUT OF THE CAR AND RANG THE INTERCOM. THIS TIME THERE WAS AN ANSWER, WHICH WAS MR. SIMPSON. HE TOLD ME THAT HE OVERSLEPT AND HE JUST GOT OUT OF THE SHOWER AND HE WOULD BE DOWN IN A MINUTE

Q BY MS. CLARK: AND AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON ON THE INTERCOM, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A I GOT BACK INTO THE CAR AND WAITED ANOTHER TWENTY, THIRTY SECONDS AND BEFORE MR. KAELIN CAME OVER AND OPENED THE GATE.

bobaugust

Your original statement, "Whether or not Kaelin just paused or stopped for a couple of seconds is only a minor discrepancy between two witness’s recollection and doesn’t change where Park said Kaelin was; “ON THE SIDEWALK.” I posted the testimony where Park said he did not know if Kato was on the sidewalk or the grass, which contradicts your assertion, claim and speculation.

You speculate, assume, claim but I go on the testimony that Park saw Kato standing and still standing. However, one may consider falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus, if they so desire.:)

[William Anthony]

Once again you are referring to a minor discrepancy between two witness’s recollections. Kaelin may have simply paused at the same time Park saw Simpson enter his house and Park recalled that as still standing. But that in no way means Kaelin wasn’t on (or next to) the Ashford side path where Park said he saw him.

Your reasoning doesn’t make any sense since when Kaelin testified about returning from his first investigation he never said he stopped then either, he said he went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

March 22, 1995 Kaelin

Q OKAY. AND SO YOU BACKED OUT AGAIN?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHERE DID YOU GO THEN?
A I WENT BACK OUT.
Q OKAY.
A AND THE LIMO WAS STILL THERE AND I THOUGHT MAYBE I SHOULD LET THIS GUY IN, SO I WENT TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX, THERE IS A BUTTON, PRESSED AND IT OPENS UP.

Q OKAY.
SO YOU WALKED DOWN THE DRIVEWAY AROUND THE GARAGE TO THE SOUTH PATHWAY, CAME BACK OUT, WALKED BACK UP THE DRIVEWAY AND THE LIMO DRIVER -- THE LIMOUSINE WAS STILL OUTSIDE THE ASHFORD GATE?
A YES.
Q WHEN YOU SAID YOU WENT TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX, YOU POINTED TO AN AREA ON PEOPLE'S 66. IS THAT WHERE IT IS INDICATED BY THAT TREE?
A YES.
Q AND THEN DID THE GATE OPEN?
A YES, IT DID.

bobaugust

Please, show me any question during the testimony where Kato was asked did he stop, other than when he exited his quarters to do his first cursory search and he testified he did not. The reason he wasn't asked that question again is that it would prove when Park actually saw Kato, imho. Park's July 5th testimony, which portion you did not post but I did, proves when Park actually saw Kato., smile. I am accepting apologies, today.

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

Can I ask you why you did not post this testimony from Park's July 5th testimony?

Q The person that you saw walk into the house
04 after which you saw the lights go on, could you tell
05 where they came from, whether it was Rockingham or the
06 garage area?
07 A I couldn't tell what direction he was coming
08 from. I could tell you what direction he was walking.
09 Q Yeah. He was walking towards the front door?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Okay. Can you -- but you couldn't tell where
12 he was coming from?
13 A No.
14 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I'm going to object to
15 the form of the question.
16 The witness has testified he couldn't tell
17 whether it was a male or female, and now Ms. Clark is
18 saying "You couldn't tell where he was coming from."
19 THE COURT: Sustained. Assumes a fact not in
20 evidence at this point.
21 MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
22 BY MS. CLARK:
23 Q You couldn't tell where that person was coming
24 from?
25 A Correct.
26 Q After you had the conversation with
27 Mr. Simpson, what happened next?
28 A I got back in the car and waited for the gate
0031
01 to be opened, which still took another 30 seconds or so.
02 Q Did you see where the male white was at that
03 point?
04 A He stood there pretty much the whole time.

Is it because it confirms what I have said that Kato was still standing and that was after Kato finished his first cursory search and contradicts your assumptions/speculations/claims?

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

Why do you refuse to acknowledge what you read in black and white?

Your statement.

Once again you are referring to a minor discrepancy between two witness’s recollections. Kaelin may have simply paused at the same time Park saw Simpson enter his house and Park recalled that as still standing. But that in no way means Kaelin wasn’t on (or next to) the Ashford side path where Park said he saw him.

What you call minor, I see as major. I have never disputed where Park first saw Kato, only when and from whence came Kato.

Testimony, July 5th

"Q: Now, when you saw that limousine, did you stop and pause for a minute?

A: I don't think so. I think I continued --I think I might have looked at it and just continued on my walk. "

I reiterate, I am accepting apologoies, today.

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

You and I have exhausted an extraordinary amount of time on this issue and I have supplied the testimony, which I believe, supports my inferences and contradicts yours. I have said that your inferences may be right even though I do not agree with them and have said the evidence contradicts your inferences. I am sure there are other issued to be discussed and other posters desire to participate in those discussions. It has become obvious to me that you will not accept the testimony for what it is and what inferences may be draw from the testimony that contradict yours. So, with this recognition, I believe those posters, who are honest, can see and decide that there are two inferences to be drawn from the evidence and, if they are aware of the jury instruction on reasonable doubt utilized by the court in the criminal murder trial, they will understand that the jury had no choice but to decide there was reasonable doubt on the issue on the time of the thumps and that is why the prosecution did not present Ms. Shively's testimony, imho. You see, bobaugust, what you seem to fail to realize is that, if the ten forty five time of thumps is accepted, then that gives Simpson more time to dispose of the evidence. However, what you do realize is that, if Ms. Shively's testimony is believed, which that jury did not hear, then Simpson could not have made the thumps at ten forty five. Therefore, you must come up with some explanation that destroys that time line, because, if you can credit Ms.Shively's testimony, you have Simpson leaving the area near Bundy at the time Kato heard the thumps. In order to make that fit, one must destroy Kato. You see the prosecution was wise in this as they couldn't afford to place one more witness on the stand, who had credibility issues and who narrowed the time Simpson would have had to destroy evidence.

The prosecution was placed in an untenable position, because they realized, as you and Martin correctly state, that Kato and Simpson would have been bumping into each other, which Ms. Clark was very intelligent and realized this too. Therefore, it must be made to seem that Park saw Kato when he exited his room but that vehicle which best serves to find the truth, examination (be it cross or direct), provided the evidence from which the inferences could be drawn as to when Park actually saw Kato for the first time, but, in so doing, supported the inference that Simpson was in the house as opposed to entering his property.

Now, when could Simpson have entered his property, without being seen by either Kato or Park? That would be when Park was on the phone with his mommy and Kato was waiting those two to three minutes to begin his first cursory search, approximately ten forty three to ten forty six. Ah, but no blood or evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters before MF allows the inference that no one was and destroys that aspect of the prosecution's theory. With that said, you may post as many claims/speculations/assertions as you will about those issues but I will not respond as I think the posters have enough information as to draw their own inferences, which is why I do not have to call yours wrong-reasonable doubt.

[martin II]

It's a good thing she did not have a golf club handy.:)

Or that 20 inch knife she thought was the murder weapon until the defence jacked her up on that. Cochran was smiling and offered her a kiss on the cheek.

[martin II]

Bobaugust,

Why do you refuse to acknowledge what you read in black and white?

Your statement.



What you call minor, I see as major. I have never disputed where Park first saw Kato, only when and from whence came Kato.

Testimony, July 5th

"Q: Now, when you saw that limousine, did you stop and pause for a minute?

A: I don't think so. I think I continued --I think I might have looked at it and just continued on my walk. "

I reiterate, I am accepting apologoies, today.

the animation shows that

[tv]

tv

i never said ac was a drug dealer.

i should have been more clear
The article says AC was a limo driver for the drug distributor. Not that ac sold drugs.Okay, thanks.

[tv]

tv
That was a accusation by the prosecution. Not sure it was proven that he did.

At least two jurors thought he did.

[martin II]

Bobaugust,

Why do you refuse to acknowledge what you read in black and white?

Your statement.



What you call minor, I see as major. I have never disputed where Park first saw Kato, only when and from whence came Kato.

Testimony, July 5th

"Q: Now, when you saw that limousine, did you stop and pause for a minute?

A: I don't think so. I think I continued --I think I might have looked at it and just continued on my walk. "

I reiterate, I am accepting apologoies, today.

William
remember Park was looking through the metal bars on the Ashford gate and it was dark so his vision was not that good.

[tv]

Bobaugust,

You and I have exhausted an extraordinary amount of time on this issue and I have supplied the testimony, which I believe, supports my inferences and contradicts yours. I have said that your inferences may be right even though I do not agree with them and have said the evidence contradicts your inferences. I am sure there are other issued to be discussed and other posters desire to participate in those discussions. It has become obvious to me that you will not accept the testimony for what it is and what inferences may be draw from the testimony that contradict yours. So, with this recognition, I believe those posters, who are honest, can see and decide that there are two inferences to be drawn from the evidence and, if they are aware of the jury instruction on reasonable doubt utilized by the court in the criminal murder trial, they will understand that the jury had no choice but to decide there was reasonable doubt on the issue on the time of the thumps and that is why the prosecution did not present Ms. Shively's testimony, imho. You see, bobaugust, what you seem to fail to realize is that, if the ten forty five time of thumps is accepted, then that gives Simpson more time to dispose of the evidence. However, what you do realize is that, if Ms. Shively's testimony is believed, which that jury did not hear, then Simpson could not have made the thumps at ten forty five. Therefore, you must come up with some explanation that destroys that time line, because, if you can credit Ms.Shively's testimony, you have Simpson leaving the area near Bundy at the time Kato heard the thumps. In order to make that fit, one must destroy Kato. You see the prosecution was wise in this as they couldn't afford to place one more witness on the stand, who had credibility issues and who narrowed the time Simpson would have had to destroy evidence.

The prosecution was placed in an untenable position, because they realized, as you and Martin correctly state, that Kato and Simpson would have been bumping into each other, which Ms. Clark was very intelligent and realized this too. Therefore, it must be made to seem that Park saw Kato when he exited his room but that vehicle which best serves to find the truth, examination (be it cross or direct), provided the evidence from which the inferences could be drawn as to when Park actually saw Kato for the first time, but, in so doing, supported the inference that Simpson was in the house as opposed to entering his property.

Now, when could Simpson have entered his property, without being seen by either Kato or Park? That would be when Park was on the phone with his mommy and Kato was waiting those two to three minutes to begin his first cursory search, approximately ten forty three to ten forty six. Ah, but no blood or evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters before MF allows the inference that no one was and destroys that aspect of the prosecution's theory. With that said, you may post as many claims/speculations/assertions as you will about those issues but I will not respond as I think the posters have enough information as to draw their own inferences, which is why I do not have to call yours wrong-reasonable doubt.

Why are you always so snide about Allan Park being on the phone with his mother?

[William Anthony]

Why are you always so snide about Allan Park being on the phone with his mother?

What are you calling snide about that remark?

[tv]

What are you calling snide about that remark?
You always use the word 'mommy' when talking about Allan Park being on the phone with his mother. He was a grown man doing an honest job. He doesn't deserve the snideness.

[martin II]

Okay, thanks.

TV

the article talks about Ippalio sp that broke out of Florids jail came back to Brentwood/LA. He was coowner of Mazzoluna where Ron worked.It talks about a investigators report about Ron and Nicole involved in drugs and about
a DEA undercover investiigation in Brentwood.

AC drove this guy around.

[tv]

TV

the article talks about Ippalio sp that broke out of Florids jail came back to Brentwood/LA. He was coowner of Mazzoluna where Ron worked.It talks about a investigators report about Ron and Nicole involved in drugs and about
a DEA undercover investiigation in Brentwood.

AC drove this guy around.

Please post proof that Ron and Nicole were involved with drug dealing. It looks to me like AC was chummy with the drug dealer not Ron and Nicole.

[martin II]

You always use the word 'mommy' when talking about Allan Park being on the phone with his mother. He was a grown man doing an honest job. He doesn't deserve the snideness.

Why was his mama sitting at the witness table with him in court.There was some speculation that she as a lawyer did some of the prompting of him in his testimony.

[William Anthony]

You always use the word 'mommy' when talking about Allan Park being on the phone with his mother. He was a grown man doing an honest job. He doesn't deserve the snideness.

I have never claimed that Park wasn't grown or dishonest. I have heard grown men call their mommies and their girlfriends mommy. I have heard grown women call their daddies and their boyfriends daddy. Don't trouble trouble until trouble troubles you (a Williamism).

[tv]

Why was his mama sitting at the witness table with him in court.There was some speculation that she as a lawyer did some of the prompting of him in his testimony.
Why was OJ Simpson crying and shaking in AC's bronco crying for his mommy?

[tv]

I have never claimed that Park wasn't grown or dishonest. I have heard grown men call their mommies and their girlfriends mommy. I have heard grown women call their daddies and their boyfriends daddy. Don't trouble trouble until trouble troubles you (a Williamism).

Stop twisting what you said. You were using the word 'mommy' to belittle Allan Park. It really doesn't become you, William.

[martin II]

Please post proof that Ron and Nicole were involved with drug dealing. It looks to me like AC was chummy with the drug dealer not Ron and Nicole.

i posted it before you want me to post it again

[William Anthony]

Stop twisting what you said. You were using the word 'mommy' to belittle Allan Park. It really doesn't become you, William.

I have no reason to belittle Park. I bolster his testimony in most aspects. I become more becoming as I become (a Williamism).

[tv]

I have no reason to belittle Park. I bolster his testimony in most aspects. I become more becoming as I become (a Williamism).
I agree you have no right to belittle him so please stop doing it.

[martin II]

Why was OJ Simpson crying and shaking in AC's bronco crying for his mommy?

Trying to get his head togeather i guess. Mama always give good advice.

[tv]

i posted it before you want me to post it again

If you have proof that Ron and Nicole were involved in drug dealing I'd like to see it. If all you have is speculation I'll pass.

[martin II]

I agree you have no right to belittle him so please stop doing it.

How about you lay off Arnell then.

[weezer]

Please post proof that Ron and Nicole were involved with drug dealing. It looks to me like AC was chummy with the drug dealer not Ron and Nicole.

I was thinking the same thing. ac was the driver for the drug dealer -- Ron worked as wait staff in a restaurant the guy was part owner of. hmmmmm -- yep -- makes sense -- let's kill the wait staff and leave the driver alone. :punch:

the driver of the drug dealer (ac) was orenthal's best friend. on the night he murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, orenthal james simpson had drugs in his system. On the night Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown were murdered by orenthal james simpson, neither victim had drugs in their system. guess who was called to help after the bodies were found? ac -- :shrug:

[William Anthony]

I agree you have no right to belittle him so please stop doing it.

I didn't call the young man a boy, so there was nothing belittling in my post. I hope you understand.

[tv]

Trying to get his head togeather i guess. Mama always give good advice.If Mama always gives good advice what was wrong with Allan Park's mother sitting at the witness table? You're not using one standard for OJ Simpson and another for Allan Park are you?

[tv]

I didn't call the young man a boy, so there was nothing belittling in my post. I hope you understand.No, I don't understand. It was equal to calling him boy and I'm asking you to stop it. It adds nothing to the discussion and is snide and nasty.

[martin II]

If you have proof that Ron and Nicole were involved in drug dealing I'd like to see it. If all you have is speculation I'll pass.

i have a private investigators report mixed in with the AC info and some other stuff.

i am running to a short meeting and will be back in about 1 hour. i already know what it says.

let me know before i spend time looking for it.

[William Anthony]

"Let's go to Luckenbach Texas with Willie and Waylon and the boys
This successful life we're livin' got us feuding
like the Hatfield and McCoy's
Between Hank Williams pain songs and Jerry Jeff's train songs
and blue eyes cryin' in the rain out in Luckenbach Texas
ain't nobody feelin' no pain"

[tv]

How about you lay off Arnell then.Arnelle is possibly a co-conspirator. Allan Park was just a witness. I've been very restrained in what I've said about Arnelle up to now.

[tv]

i have a private investigators report mixed in with the AC info and some other stuff.

i am running to a short meeting and will be back in about 1 hour. i already know what it says.

let me know before i spend time looking for it.
Unless it's proof that Ron and Nicole were drug dealers then please don't bother.

[weezer]

Why was his mama sitting at the witness table with him in court.There was some speculation that she as a lawyer did some of the prompting of him in his testimony.

hey -- I wonder why orenthal didn't make sure some of that money he spent on relatives/friends didn't go to pay for SOMEONE to be a lawyer. Lord knows he would've gotten his money out of that. :eek:

[William Anthony]

No, I don't understand. It was equal to calling him boy and I'm asking you to stop it. It adds nothing to the discussion and is snide and nasty.

One's sense of equality often depends on one's frame of reference (a Williamism).
I see nothing snide and nasty about saying Park was on the phone with his mommy as opposed to saying he was on the phone with his mother and I do believe you believe in the First Amendment.

[tv]

I was thinking the same thing. ac was the driver for the drug dealer -- Ron worked as wait staff in a restaurant the guy was part owner of. hmmmmm -- yep -- makes sense -- let's kill the wait staff and leave the driver alone. :punch:

the driver of the drug dealer (ac) was orenthal's best friend. on the night he murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown, orenthal james simpson had drugs in his system. On the night Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown were murdered by orenthal james simpson, neither victim had drugs in their system. guess who was called to help after the bodies were found? ac -- :shrug:

Exactly what I was thinking. If AC was driving the limo he would know all the movements of the mob guy. Another thought -- why do the same people that say Ron was a drug dealer also make fun of his financial status? Whish is it? Is he a penniless waiter with no credit or a drug dealer making a lot of money???

[tv]

One's sense of equality often depends on one's frame of reference (a Williamism).
I see nothing snide and nasty about saying Park was on the phone with his mommy as opposed to saying he was on the phone with his mother and I do believe you believe in the First Amendment.
Okay, William. Continue to make an ass of yourself by calling Allan Park's mother 'mommy'. You're showing the level of disrespect that I'm becoming accustomed to on this board.

[William Anthony]

Exactly what I was thinking. If AC was driving the limo he would know all the movements of the mob guy. Another thought -- why do the same people that say Ron was a drug dealer also make fun of his financial status? Whish is it? Is he a penniless waiter with no credit or a drug dealer making a lot of money???

Easy come, easy go, cop and blow-not a Williamism-just a lifestyle.:)

[tv]

hey -- I wonder why orenthal didn't make sure some of that money he spent on relatives/friends didn't go to pay for SOMEONE to be a lawyer. Lord knows he would've gotten his money out of that. :eek:
Maybe because it would require an above average IQ to attend law school?

[tv]

Easy come, easy go, cop and blow-not a Williamism-just a lifestyle.:)I certainly wouldn't brag about knowing druggie rhymes.

[William Anthony]

Okay, William. Continue to make an ass of yourself by calling Allan Park's mother 'mommy'. You're showing the level of disrespect that I'm becoming accustomed to on this board.

There is no need for you to cuss at me. Respect is a two way street, according to some and it must be earned in their eyes, remember? I do not know the measuring stick to gauge earning respect and it is due any person for the simple fact that they are, imho. Therefore, I respect Park and his mommy. Don't trouble trouble until trouble troubles you (a Williamism).

[tv]

There is no need for you to cuss at me. Respect is a two way street, according to some and it must be earned in their eyes, remember? I do not know the measuring stick to gauge earning respect and it is due any person for the simple fact that they are, imho. Therefore, I respect Park and his mommy. Don't trouble trouble until trouble troubles you (a Williamism).Sorry, the truth hurts sometimes. (A Williamism)

[William Anthony]

I certainly wouldn't brag about knowing druggie rhymes.

I didn't realize it was. Thanks for the education. How did you know it is?

[William Anthony]

Sorry, the truth hurts sometimes. (A Williamism)

A lie hurts all the time (a Williamism).

[William Anthony]

Maybe because it would require an above average IQ to attend law school?

I doubt that is true.

[tv]

I didn't realize it was. Thanks for the education. How did you know it is?
:biggrin:

[tv]

I doubt that is true.Are you trying to tell us something about your intelligence?

[William Anthony]

Are you trying to tell us something about your intelligence?

I will leave that to you as you seem to know what I am saying.:)

[tv]

I will leave that to you as you seem to know what I am saying.:)
Okay.

[weezer]

Maybe because it would require an above average IQ to attend law school?

ha -- I wasn't talking about orenthal! :tongue:

[tv]

ha -- I wasn't talking about orenthal! :tongue:
:beer:

[tv]

Hey, weezer -- when martin gets back from his meeting he's going to post proof that Ron and Nicole were drug dealers. Got the popcorn ready?

[William Anthony]

Money, marble and chalk. Streetcar fare and I don't care to walk-not a Williamism-a lifestyle.

[tv]

Song, song of the south
Sweet potato pie and I shut my mouth
Gone, gone with the wind
There ain't nobody looking back again

A lifestyle - not a Williamism.

[weezer]

Hey, weezer -- when martin gets back from his meeting he's going to post proof that Ron and Nicole were drug dealers. Got the popcorn ready?

I saw his post. sure hope it's not more of his hookey private investigator stuff. you know, you don't suppose greenice is the investigator he keeps quoting do you? some of her twilight zone stuff sounds an awful lot like the private investigator. ;) :tongue:

[William Anthony]

Song, song of the south
Sweet potato pie and I shut my mouth
Gone, gone with the wind
There ain't nobody looking back again

A lifestyle - not a Williamism.

"The past is the past
We cant change what is done
But it's our task
To look back on what we did wrong
But don't feel bad
On what had happened
Because it was an experience
That will never be forgotten
There are many more to come
Many more to experience
But we'll continue to learn from them
Because in this life I didn't regret
I only made mistakes that I'll never forget..."

A lifestyle with a smile.

[tv]

I saw his post. sure hope it's not more of his hookey private investigator stuff. you know, you don't suppose greenice is the investigator he keeps quoting do you? some of her twilight zone stuff sounds an awful lot like the private investigator. ;) :tongue:
You know, I was thinking the same thing. Sometimes when I read her posts I look around for Rod Serling. It wouldn't surprise me to see him standing in the corner smoking a cigarette. :biggrin:

[tv]

"The past is the past
We cant change what is done
But it's our task
To look back on what we did wrong
But don't feel bad
On what had happened
Because it was an experience
That will never be forgotten
There are many more to come
Many more to experience
But we'll continue to learn from them
Because in this life I didn't regret
I only made mistakes that I'll never forget..."

A lifestyle with a smile.

How nice. :)

[William Anthony]

How nice. :)

I think you might appreciate this. It brings tears to my eyes when I hear it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adg5Aum0h_4&feature=related

[tv]

I think you might appreciate this. It brings tears to my eyes when I hear it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adg5Aum0h_4&feature=related

Very uplifting. It would do some well to take the spirit of it to heart.

[William Anthony]

Very uplifting. It would do some well to take the spirit of it to heart.

I am not complaining nor have I lost that warrior spirit. :)

[tv]

I am not complaining nor have I lost that warrior spirit. :)

I didn't say I was referring to you. I wouldn't have a problem naming you if that were the case. You'll be happy to know I haven't lost my warrior spirit either.

[William Anthony]

I didn't say I was referring to you. I wouldn't have a problem naming you if that were the case. You'll be happy to know I haven't lost my warrior spirit either.

There is nothing that makes me think that you are not a warrioress. :)

[tv]

There is nothing that makes me think that you are not a warrioress. :)

I'll take that as a compliment. I don't want to be a complainer. :) Just so you know, I'm aware that the song was about the black struggle for equality.

[William Anthony]

I'll take that as a compliment. I don't want to be a complainer. :)

That is the way it was intended, so I won't complain.:)

[William Anthony]

I'll take that as a compliment. I don't want to be a complainer. :) Just so you know, I'm aware that the song was about the black struggle for equality.

I truly did not know that. I heard the song maybe ten years ago and it touched something within me, and it was just about life to me. I heard so many people complain without realizing they were still here and able to complain.

[tv]

I truly did not know that. I heard the song maybe ten years ago and it touched something within me, and it was just about life to me. I heard so many people complain without realizing they were still here and able to complain.That's the way I interpreted it. I'm sure you'd know better than me. I'm sure anyone could find a way to apply it to their life.

[William Anthony]

That's the way I interpreted it. I'm sure you'd know better than me. I'm sure anyone could find a way to apply it to their life.

Yes, when I am tempted to ask why me, I think why not me. We've drifted far afield of Simpson, smile.

[fgump2]

TV

the article talks about Ippalio sp that broke out of Florids jail came back to Brentwood/LA. He was coowner of Mazzoluna where Ron worked.It talks about a investigators report about Ron and Nicole involved in drugs and about
a DEA undercover investiigation in Brentwood.
AC drove this guy around.
**********************************************
Orenthal and Nicole accused each other of illegal drug use, of cocaine, and possibly other drugs as well. I haven't tried to keep score of the accusations. I think Nicole accused Orenthal of uppers and downers.
I believe that OJS probably used illegal drugs more than Nicole did, although I don't have proof.

First of all there is a story that Al Cowlings told in the civil disposition on April 17, and in Petrocelli's book on page 262. After the Cops had come to their house once on the 1989 incident, Nicole called the cops again. OJS ran out of the house, and drove off. He then came back in a friend’s car; he snuck into the house, and came out with a bag of jewelry (probably dope) and hid the bag in a neighbor’s garbage can. He then dropped his keys (somewhat like he dropped a glove in 94), and walked back to his friends house, and asked Cowlings to go back and get the keys, and jewelry/dope. Cowlings did so, and said that OJS was quite relieved when he got the mysterious bag. I think it is logical to think that the jewelry bag was really a drug bag.

OJS had some symptoms of drug use which taken together are far from conclusive are sufficiently suggestive to cast a lot of doubt on claims that OJS made about Nicole’s drug use. Of course one additional reason for doubting OJS’s complaints about Nicole’s drug usage is that he didn’t say anything about Nicole, Faye, or drugs, in statement to the police. I don’t think he ever notified the police about his suspicions.

One symptom0r symptom of stimulant (cocaine and amphetamines) abuse use is that the user gets quickly looses his temper over trivial things, and then quickly gets over it. OJS would get sometimes quickly loose his temper, and the appearance of his head and neck would change, veins would stand out. I think more than one person called this anger frightening. Some of his golf friends said he would quickly become physically angry over golf incidents, and then quickly get over it.

Another symptom of stimulant abuse is what some people have called constipation of the mind and diarrhea of the mouth. OJS had this symptom also. Nicole’s mother, Juditha, said that she would sometimes fall asleep when OJS was talking and when she woke up he was still talking. Terri Baker, niece of OJS, also said that OJS would ramble a lot. A.C. Cowlings also testified that when OJS was excited he would sometimes babble.

An irregular sleep schedule is also a possible symptom of drug abuse. OJS had a schedule on the murder night which didn't give him much time for sleep.

I mention this evidence mainly because there are OJS supporters who talk as though Nicole had a drug problem, and Orenthal did not.. OJS supporters like to quote Nicole's friends who said she sometimes used illegal drugs, but those same people also said the OJS used it more.

I may order a book about drug problems, mainly because I am sometimes around people with drug problems; but I could also use it to post on the board.

Although I think OJS is a murderer and a psychopath, I think he was and is smart. I say this partly because most good football players are of above average intelligence, and because he was an illusive runner. In other words he was good at giving the defense the impression he was going to run in one direction, and then run in another direction. I think illusive football runners have to be intelligent. OJS could also turn the charm on and be quite persuasive, another sign of intelligence.

[William Anthony]

**********************************************
Orenthal and Nicole accused each other of illegal drug use, of cocaine, and possibly other drugs as well. I haven't tried to keep score of the accusations. I think Nicole accused Orenthal of uppers and downers.
I believe that OJS probably used illegal drugs more than Nicole did, although I don't have proof.

First of all there is a story that Al Cowlings told in the civil disposition on April 17, and in Petrocelli's book on page 262. After the Cops had come to their house once on the 1989 incident, Nicole called the cops again. OJS ran out of the house, and drove off. He then came back in a friend’s car; he snuck into the house, and came out with a bag of jewelry (probably dope) and hid the bag in a neighbor’s garbage can. He then dropped his keys (somewhat like he dropped a glove in 94), and walked back to his friends house, and asked Cowlings to go back and get the keys, and jewelry/dope. Cowlings did so, and said that OJS was quite relieved when he got the mysterious bag. I think it is logical to think that the jewelry bag was really a drug bag.

OJS had some symptoms of drug use which taken together are far from conclusive are sufficiently suggestive to cast a lot of doubt on claims that OJS made about Nicole’s drug use. Of course one additional reason for doubting OJS’s complaints about Nicole’s drug usage is that he didn’t say anything about Nicole, Faye, or drugs, in statement to the police. I don’t think he ever notified the police about his suspicions.

One symptom0r symptom of stimulant (cocaine and amphetamines) abuse use is that the user gets quickly looses his temper over trivial things, and then quickly gets over it. OJS would get sometimes quickly loose his temper, and the appearance of his head and neck would change, veins would stand out. I think more than one person called this anger frightening. Some of his golf friends said he would quickly become physically angry over golf incidents, and then quickly get over it.

Another symptom of stimulant abuse is what some people have called constipation of the mind and diarrhea of the mouth. OJS had this symptom also. Nicole’s mother, Juditha, said that she would sometimes fall asleep when OJS was talking and when she woke up he was still talking. Terri Baker, niece of OJS, also said that OJS would ramble a lot. A.C. Cowlings also testified that when OJS was excited he would sometimes babble.

An irregular sleep schedule is also a possible symptom of drug abuse. OJS had a schedule on the murder night which didn't give him much time for sleep.

I mention this evidence mainly because there are OJS supporters who talk as though Nicole had a drug problem, and Orenthal did not.. OJS supporters like to quote Nicole's friends who said she sometimes used illegal drugs, but those same people also said the OJS used it more.

I may order a book about drug problems, mainly because I am sometimes around people with drug problems; but I could also use it to post on the board.

Although I think OJS is a murderer and a psychopath, I think he was and is smart. I say this partly because most good football players are of above average intelligence, and because he was an illusive runner. In other words he was good at giving the defense the impression he was going to run in one direction, and then run in another direction. I think illusive football runners have to be intelligent. OJS could also turn the charm on and be quite persuasive, another sign of intelligence.

Are you saying that the murders were because of drugs and likely to have been committed by a drug dealer?

[tv]

Yes, when I am tempted to ask why me, I think why not me. We've drifted far afield of Simpson, smile.
Then we'll consider the subject changed. :)

[martin II]

Arnelle is possibly a co-conspirator. Allan Park was just a witness. I've been very restrained in what I've said about Arnelle up to now.

I know. no reason for you to follow others. But i do know you speak for tv and no one speaks for tv as you have your own channel.

[tv]

I know. no reason for you to follow others. But i do know you speak for tv and no one speaks for tv as you have your own channel.

Thank you, martin. :)

I think I'll call my channel the 'no balogna' channel because I can usually see BS coming from a mile away.

[martin II]

Why was OJ Simpson crying and shaking in AC's bronco crying for his mommy?

Is the subject oj and his mommie or park and his?

[tv]

Is the subject oj and his mommie or park and his?

The subject was whether or not you should refer to another man's mother as mommy.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by tvdinner View Post
Why was OJ Simpson crying and shaking in AC's bronco crying for his mommy?

Because a mommy is the one female a male can depend on in time of the utmost need.

[William Anthony]

The subject was whether or not you should refer to another man's mother as mommy.

I wasn't calling Park's mommy, mommy. I said Park was talking to his mommy on the phone.

[tv]

I wasn't calling Park's mommy, mommy. I said Park was talking to his mommy on the phone.

For heaven's sake. :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

For heaven's sake. :rolleyes:

I won't complain.:)

[tv]

I won't complain.:)

I'll remind you of that when I need to.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

What cocaine or amphetamines were found in Simpson's system on the night of the murders? I thought you had posted on this subject numerous times.

[William Anthony]

I'll remind you of that when I need to.

When you say for heavens sake, how can I complain?

[tv]

When you say for heavens sake, how can I complain?

You can't. I'm sure you'll find an opportunity to catch up on your complaining later. :)

[William Anthony]

You can't. I'm sure you'll find an opportunity to catch up on your complaining later. :)

Warrioress,

If I might correct you without starting a battle, I am warrioring not complaining.:)

[weezer]

I wasn't calling Park's mommy, mommy. I said Park was talking to his mommy on the phone.

Park could have been asking his Mother for help for orenthal who needed advice on how to wash his lingerie and sweatsuit -- :tongue:

[William Anthony]

I seem to hear the humming of a distant train, singing a sad refrain.

[martin II]

**********************************************
Orenthal and Nicole accused each other of illegal drug use, of cocaine, and possibly other drugs as well. I haven't tried to keep score of the accusations. I think Nicole accused Orenthal of uppers and downers. Do you have proof of this?
I believe that OJS probably used illegal drugs more than Nicole did, although I don't have proof.

First of all there is a story that Al Cowlings told in the civil disposition on April 17, and in Petrocelli's book on page 262.AC told a story in petros book? After the Cops had come to their house once on the 1989 incident, Nicole called the cops again. OJS ran out of the house, and drove off. He then came back in a friend’s car; he snuck into the house, and came out with a bag of jewelry (probably dope) and hid the bag in a neighbor’s garbage can. He then dropped his keys (somewhat like he dropped a glove in 94), and walked back to his friends house, and asked Cowlings to go back and get the keys, and jewelry/dope. Cowlings did so, and said that OJS was quite relieved when he got the mysterious bag. I think it is logical to think that the jewelry bag was really a drug bag.PROOF PLEASE.

OJS had some symptoms of drug use which taken together are far from conclusive are sufficiently suggestive to cast a lot of doubt on claims that OJS made about Nicole’s drug use. Of course one additional reason for doubting OJS’s complaints about Nicole’s drug usage is that he didn’t say anything about Nicole, Faye, or drugs, in statement to the police. I don’t think he ever notified the police about his suspicions.Faye told cora that nicole had freebased with her, oj said he did not believe it.

One symptom0r symptom of stimulant (cocaine and amphetamines) abuse use is that the user gets quickly looses his temper over trivial things, and then quickly gets over it. OJS would get sometimes quickly loose his temper, and the appearance of his head and neck would change, veins would stand out. I think more than one person called this anger frightening. Some of his golf friends said he would quickly become physically angry over golf incidents, and then quickly get over it. Are you now a drug abuse doctor?

Another symptom of stimulant abuse is what some people have called constipation of the mind and diarrhea of the mouth. OJS had this symptom also. Nicole’s mother, Juditha, said that she would sometimes fall asleep when OJS was talking and when she woke up he was still talking. Terri Baker, niece of OJS, also said that OJS would ramble a lot. A.C. Cowlings also testified that when OJS was excited he would sometimes babble.

An irregular sleep schedule is also a possible symptom of drug abuse. OJS had a schedule on the murder night which didn't give him much time for sleep.

I mention this evidence mainly because there are OJS supporters who talk as though Nicole had a drug problem, and Orenthal did not.. OJS supporters like to quote Nicole's friends who said she sometimes used illegal drugs, but those same people also said the OJS used it more.

I may order a book about drug problems, mainly because I am sometimes around people with drug problems; but I could also use it to post on the board.

Although I think OJS is a murderer and a psychopath, I think he was and is smart. I say this partly because most good football players are of above average intelligence, and because he was an illusive runner. In other words he was good at giving the defense the impression he was going to run in one direction, and then run in another direction. I think illusive football runners have to be intelligent. OJS could also turn the charm on and be quite persuasive, another sign of intelligence.

You have made a number of accusations about oj and drug abuse.In order for one to take your accusations serious you need to post evidence of your claims or you should not make them.According to the rules on the thread you are required to give links as proof to your claims.I request that you do so.And please don't ignore my request.
thanks

[tv]

Park could have been asking his Mother for help for orenthal who needed advice on how to wash his lingerie and sweatsuit -- :tongue:

Maybe he needed to know how to wash out blood stains. Must not have worked because the sweat suit in question is stil MIA.

[tv]

You have made a number of accusations about oj and drug abuse.In order for one to take your accusations serious you need to post evidence of your claims or you should not make them.According to the rules on the thread you are required to give links as proof to your claims.I request that you do so.And please don't ignore my request.
thanks

martin, I've posted several statements by people that witnessed OJ Simpson using drugs. Remember his nickname of 'Hoover' because of his ability to snort a large amount of cocaine? Or how about his big jar of pills that he called his 'christmas tree' because of all the different colored pills in it? Now that I think of it this is the conversation we were having when you came up with the name Lady Kenmore. :tongue:

[weezer]

You have made a number of accusations about oj and drug abuse.In order for one to take your accusations serious you need to post evidence of your claims or you should not make them.According to the rules on the thread you are required to give links as proof to your claims.I request that you do so.And please don't ignore my request.
thanks

looks to me like fgump has posted links to his statements.

[William Anthony]

Be a leader and not a follower be-a lifestyle.

[William Anthony]

No dirt or Christmas ornaments found in Simpson's system.:shrug:

[tv]

No dirt or Christmas ornaments found in Simpson's system.:shrug:

I don't recall that they checked for either one.

[martin II]

Martin,

What cocaine or amphetamines were found in Simpson's system on the night of the murders? I thought you had posted on this subject numerous times.

I have posted that oj had traces of marijuana in his blood sample.Some have tried to turn this test results into something more than what the test results showed.
But a new poster has made a whole truck load of accusations about what he thinks was ojs drug use.

I have asked as i have before for the poster to give links to his claims but up to now the claims have been made and the request for links to his/her claims have been ignored.Hopefully we will receive some links to support these claims.Otherwise i just think i will just ignore the post.

[William Anthony]

I don't recall that they checked for either one.

Well then the evidence is that they weren't there.:)

[tv]

Well then the evidence is that they weren't there.:)
Only marijuana.

[martin II]

martin, I've posted several statements by people that witnessed OJ Simpson using drugs. Remember his nickname of 'Hoover' because of his ability to snort a large amount of cocaine? Or how about his big jar of pills that he called his 'christmas tree' because of all the different colored pills in it? Now that I think of it this is the conversation we were having when you came up with the name Lady Kenmore. :tongue:

Oj was called HOOVER by some. I gave the name Lady Kenmore to Nicole as she was sitting at the coffee partaking In what was in the bowl as jo may have been. Someone turned the Lady Kenmore comment into something else and directed it to another person.
I don't know anything about some Christmas tree.
But if you want talk about some drug use of Nicole and oj we can.

[tv]

Oj was called HOOVER by some. I gave the name Lady Kenmore to Nicole as she was sitting at the coffee partaking In what was in the bowl as jo may have been. Someone turned the Lady Kenmore comment into something else and directed it to another person.
I don't know anything about some Christmas tree.
But if you want talk about some drug use of Nicole and oj we can.

I don't have a problem talking about OJ and Nicole and drug use. On the night she was killed Nicole had no drugs in her system. OJ Simpson had marijuana in his system. I thought the Lady Kenmore name fit Arnelle well. You know, the washing machine and all.

[William Anthony]

Only marijuana.

Was he trying to become President?

[martin II]

Only marijuana.

Only traces of Marijuana which means that he could have smoked it within a period of one week to a month or more if the test was by blood. If by hair the time would be much longer period. If he had smoked it on 6/12 the results would have been POSITIVE. I think you know this.The uppers and downers stuff is just stuff made up by someone that have no clue as to what they are saying.But the poster can post his evidence if there is any.But i doubt there will be any.

[tv]

Only traces of Marijuana which means that he could have smoked it within a period of one week to a month or more if the test was by blood. If by hair the time would be much longer period. If he had smoked it on 6/12 the results would have been POSITIVE. I think you know this.The uppers and downers stuff is just stuff made up by someone that have no clue as to what they are saying.But the poster can post his evidence if there is any.But i doubt there will be any.

Maybe he didn't do it that day, maybe he did. :shrug: His drug use doesn't mean much to me. You're being naive if you really believe he didn't do drugs but it's neither here nor there to me.

[tv]

Was he trying to become President?

Not that I've heard.

[William Anthony]

His drug use doesn't mean much to me.

I think a voice of reason has appeared.

[martin II]

I don't have a problem talking about OJ and Nicole and drug use. On the night she was killed Nicole had no drugs in her system. OJ Simpson had marijuana in his system. I thought the Lady Kenmore name fit Arnelle well. You know, the washing machine and all.

I have no problem with your twisting of the name which is why i let it go.
Lets be real. I/you can use cocain today and it will not show up in a blood test three days later.Usually sellers don;t use, they sell.
I don't know what niciole was doing even though Cora said that one time Nicole told her she was COAKED OUT and Faye claimed Nicole freebased with her.

Regardless it is a non issue because even if oj smoked marijuana on 6/12 there is not medical or any other kind of proof that this would lead him commiting murder.Please inform your friend of this and if you have time inform that poster of the same.

[martin II]

Maybe he didn't do it that day, maybe he did. :shrug: His drug use doesn't mean much to me. You're being naive if you really believe he didn't do drugs but it's neither here nor there to me.

I think that if drugs were at some of the parties at rockingham and Bundy that everyone that was there used.There is no evidence that drugs were at every party so to post that oj was some crazed drug person is pure nonsense.
And the poster should either give proof of the claims or just read testimony
about the case and leave those books alone.imo

[martin II]

Maybe he didn't do it that day, maybe he did. :shrug: His drug use doesn't mean much to me. You're being naive if you really believe he didn't do drugs but it's neither here nor there to me.

Usually marijuana causes one to either sleep or head to a mcdonalds or Burger King.That is my understanding.What is yours?

[weezer]

Usually marijuana causes one to either sleep or head to a mcdonalds or Burger King.That is my understanding.What is yours?

ah so -- martin has solved the mystery of orenthal going for a burger the night of the murders! thanks martin. :eek:

[martin II]

**********************************************
Orenthal and Nicole accused each other of illegal drug use, of cocaine, and possibly other drugs as well. I haven't tried to keep score of the accusations. I think Nicole accused Orenthal of uppers and downers.
I believe that OJS probably used illegal drugs more than Nicole did, although I don't have proof.

First of all there is a story that Al Cowlings told in the civil disposition on April 17, and in Petrocelli's book on page 262. After the Cops had come to their house once on the 1989 incident, Nicole called the cops again. OJS ran out of the house, and drove off. He then came back in a friend’s car; he snuck into the house, and came out with a bag of jewelry (probably dope) and hid the bag in a neighbor’s garbage can. He then dropped his keys (somewhat like he dropped a glove in 94), and walked back to his friends house, and asked Cowlings to go back and get the keys, and jewelry/dope. Cowlings did so, and said that OJS was quite relieved when he got the mysterious bag. I think it is logical to think that the jewelry bag was really a drug bag.

OJS had some symptoms of drug use which taken together are far from conclusive are sufficiently suggestive to cast a lot of doubt on claims that OJS made about Nicole’s drug use. Of course one additional reason for doubting OJS’s complaints about Nicole’s drug usage is that he didn’t say anything about Nicole, Faye, or drugs, in statement to the police. I don’t think he ever notified the police about his suspicions.

One symptom0r symptom of stimulant (cocaine and amphetamines) abuse use is that the user gets quickly looses his temper over trivial things, and then quickly gets over it. OJS would get sometimes quickly loose his temper, and the appearance of his head and neck would change, veins would stand out. I think more than one person called this anger frightening. Some of his golf friends said he would quickly become physically angry over golf incidents, and then quickly get over it.

Another symptom of stimulant abuse is what some people have called constipation of the mind and diarrhea of the mouth. OJS had this symptom also. Nicole’s mother, Juditha, said that she would sometimes fall asleep when OJS was talking and when she woke up he was still talking. Terri Baker, niece of OJS, also said that OJS would ramble a lot. A.C. Cowlings also testified that when OJS was excited he would sometimes babble.

An irregular sleep schedule is also a possible symptom of drug abuse. OJS had a schedule on the murder night which didn't give him much time for sleep.

I mention this evidence mainly because there are OJS supporters who talk as though Nicole had a drug problem, and Orenthal did not.. OJS supporters like to quote Nicole's friends who said she sometimes used illegal drugs, but those same people also said the OJS used it more.

I may order a book about drug problems, mainly because I am sometimes around people with drug problems; but I could also use it to post on the board.

Although I think OJS is a murderer and a psychopath, I think he was and is smart. I say this partly because most good football players are of above average intelligence, and because he was an illusive runner. In other words he was good at giving the defense the impression he was going to run in one direction, and then run in another direction. I think illusive football runners have to be intelligent. OJS could also turn the charm on and be quite persuasive, another sign of intelligence.

You could help me to understand your post if you would make your positions clearer.

You post long list of issues attacking oj, Dr Lee and the defence, You make some serious claims about wrong doing and lies told by the defence and now you post about various oj drug use. Some times you make a effort.At least i think so,to clean up your accusations by dropping a line 'i have no proof'
So my question is if you have no proof to these accusations why post them as fact? You have made many accussation that you say you have no proof.

If you have no proof then you may consider adding IMO TO YOUR POST
This way there would be no possibility that some could take your accusation as fact. I am sure you would not want post false information for others to consider.

You may have noticed that when posters post facts they give links to prove their claims.That is a rule of the threads.
Thanks in advance.

martin II

[weezer]

You could help me to understand your post if you would make your positions clearer.

You post long list of issues attacking oj, Dr Lee and the defence, You make some serious claims about wrong doing and lies told by the defence and now you post about various oj drug use. Some times you make a effort.At least i think so,to clean up your accusations by dropping a line 'i have no proof'
So my question is if you have no proof to these accusations why post them as fact? You have made many accussation that you say you have no proof.

If you have no proof then you may consider adding IMO TO YOUR POST
This way there would be no possibility that some could take your accusation as fact. I am sure you would not want post false information for others to consider.

You may have noticed that when posters post facts they give links to prove their claims.That is a rule of the threads.
Thanks in advance.

martin II

martin, it would do you well to heed your own advise. imo

[bobaugust]

I think that you will agree that a person's memory of events doesn't improve over time. In any event your post proves nothing, because this is what Park said in the later civil trial, “I saw somebody come from the driveway area into the house, or go into the house.” However, this was your original claim, he saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up from the driveway to the front entrance and enter his house,". I hope you can see that your assertion, speculation and assumption are not supported by the testimony, or in other words, driveway area is not the same as walking up the driveway.:)

Yes the driveway area is the same as the driveway. If you were familiar with the Rockingham estate you would realize that.

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

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I don't know why you continue to argue this point as the obvious is clear. you have agreed that Kato let Park in after Kato finished his first cursory search. Park testified to where Kato was standing and still standing when he first saw him. Kato testified that he did not stop when he came from in back of the house but continued on to do his first cursory search. kato did not go back behind the house to get to the north parkway but walked up the driveway by the testimony. He walked to the place Park said he saw him after finishing his first cursory search, saw the limo, waited for the limo to be buzzed in, it wasn't, so he did it himself. It is obvious that Park was mistaken as to seeing Kato come from behind the house and it could have been suggested to him that he had but the defense on cross, the best vehicle for the search for the truth, brought forth that.

And you still can’t seem to understand that Kaelin never said he returned to the left side of the driveway where Park said he first saw him until after Simpson left for the airport and Kaelin went back to his room. If you ever decide to learn what the Rockingham estate looks like you would see that the Ashford side path was to Park’s left and the gate control box that Kaelin went to after his first partial trip to the south path was to Park’s right on the other side of the driveway. Park was not mistaken, you are.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Your original statement, "Whether or not Kaelin just paused or stopped for a couple of seconds is only a minor discrepancy between two witness’s recollection and doesn’t change where Park said Kaelin was; “ON THE SIDEWALK.” I posted the testimony where Park said he did not know if Kato was on the sidewalk or the grass, which contradicts your assertion, claim and speculation.

You speculate, assume, claim but I go on the testimony that Park saw Kato standing and still standing. However, one may consider falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus, if they so desire.:)

If you ever decide to learn what the Rockingham estate looks like you would see the Ashford side path which is the sidewalk and the grass beside that sidewalk, as well as the side yard were all to Park’s left. There is sidewalk to Park’s right where the gate control box is.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Please, show me any question during the testimony where Kato was asked did he stop, other than when he exited his quarters to do his first cursory search and he testified he did not. The reason he wasn't asked that question again is that it would prove when Park actually saw Kato, imho. Park's July 5th testimony, which portion you did not post but I did, proves when Park actually saw Kato., smile. I am accepting apologies, today.

Kaelin was never asked if he stopped when he returned from his first partial trip to the south path and Kaelin never said he stopped when he returned from that trip, went to the gate control box and opened the gate to let the limo in.

The only thing your imagined scenario and incorrect claim proves is that you are still unaware of what the Rockingham estate looks like. If you ever decide to look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate you would realize how wrong your imagined scenario actually is.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Bobaugust,

Can I ask you why you did not post this testimony from Park's July 5th testimony?

Q The person that you saw walk into the house
04 after which you saw the lights go on, could you tell
05 where they came from, whether it was Rockingham or the
06 garage area?
07 A I couldn't tell what direction he was coming
08 from. I could tell you what direction he was walking.
09 Q Yeah. He was walking towards the front door?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Okay. Can you -- but you couldn't tell where
12 he was coming from?
13 A No.
14 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I'm going to object to
15 the form of the question.
16 The witness has testified he couldn't tell
17 whether it was a male or female, and now Ms. Clark is
18 saying "You couldn't tell where he was coming from."
19 THE COURT: Sustained. Assumes a fact not in
20 evidence at this point.
21 MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
22 BY MS. CLARK:
23 Q You couldn't tell where that person was coming
24 from?
25 A Correct.
26 Q After you had the conversation with
27 Mr. Simpson, what happened next?
28 A I got back in the car and waited for the gate
0031
01 to be opened, which still took another 30 seconds or so.
02 Q Did you see where the male white was at that
03 point?
04 A He stood there pretty much the whole time.

Is it because it confirms what I have said that Kato was still standing and that was after Kato finished his first cursory search and contradicts your assumptions/speculations/claims?

You are wrong and the only thing you prove is that you still can’t understand the difference in these two locations. You evidently still haven’t learned what the Rockingham estate looks like.

What Park’s testimony means is that he didn't notice Simpson until Simpson walked up from the driveway into the light of the front entrance so Park couldn’t say where Simpson came from. When Park saw Simpson enter his house Park could see Kaelin to his left and Simpson in front of him. If Kaelin had already returned from his first partial trip to the south path then Kaelin would have been to Park’s right on the driveway at the gate control box having just come down the front driveway. That means Kaelin would have been on the front driveway the same time Simpson was and they would have seen each other. Kaelin never saw Simpson.

March 28, 1995 Allan Park

Q WAS MR. KAELIN EVER ON THE DRIVEWAY AT THE SAME TIME AS THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON THAT WENT INTO THE HOUSE?
A NOT THAT I REMEMBER, NO.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Bobaugust,

Why do you refuse to acknowledge what you read in black and white?

Your statement.



What you call minor, I see as major. I have never disputed where Park first saw Kato, only when and from whence came Kato.

Testimony, July 5th

"Q: Now, when you saw that limousine, did you stop and pause for a minute?

A: I don't think so. I think I continued --I think I might have looked at it and just continued on my walk. "

I reiterate, I am accepting apologoies, today.

Like I said this is simply a minor discrepancy of recollection between two witnesses as to Kaelin’s movements and in no way changes that Park consistently testified he saw Kaelin to his left coming from behind the house on the Ashford side path with a flashlight, not to his right on the other side of the driveway where the gate control box is and there is no sidewalk.

The more you avoid learning what the Rockingham estate looks like the more confused you are.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Bobaugust,

You and I have exhausted an extraordinary amount of time on this issue and I have supplied the testimony, which I believe, supports my inferences and contradicts yours. I have said that your inferences may be right even though I do not agree with them and have said the evidence contradicts your inferences. I am sure there are other issued to be discussed and other posters desire to participate in those discussions. It has become obvious to me that you will not accept the testimony for what it is and what inferences may be draw from the testimony that contradict yours. So, with this recognition, I believe those posters, who are honest, can see and decide that there are two inferences to be drawn from the evidence and, if they are aware of the jury instruction on reasonable doubt utilized by the court in the criminal murder trial, they will understand that the jury had no choice but to decide there was reasonable doubt on the issue on the time of the thumps and that is why the prosecution did not present Ms. Shively's testimony, imho. You see, bobaugust, what you seem to fail to realize is that, if the ten forty five time of thumps is accepted, then that gives Simpson more time to dispose of the evidence. However, what you do realize is that, if Ms. Shively's testimony is believed, which that jury did not hear, then Simpson could not have made the thumps at ten forty five. Therefore, you must come up with some explanation that destroys that time line, because, if you can credit Ms.Shively's testimony, you have Simpson leaving the area near Bundy at the time Kato heard the thumps. In order to make that fit, one must destroy Kato. You see the prosecution was wise in this as they couldn't afford to place one more witness on the stand, who had credibility issues and who narrowed the time Simpson would have had to destroy evidence.

The prosecution was placed in an untenable position, because they realized, as you and Martin correctly state, that Kato and Simpson would have been bumping into each other, which Ms. Clark was very intelligent and realized this too. Therefore, it must be made to seem that Park saw Kato when he exited his room but that vehicle which best serves to find the truth, examination (be it cross or direct), provided the evidence from which the inferences could be drawn as to when Park actually saw Kato for the first time, but, in so doing, supported the inference that Simpson was in the house as opposed to entering his property.

Now, when could Simpson have entered his property, without being seen by either Kato or Park? That would be when Park was on the phone with his mommy and Kato was waiting those two to three minutes to begin his first cursory search, approximately ten forty three to ten forty six. Ah, but no blood or evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters before MF allows the inference that no one was and destroys that aspect of the prosecution's theory. With that said, you may post as many claims/speculations/assertions as you will about those issues but I will not respond as I think the posters have enough information as to draw their own inferences, which is why I do not have to call yours wrong-reasonable doubt.

Your attempt to change the facts in this case using inferences based on incorrect information as well as your obvious limited knowledge of what the Rockingham estate looks like makes what you imagine happened wrong. There is no evidence that contradicts Park’s testimony as to where Kaelin was when Park first saw him and Simpson that night. The minor discrepancy based on a difference of recollections by Kaelin and Park as to Kaelin’s movements in no way changes where Kaelin was when Park said he first saw him.

Anyone who takes the time to simply look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate can see that the only sidewalk on the estate was to Park’s left and is consistent with Park’s testimony as to where Kaelin was when Park first saw him that night. The layout of the estate is also consistent with Park being able to see both Kaelin and Simpson at the same time without either Kaelin or Park being able to see each other. The gate control box is on the other side of the driveway to Park’s right and is not consistent with your imaginary claim that was where Kaelin was when Park first saw him and then Simpson enter his house.

Once you decide William to see what the Rockingham estate actually looks like you too should be able to understand that what you have imagined is wrong and never happened.

Park’s testimony is completely consistent with the fact that Simpson was the person behind Kaelin’s room who made the noises on the wall. Park’s telephone records document the time of the noises at about 10:51, 10:52 just as Clark told the jury in her closing argument. The fact is that after Kaelin heard those noises and felt the vibrations on the wall it took both Kaelin and Simpson the same amount of time for both of them to make it to the front of the house where Park first saw Kaelin come from behind the house on the Ashford path with a flashlight on his way to investigate the noise and almost simultaneously Park first saw Simpson walk up into the front entrance, enter his house, and lights come on downstairs in the house.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Ignorance of the effect of one having traces of marijuana in their blood can cause some to make up all kinds of senerios of what those traces would cause one to do. But there is no medial or any other evidence that traces of marijuana would cause one to commit murder.imo

[weezer]

Ignorance of the effect of one having traces of marijuana in their blood can cause some to make up all kinds of senerios of what those traces would cause one to do. But there is no medial or any other evidence that traces of marijuana would cause one to commit murder.imo

:confused:

[William Anthony]

If you ever decide to learn what the Rockingham estate looks like you would see the Ashford side path which is the sidewalk and the grass beside that sidewalk, as well as the side yard were all to Park’s left. There is sidewalk to Park’s right where the gate control box is.

bobaugust

What is your point?

[William Anthony]

You are wrong and the only thing you prove is that you still can’t understand the difference in these two locations. You evidently still haven’t learned what the Rockingham estate looks like.

What Park’s testimony means is that he didn't notice Simpson until Simpson walked up from the driveway into the light of the front entrance so Park couldn’t say where Simpson came from. When Park saw Simpson enter his house Park could see Kaelin to his left and Simpson in front of him. If Kaelin had already returned from his first partial trip to the south path then Kaelin would have been to Park’s right on the driveway at the gate control box having just come down the front driveway. That means Kaelin would have been on the front driveway the same time Simpson was and they would have seen each other. Kaelin never saw Simpson.

March 28, 1995 Allan Park

Q WAS MR. KAELIN EVER ON THE DRIVEWAY AT THE SAME TIME AS THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON THAT WENT INTO THE HOUSE?
A NOT THAT I REMEMBER, NO.

bobaugust

Park never testified he saw Simpson walk or the figure, if you will, up the driveway, which contradicts your post. Martin placed the exhibit on the board with where Kato was and where Simpson was. Looking from Ashford toward Rockingham, Kato was in front of Simpson. You now admit you were incorrect when you post this, "What Park’s testimony means is that he didn't notice Simpson until Simpson walked up from the driveway into the light of the front entrance so Park couldn’t say where Simpson came from, which directly contradicts your first claim. Kato said what he did and he walked backed to the Ashford or the north pathway, which is when Park first saw him. Ms. Clark understood where Kato walked to but you don't.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. AS FAR AS YOU GOT ON THAT SOUTH PATHWAY, SIR, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THE AREA -- THE GROUND AREA AROUND THE AIR CONDITIONER IN YOUR ROOM?

A: NO.

Q: AND WHY DID YOU STOP ON THE PATHWAY WHERE YOU DID?

A: I JUST DID. I COULDN'T SEE. I WAS -- I JUST STOPPED.

Q: WHY?

A: YOU KNOW, I WAS SCARED, BUT -- THAT IS IT.

Q: YOU WERE SCARED?

A: SCARED, YEAH.

Q: OKAY. AND SO YOU BACKED OUT AGAIN?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHERE DID YOU GO THEN?

A: I WENT BACK OUT.

Q: OKAY.

A: AND THE LIMO WAS STILL THERE AND I THOUGHT MAYBE I SHOULD LET THIS GUY IN, SO I WENT TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX, THERE IS A BUTTON, PRESSED AND IT OPENS UP.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU WALKED DOWN THE DRIVEWAY AROUND THE GARAGE TO THE SOUTH PATHWAY, CAME BACK OUT, WALKED BACK UP THE DRIVEWAY AND THE LIMO DRIVER -- THE LIMOUSINE WAS STILL OUTSIDE THE ASHFORD GATE?

A: YES.

Kato walked back to the spot where Park saw him and stood there as Park testified and then walked to the gate box. You don't seem to understand that. Park nor I have ever said that Park saw Kato standing by the gate box.

[William Anthony]

Kaelin was never asked if he stopped when he returned from his first partial trip to the south path and Kaelin never said he stopped when he returned from that trip, went to the gate control box and opened the gate to let the limo in.

The only thing your imagined scenario and incorrect claim proves is that you are still unaware of what the Rockingham estate looks like. If you ever decide to look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate you would realize how wrong your imagined scenario actually is.

bobaugust

Exactly, Kato was never asked did he stop on his return from the first cursory search. However, he was asked, if he stopped when he left his quarters and he said no. How can you see someone standing and still standing, if they never stopped?

[William Anthony]

Like I said this is simply a minor discrepancy of recollection between two witnesses as to Kaelin’s movements and in no way changes that Park consistently testified he saw Kaelin to his left coming from behind the house on the Ashford side path with a flashlight, not to his right on the other side of the driveway where the gate control box is and there is no sidewalk.

The more you avoid learning what the Rockingham estate looks like the more confused you are.

bobaugust

See response to post #5949.

[William Anthony]

Your attempt to change the facts in this case using inferences based on incorrect information as well as your obvious limited knowledge of what the Rockingham estate looks like makes what you imagine happened wrong. There is no evidence that contradicts Park’s testimony as to where Kaelin was when Park first saw him and Simpson that night. The minor discrepancy based on a difference of recollections by Kaelin and Park as to Kaelin’s movements in no way changes where Kaelin was when Park said he first saw him.

Anyone who takes the time to simply look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate can see that the only sidewalk on the estate was to Park’s left and is consistent with Park’s testimony as to where Kaelin was when Park first saw him that night. The layout of the estate is also consistent with Park being able to see both Kaelin and Simpson at the same time without either Kaelin or Park being able to see each other. The gate control box is on the other side of the driveway to Park’s right and is not consistent with your imaginary claim that was where Kaelin was when Park first saw him and then Simpson enter his house.

Once you decide William to see what the Rockingham estate actually looks like you too should be able to understand that what you have imagined is wrong and never happened.

Park’s testimony is completely consistent with the fact that Simpson was the person behind Kaelin’s room who made the noises on the wall. Park’s telephone records document the time of the noises at about 10:51, 10:52 just as Clark told the jury in her closing argument. The fact is that after Kaelin heard those noises and felt the vibrations on the wall it took both Kaelin and Simpson the same amount of time for both of them to make it to the front of the house where Park first saw Kaelin come from behind the house on the Ashford path with a flashlight on his way to investigate the noise and almost simultaneously Park first saw Simpson walk up into the front entrance, enter his house, and lights come on downstairs in the house.

bobaugust

See all my previous responses.

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

If you only dribble the basketball but never shoot it, you put on quite a show but never score and, if you shoot but never make a hoop, you still never score(a Williamism). You put on a great show but score no points.:) I need some competition on this issue to keep my game tight.:)

[martin II]

tv

lets say both oj and nicole did drugs and some friends. lets say oj did more than nicole. this did not prevent oj from working to support his family and did not preveny nicole from taking care of her kids.

Those that continue to argue that he had traces of marijuna in his system and nicole had nothing in her system tells us what?Nothing.

Those that suggest that it means something other than what medical evidence has proven imo is just trying to make a issue of something that is not there.imo

[martin II]

Exactly, Kato was never asked did he stop on his return from the first cursory search. However, he was asked, if he stopped when he left his quarters and he said no. How can you see someone standing and still standing, if they never stopped?

yep and
hahaha

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

I truly hoped that you would drop the issue as I did not want to point out the obvious to you but I am growing tired of this conversation. So, here it is. Park testified as follows on July 5th,

26 Q After you had the conversation with
27 Mr. Simpson, what happened next?
28 A I got back in the car and waited for the gate
0031
01 to be opened, which still took another 30 seconds or so.
02 Q Did you see where the male white was at that
03 point?
04 A He stood there pretty much the whole time.

The "there" was where he saw Kato and we know that it would have taken Kato longer than 30 seconds to do his cursory search and walk back to the spot that Park saw Kato, somewhere near the north walkway whether on the grass or on the path. Since we have agreed that Kato buzzed park in after he did his first cursory search, then Kato was standing there or still standing there, if you will, after Kato had finished his first cursory search and walked back up the driveway to near the north walkway when Park first saw him standing and still standing, while Simpson went in the house, turned on the downstairs lights, talked to Park on the intercom and then Kato walked over to the gate box, after seeing that Park had not gotten in, which is why kato gestured to him, because he saw him at the intercom and went to let him in, letting Park know that he was walking over to the gate box in order to let him in. You see, it's all about "He stood there pretty much the whole time. The time he simultaneously saw him and Simpson, the time it took Simpson to enter and turn on the lights, the time it took Park to go back to the intercom and have it immediately answered by Simpson, before Kato walked to the gate box. I truly expected you to pick up on it and take the time to allow the conversation to stand still.

[martin II]

Bobaugust,

I truly hoped that you would drop the issue as I did not want to point out the obvious to you but I am growing tired of this conversation. So, here it is. Park testified as follows on July 5th,

26 Q After you had the conversation with
27 Mr. Simpson, what happened next?
28 A I got back in the car and waited for the gate
0031
01 to be opened, which still took another 30 seconds or so.
02 Q Did you see where the male white was at that
03 point?
04 A He stood there pretty much the whole time.

The "there" was where he saw Kato and we know that it would have taken Kato longer than 30 seconds to do his cursory search and walk back to the spot that Park saw Kato, somewhere near the north walkway whether on the grass or on the path. Since we have agreed that Kato buzzed park in after he did his first cursory search, then Kato was standing there or still standing there, if you will, after Kato had finished his first cursory search and walked back up the driveway to near the north walkway when Park first saw him standing and still standing, while Simpson went in the house, turned on the downstairs lights, talked to Park on the intercom and then Kato walked over to the gate box, after seeing that Park had not gotten in, which is why kato gestured to him, because he saw him at the intercom and went to let him in, letting Park know that he was walking over to the gate box in order to let him in. You see, it's all about "He stood there pretty much the whole time. The time he simultaneously saw him and Simpson, the time it took Simpson to enter and turn on the lights, the time it took Park to go back to the intercom and have it immediately answered by Simpson, before Kato walked to the gate box. I truly expected you to pick up on it and take the time to allow the conversation to stand still.

Bob

Do you get the feeling that you may have lost your argument on this issue.

[GreenIce]

I agree you have no right to belittle him so please stop doing it.

TV,

I'll be honest with you, I don't think Alan Park would have an issue with the "mommy" comments. He struck me as one young man very proud to be a mama's boy. My son to this day, still says that is what he is. It was one thing when he said it when he was a little boy and under 5ft and less then a hundred pounds. Now he is over 6 ft and is over 200 pounds and he says it with the same vigor.

I may be wrong, but if Martin was a lawyer and it was son who was sitting where Park was, he would have been there just like Alan's mother. There was rumour, when he first testified that that he was "legally" a tad "slow". I don't know if this just came out because they were afraid how he would testify but I saw no signs of it. I think he was honest and when he did make a mistake, it was an honest one---like saying he saw another car when one was not there.

Oh and Martin, we have Robert Shapiro to thank for the mother protecting her cub. I would have done the same.

[GreenIce]

Thats odd because the jury seems to direct their anger at the same place i do
that lapd lab.The most logical place for manipulating of the blood evidence to have taken place and we know all the mistakes that took place there.
When people have meetings and don't take notes it is because they want to reserve denial.Same for detectives in the field.

Martin,

My anger is at the judges and the DA's. In this case, not one juror believed the four lead detectives when they said Simpson was not a suspect. IMO, this reflects poorly on the judge and the DA's. What makes it worse is when the DA's treat these cops who they know are lying like they are choirboys.

The police are the base of our legal system. It seems to me they have every other agency on the ropes. Look at Fuhrman's behavior during the trial. And I am not talking about what he testified to.

I have always felt that Fung drew a line. He would only go so far for the DA's. I think he knew something funky was going on and he was not happy. Wasn't it during the civil trial he questioned if those gloves were the same, or something like that?

I also truly believe that it is very easy to get someone to doubt their own work. Like I said, if AM was confronted about the initials and she stuck to her guns, then she is accussing someone of playing with the evidence. I mean no offense to anyone but I would like to think if it was me, I would say I must be wrong because I don't think I could handle knowing that someone did play with the evidence.

I have more anger toward Michelle Kestler. Fung was set up to be a scapegoat by Kestler, IMO. It seems to me that for some guy they kept complaining about, they kept sending back out. Yet, you have to give them credit. "Dennis, how could you not see the blood the back gate? Dennise how come you didn't get the whole stain in the Bronco? Dennis, why did you only take one sample off of the bronco, etc. I can see where this guy may have been reaching for a glass of whiskey to brush his teeth. I have always believed that there was a reason he shook the defense lawyers hand and it was not because he "punch drunk". IMO.

[GreenIce]

**********************************************
Orenthal and Nicole accused each other of illegal drug use, of cocaine, and possibly other drugs as well. I haven't tried to keep score of the accusations. I think Nicole accused Orenthal of uppers and downers.
I believe that OJS probably used illegal drugs more than Nicole did, although I don't have proof.

First of all there is a story that Al Cowlings told in the civil disposition on April 17, and in Petrocelli's book on page 262. After the Cops had come to their house once on the 1989 incident, Nicole called the cops again. OJS ran out of the house, and drove off. He then came back in a friend’s car; he snuck into the house, and came out with a bag of jewelry (probably dope) and hid the bag in a neighbor’s garbage can. He then dropped his keys (somewhat like he dropped a glove in 94), and walked back to his friends house, and asked Cowlings to go back and get the keys, and jewelry/dope. Cowlings did so, and said that OJS was quite relieved when he got the mysterious bag. I think it is logical to think that the jewelry bag was really a drug bag.

OJS had some symptoms of drug use which taken together are far from conclusive are sufficiently suggestive to cast a lot of doubt on claims that OJS made about Nicole’s drug use. Of course one additional reason for doubting OJS’s complaints about Nicole’s drug usage is that he didn’t say anything about Nicole, Faye, or drugs, in statement to the police. I don’t think he ever notified the police about his suspicions.

One symptom0r symptom of stimulant (cocaine and amphetamines) abuse use is that the user gets quickly looses his temper over trivial things, and then quickly gets over it. OJS would get sometimes quickly loose his temper, and the appearance of his head and neck would change, veins would stand out. I think more than one person called this anger frightening. Some of his golf friends said he would quickly become physically angry over golf incidents, and then quickly get over it.

Another symptom of stimulant abuse is what some people have called constipation of the mind and diarrhea of the mouth. OJS had this symptom also. Nicole’s mother, Juditha, said that she would sometimes fall asleep when OJS was talking and when she woke up he was still talking. Terri Baker, niece of OJS, also said that OJS would ramble a lot. A.C. Cowlings also testified that when OJS was excited he would sometimes babble.

An irregular sleep schedule is also a possible symptom of drug abuse. OJS had a schedule on the murder night which didn't give him much time for sleep.

I mention this evidence mainly because there are OJS supporters who talk as though Nicole had a drug problem, and Orenthal did not.. OJS supporters like to quote Nicole's friends who said she sometimes used illegal drugs, but those same people also said the OJS used it more.

I may order a book about drug problems, mainly because I am sometimes around people with drug problems; but I could also use it to post on the board.

Although I think OJS is a murderer and a psychopath, I think he was and is smart. I say this partly because most good football players are of above average intelligence, and because he was an illusive runner. In other words he was good at giving the defense the impression he was going to run in one direction, and then run in another direction. I think illusive football runners have to be intelligent. OJS could also turn the charm on and be quite persuasive, another sign of intelligence.

fgump2,

IMO, I don't think OJ and Nicole were that different from alot of other people who have used drugs on "recreational" basis. I do believe that some people can be that while others are hooked the first time they try it. I don't think using drugs makes a person "bad" but I do believe if they get in too deep, they are more likely to do things they would have never been done before.
From what I have read, Simpson's lawyers in both trials tried to keep Nicole's alleged drug use out of the trials.

We are also forgetting something very important when it comes to drugs--that is guilt by association. Nicole had a right a choose (as anyone else does) to choose their own friends. While these friends may have some issues when it comes to drugs or alcohol, most friends do see past that and know how they are when they aren't high or drunk or in the grips of addiction. I would like to think that if was me, my family and friends would remember what I am really like when I am "normal".

While Nicole may not have been doing drugs, I can see where he devotion to Faye could have led people to believe that she was also involved. Again, not saying that is true but it does happen. I have a young son and I am always telling him about "guilt by association" and that if he is in his car and his friends have drugs on them and he gets caught, not only does he get arrested but they impound his car as well---that is how it is where we live, I don't know if all states have this law. And we do not know what Faye was telling people about Nicole or what other people were saying about her. They may have just assumed she was doing drugs with Faye.

There is also the money factor. I think that it is common knowledge that a lot of money, I mean a real lot of money can made in the drug trade. We all know that money can be very seductive and I think many people who do get involved in the trade truly plan to get out as soon as they get the money they need. Ron had a huge dreams but no capital to back it up, could have been tempted to enter the trade? I don't think Nicole was hurting that bad to get into this trade but what about Faye?

It is also very possible that Nicole was in the trade but was not aware of it. We just don't know. But what we do know is that Nicole has seen the havoc drugs can do. Both her cousin and AC had serious drug problems, both OJ and Nicole were very supportive of their rehabs and I think in Shelia Weller's book she gives the names of the people they helped. It has been a while so I can't think of any off of the top of my head.

The problem with Petrocelli's story in the book is that he is saying Simpson had another way to sneak on this property and into his house without being seen. That makes it very unlikely he would have used the alley behind Kato's
wall that night. IMO.

Simpson get angry on the golf course is no different then a lot of men get on the golf course. Last night I was watching this show about ER cases and these two cousins got into a fight on a golf course and the one cousin litterally put a gold club through the guy's head. It was funny--but only because the guy came in with a golf club in his head he was so drunk, he had no clue he could die at any second!

One last thing, the smart drug dealers know not to use the junk they sell. It cuts into the profits and leads to a lot of problems--namely, keeping yourself alive. So Nicole or Ron not having any drugs in their system does not mean they could not have been involved in drugs. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

The witness list on the prelim transcripts--which Tom Lange was Clark going to call. I know there was a Tom Lange who did give a statement about what he saw that night. So when I saw this name I went right to it. But it appears to be Tom Lange the cop. Now what makes this interesting is that every other name on that list had the witnesses full name, as in using middle names if they had one. Tom Lange the cop, his real name is Fredric, so why was his name listed as his nick name rather then his correct full name? Might not mean anything but interesting, none the less, IMO.

Also, Jill testified about seeing sparkles on the rims of the Bronco. Perhaps Simpson's Bronco rims had no sparkles? And, she claimed he waved his left arm out the window and shaking his fist---well isn't it possible that while he was going crazy, that he would have dripped some blood not only in the road but also in more the one place on the outside of his bronco?

[GreenIce]

tv

lets say both oj and nicole did drugs and some friends. lets say oj did more than nicole. this did not prevent oj from working to support his family and did not preveny nicole from taking care of her kids.

Those that continue to argue that he had traces of marijuna in his system and nicole had nothing in her system tells us what?Nothing.

Those that suggest that it means something other than what medical evidence has proven imo is just trying to make a issue of something that is not there.imo

Martin,

Chris Darden said something interesting on the Oprah show during his book tour. He said that some pot was found in Simpson's system, yet he also said that he was not tested for anything like steriods or other drugs that could have induce such a rage. I don't know how this could not have been done.

I have heard of "killer" pot but not pot that will make you kill. IMO.

[bobaugust]

What is your point?

The point is that Allan Park consistently testified that when he saw Simpson enter his house he said Kaelin was still on the sidewalk, the Ashford path where it meets the driveway. The fact is the only time that Kaelin was on that path was when he came from his room to investigate the noises he heard on his back wall and when he returned to his room after Simpson left for the airport.

Kaelin never said he went to that side of the driveway when he returned from his first trip to the south path as you incorrectly imagine. He said he went to the gate control box located on the other side of the driveway from the Ashford path. Park testified that Kaelin and Simpson were never on the driveway at the same time as you incorrectly imagine.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Park never testified he saw Simpson walk or the figure, if you will, up the driveway, which contradicts your post. Martin placed the exhibit on the board with where Kato was and where Simpson was. Looking from Ashford toward Rockingham, Kato was in front of Simpson. You now admit you were incorrect when you post this, "What Park’s testimony means is that he didn't notice Simpson until Simpson walked up from the driveway into the light of the front entrance so Park couldn’t say where Simpson came from, which directly contradicts your first claim. Kato said what he did and he walked backed to the Ashford or the north pathway, which is when Park first saw him. Ms. Clark understood where Kato walked to but you don't.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. AS FAR AS YOU GOT ON THAT SOUTH PATHWAY, SIR, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THE AREA -- THE GROUND AREA AROUND THE AIR CONDITIONER IN YOUR ROOM?

A: NO.

Q: AND WHY DID YOU STOP ON THE PATHWAY WHERE YOU DID?

A: I JUST DID. I COULDN'T SEE. I WAS -- I JUST STOPPED.

Q: WHY?

A: YOU KNOW, I WAS SCARED, BUT -- THAT IS IT.

Q: YOU WERE SCARED?

A: SCARED, YEAH.

Q: OKAY. AND SO YOU BACKED OUT AGAIN?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHERE DID YOU GO THEN?

A: I WENT BACK OUT.

Q: OKAY.

A: AND THE LIMO WAS STILL THERE AND I THOUGHT MAYBE I SHOULD LET THIS GUY IN, SO I WENT TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX, THERE IS A BUTTON, PRESSED AND IT OPENS UP.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU WALKED DOWN THE DRIVEWAY AROUND THE GARAGE TO THE SOUTH PATHWAY, CAME BACK OUT, WALKED BACK UP THE DRIVEWAY AND THE LIMO DRIVER -- THE LIMOUSINE WAS STILL OUTSIDE THE ASHFORD GATE?

A: YES.

Kato walked back to the spot where Park saw him and stood there as Park testified and then walked to the gate box. You don't seem to understand that. Park nor I have ever said that Park saw Kato standing by the gate box.

William, I never said Park saw Simpson walk up the driveway, I said Park saw Simpson walk up FROM the driveway.

Kaelin never said he walked back to where Park saw him standing when Simpson entered his house. If you look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate it would clear up all the confusion you have about this. The driveway was a circular driveway that went from the Rockingham gate to the Ashford gate. At the Ashford gate the Ashford side path is on the same side of the driveway that the intercom and Simpson’s house is on. The gate control box is on the other side of the driveway.

I again suggest you look at the diagrams please, so you will stop making so many mistaken claims.

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

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Exactly, Kato was never asked did he stop on his return from the first cursory search. However, he was asked, if he stopped when he left his quarters and he said no. How can you see someone standing and still standing, if they never stopped?

Park testified that when Kaelin got to the driveway he stopped and that’s when Simpson entered his house. Maybe Kaelin was mistaken and did stop or pause, or maybe he slowed down and Park only thought Kaelin had stopped. When Park saw Kaelin and then saw Simpson enter the house we are talking about something that happened almost simultaneously, a matter of seconds. You are trying to make a big deal out of this small discrepancy when in fact it doesn’t change what side of the driveway Park said he saw Kaelin on. Park could see Kaelin to his left and Park could see Simpson to his front. Park said Kaelin was not on the driveway the same time Simpson was.

If you look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate you would understand this.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Bobaugust,

If you only dribble the basketball but never shoot it, you put on quite a show but never score and, if you shoot but never make a hoop, you still never score(a Williamism). You put on a great show but score no points.:) I need some competition on this issue to keep my game tight.:)

If you don’t know where the hoop is you will never score. What you need to do William is to look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate and you will realize that your claims make absolutely no sense.

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

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Bobaugust,

I truly hoped that you would drop the issue as I did not want to point out the obvious to you but I am growing tired of this conversation. So, here it is. Park testified as follows on July 5th,

26 Q After you had the conversation with
27 Mr. Simpson, what happened next?
28 A I got back in the car and waited for the gate
0031
01 to be opened, which still took another 30 seconds or so.
02 Q Did you see where the male white was at that
03 point?
04 A He stood there pretty much the whole time.

The "there" was where he saw Kato and we know that it would have taken Kato longer than 30 seconds to do his cursory search and walk back to the spot that Park saw Kato, somewhere near the north walkway whether on the grass or on the path. Since we have agreed that Kato buzzed park in after he did his first cursory search, then Kato was standing there or still standing there, if you will, after Kato had finished his first cursory search and walked back up the driveway to near the north walkway when Park first saw him standing and still standing, while Simpson went in the house, turned on the downstairs lights, talked to Park on the intercom and then Kato walked over to the gate box, after seeing that Park had not gotten in, which is why kato gestured to him, because he saw him at the intercom and went to let him in, letting Park know that he was walking over to the gate box in order to let him in. You see, it's all about "He stood there pretty much the whole time. The time he simultaneously saw him and Simpson, the time it took Simpson to enter and turn on the lights, the time it took Park to go back to the intercom and have it immediately answered by Simpson, before Kato walked to the gate box. I truly expected you to pick up on it and take the time to allow the conversation to stand still.

Yes in the preliminary hearing Park did say he thought Kaelin stood there pretty much the whole time. And just where was “there’? Park had previously said he saw a white male come from behind the house to the driveway. Park then marked an x indicating the path area on the Ashford side of the driveway. That is where “there” was. Park was mistaken about Kaelin being there the whole time. We know that from Kaelin’s more detailed criminal trial testimony. The problem here is that after Park saw Simpson enter the house he lost track of what Kaelin did and he was unaware that Kaelin had continued on to the south path.

Kaelin testified that he only went a short distance behind the garage before he came back out and walked back up the driveway to the gate control box and opened the gate. Kaelin never said he went back to where Park said he saw him standing on the path on the Ashford side of the driveway until he returned to his room after Simpson left for the airport.

Your confusion regarding this issue is all based on your lack of knowledge as to the layout of the Rockingham estate. What you imagine happened could not have happened.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

William, I never said Park saw Simpson walk up the driveway, I said Park saw Simpson walk up FROM the driveway.


bobaugust

Q The person that you saw walk into the house
04 after which you saw the lights go on, could you tell
05 where they came from, whether it was Rockingham or the
06 garage area?
07 A I couldn't tell what direction he was coming
08 from. I could tell you what direction he was walking.
09 Q Yeah. He was walking towards the front door?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Okay. Can you -- but you couldn't tell where
12 he was coming from?
13 A No.
14 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I'm going to object to
15 the form of the question.
16 The witness has testified he couldn't tell
17 whether it was a male or female, and now Ms. Clark is
18 saying "You couldn't tell where he was coming from."
19 THE COURT: Sustained. Assumes a fact not in
20 evidence at this point.
21 MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
22 BY MS. CLARK:
23 Q You couldn't tell where that person was coming
24 from?
25 A Correct.

The only place Park saw the figure was when the figure walked into the house and had no idea where the figure was coming from, up the driveway, from the driveway, over the river through the woods or grandmama's house.

[William Anthony]

Kaelin never said he walked back to where Park saw him standing when Simpson entered his house. If you look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate it would clear up all the confusion you have about this. The driveway was a circular driveway that went from the Rockingham gate to the Ashford gate. At the Ashford gate the Ashford side path is on the same side of the driveway that the intercom and Simpson’s house is on. The gate control box is on the other side of the driveway.

I again suggest you look at the diagrams please, so you will stop making so many mistaken claims.

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

bobaugust

See response to 5949. Park did not testify that he ever saw Kato at or near the gate box. Park testified where he saw Kato standing or still standing. Kato finished his first cursory search back out and walked up the driveway to where Park first saw him. Ms. Clark understood, as Kato never said he crossed the driveway, which I understand but you seem not to. After walking to the location where Park saw him still standing is when Kato went to the gate box.

[GreenIce]

Oj was called HOOVER by some. I gave the name Lady Kenmore to Nicole as she was sitting at the coffee partaking In what was in the bowl as jo may have been. Someone turned the Lady Kenmore comment into something else and directed it to another person.
I don't know anything about some Christmas tree.
But if you want talk about some drug use of Nicole and oj we can.

Martin,

The Christree is in reference to something Faye said. That he had a large bowl of pills and that because it was multi colored, he called it the Christmas Tree. At least that is my understanding of it.

I don't know where the "Hoover" comment came from, was it Faye? Did anyone else say that was OJ's Nickname?

It appears to me that Faye was desperate to "justify" her drug use as well as give little hints that if this was a drug hit, then I was not the target. Her book convinced me off that as well as some of her interviews.

While none of them, OJ, Nicole and Ron had to be doing drugs to be in the trade, I find out that the one person who was so desperate at the time was ignored. However, I do think Simpson refused to let his children be questioned about this---in regards to Faye behavior while living with Nicole.

I can't remember why Faye left Nicole's to go to that other woman's house. It is obviously a much more secure place then Nicole's but why wasn't she involved in the intervention? As far as I know, only, Nicole, Christian, Kris & Bruce Jenner and her former husband. What did Kathy H have to say about this. Was the intervention at Nicole's home?

[William Anthony]

The point is that Allan Park consistently testified that when he saw Simpson enter his house he said Kaelin was still on the sidewalk, the Ashford path where it meets the driveway. The fact is the only time that Kaelin was on that path was when he came from his room to investigate the noises he heard on his back wall and when he returned to his room after Simpson left for the airport.

Kaelin never said he went to that side of the driveway when he returned from his first trip to the south path as you incorrectly imagine. He said he went to the gate control box located on the other side of the driveway from the Ashford path. Park testified that Kaelin and Simpson were never on the driveway at the same time as you incorrectly imagine.

bobaugust

See response to posts 5945, 5949, 5965 and all my other responses on this issue.

[William Anthony]

Park testified that when Kaelin got to the driveway he stopped and that’s when Simpson entered his house. Maybe Kaelin was mistaken and did stop or pause, or maybe he slowed down and Park only thought Kaelin had stopped. When Park saw Kaelin and then saw Simpson enter the house we are talking about something that happened almost simultaneously, a matter of seconds. You are trying to make a big deal out of this small discrepancy when in fact it doesn’t change what side of the driveway Park said he saw Kaelin on. Park could see Kaelin to his left and Park could see Simpson to his front. Park said Kaelin was not on the driveway the same time Simpson was.

If you look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate you would understand this.

bobaugust

You use maybes but I use testimony. See response to posts 5945, 5949, 5965 and all my other responses on this issue.

[William Anthony]

If you don’t know where the hoop is you will never score. What you need to do William is to look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate and you will realize that your claims make absolutely no sense.

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

bobaugust

See response to posts 5945, 5949, 5965 and all my other responses on this issue.

[William Anthony]

Park was mistaken about Kaelin being there the whole time. We know that from Kaelin’s more detailed criminal trial testimony. The problem here is that after Park saw Simpson enter the house he lost track of what Kaelin did and he was unaware that Kaelin had continued on to the south path.

bobaugust

Falsus in onus, falsus in ominibus. See response to posts 5945, 5949, 5965 and all my other responses on this issue.

[William Anthony]

Kaelin testified that he only went a short distance behind the garage before he came back out and walked back up the driveway to the gate control box and opened the gate. Kaelin never said he went back to where Park said he saw him standing on the path on the Ashford side of the driveway until he returned to his room after Simpson left for the airport.

Your confusion regarding this issue is all based on your lack of knowledge as to the layout of the Rockingham estate. What you imagine happened could not have happened.

bobaugust

I have supplied Ms. Clark's follow up question to Kato, clarifying the issue of where he walked. She did not say that he crossed the driveway and walked to the gate box and Kato responded that she was correct. you seem not to see that Ms. Clark clarified the place Kato actually walked to. See response to posts 5945, 5949, 5965 and all my other responses on this issue.

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

Just one last question on this issue, how can you believe Park was mistaken about part of his testimony and correct about another, unless you are selectively choosing those parts that fit your conclusions? Alright, now I am done with the issue and any other posts you have on that issue consider this my standard response, see all my previous posts on this issue.

[martin II]

I don't recall that they checked for either one.

tv
we had this discussion before.

A regular drug scan for police.d.o.t.etc scans for all classes of drugs perscrition and street.

[William Anthony]

tv
we had this discussion before.

A regular drug scan for police.d.o.t.etc scans for all classes of drugs perscrition and street.

That is how I remember the previous discussion.

[martin II]

Martin,

The Christree is in reference to something Faye said. That he had a large bowl of pills and that because it was multi colored, he called it the Christmas Tree. At least that is my understanding of it.

I don't know where the "Hoover" comment came from, was it Faye? Did anyone else say that was OJ's Nickname?

It appears to me that Faye was desperate to "justify" her drug use as well as give little hints that if this was a drug hit, then I was not the target. Her book convinced me off that as well as some of her interviews.

While none of them, OJ, Nicole and Ron had to be doing drugs to be in the trade, I find out that the one person who was so desperate at the time was ignored. However, I do think Simpson refused to let his children be questioned about this---in regards to Faye behavior while living with Nicole.

I can't remember why Faye left Nicole's to go to that other woman's house. It is obviously a much more secure place then Nicole's but why wasn't she involved in the intervention? As far as I know, only, Nicole, Christian, Kris & Bruce Jenner and her former husband. What did Kathy H have to say about this. Was the intervention at Nicole's home?

Nicole told Cora that there were people comming to her house to see Faye when Fay was staying there that she did not like.Since Faye was freebasding
at Nicoles i believe these were people supplying Faye with Cocain or freebasing at Nicoles with Faye.

That may have been the motivation for Nicole to organize the intervention.

I did read that Faye told Nicole that she would go to rehab if Nicole would go with her.Nicole declined this request.

Faye requested that she be given a few more days before going to rahab and CR stepped in and said no.You must go now.

Faye was broke and had a very expensive daily habit so she was either borrowing money from Nicole or getting the drugs on credit.

If on credit then who paid her bill when she went to rehab.

Was it possible that the drug suppliers came to Nicoles looking for Faye and mistook Nicole for Faye or did they demand money from Nicole for Fayes debt?

Maby the other lady kicked Fay out of her house when she discovered Faye
was doing drugs.

I don't think the DA did any investigation of Fays freinds.

[martin II]

Martin,

The Christree is in reference to something Faye said. That he had a large bowl of pills and that because it was multi colored, he called it the Christmas Tree. At least that is my understanding of it.

I don't know where the "Hoover" comment came from, was it Faye? Did anyone else say that was OJ's Nickname?

It appears to me that Faye was desperate to "justify" her drug use as well as give little hints that if this was a drug hit, then I was not the target. Her book convinced me off that as well as some of her interviews.

While none of them, OJ, Nicole and Ron had to be doing drugs to be in the trade, I find out that the one person who was so desperate at the time was ignored. However, I do think Simpson refused to let his children be questioned about this---in regards to Faye behavior while living with Nicole.

I can't remember why Faye left Nicole's to go to that other woman's house. It is obviously a much more secure place then Nicole's but why wasn't she involved in the intervention? As far as I know, only, Nicole, Christian, Kris & Bruce Jenner and her former husband. What did Kathy H have to say about this. Was the intervention at Nicole's home?

So there was a bowl of various pills on a table and no one at the gathering too any but oj.

It is my understanding that in cocain circles the word Hoover refers to someone snorting a large amount of powder cocain.

I have never heard of anyone snorting pills.Kinda hard to do i think.

The hoover report may just be a rummor.

[William Anthony]

One poster has given the most provocative description of Simpson that I have heard. According to this poster, he is/may be a drugged-out, sneaky, non-snitching, able to control his emotions, unable to control his speech, sleep deprived, charming and persuasive psychopathic murderer.:)

[martin II]

One poster has given the most provocative description of Simpson that I have heard. According to this poster, he is/may be a drugged-out, sneaky, non-snitching, able to control his emotions, unable to control his speech, sleep deprived, charming and persuasive psychopathic murderer.:)

And if you ask that poster to give a link to just one of those claims you get NO RESPONSE. I think it is a gross disrespect of the rules of the thread.

[William Anthony]

And if you ask that poster to give a link to just one of those claims you get NO RESPONSE. I think it is a gross disrespect of the rules of the thread.

The interesting thing is that, if Simpson was able to control his moods as that poster claims or suggests, that would minimize the possibility of Simpson being the murderer, because he could go from angry to happy quickly.

[martin II]

Martin,

Chris Darden said something interesting on the Oprah show during his book tour. He said that some pot was found in Simpson's system, yet he also said that he was not tested for anything like steriods or other drugs that could have induce such a rage. I don't know how this could not have been done.

I have heard of "killer" pot but not pot that will make you kill. IMO.

I saw the Oprah program and believe Darden lied flat out or twisted the facts.

Darden knew that only traces of marijuana was found in ojs blood.If he was being honest he could have just said that.

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

I have to retract what I said but I do hope this will end the discussion.

Kato-June 17th, GJ testimony

"MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS DONE SO.
17 Q. THAT'S WHERE THE ROLLS ROYCE WAS PARKED WHEN
18 YOU CAME OUT FROM AROUND THE ASHFORD SIDE?
19 A. YES.
20 Q. SO YOU WALKED AROUND THE ASHFORD SIDE, YOU
21 LOOKED DOWN BY THE GARAGE, CAME BACK.
22 WHEN YOU WALKED -- STRIKE THAT.
23 YOU CAME BACK, AND AT THAT POINT WHEN YOU
24 WALKED BACK TOWARDS THE ASHFORD GATE IS WHEN YOU LET THE
25 DRIVER IN?
26 A. AFTER I WENT TO THE GARAGE AREA?
27 Q. YES.
28 A. YES, I WENT TO LET THE DRIVER IN.

72

1 Q. DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHETHER THERE WERE ANY
2 BAGS IN THE DRIVEWAY AT THAT TIME?
3 A. THERE WAS A GOLF BAG AT THE FRONT DOOR AREA.
4 THERE WAS A GOLF BAG."

Hence, Kato walked toward the Ashford gate and passed the front door area. I will not discuss the obvious from that testimony as I do not wish to engage you in a discussion in which you will not admit the obvious.

[martin II]

The interesting thing is that, if Simpson was able to control his moods as that poster claims or suggests, that would minimize the possibility of Simpson being the murderer, because he could go from angry to happy quickly.

I have concluded that these claims are just sets of random pin ball type accusations with no basic in fact.Whatever comes to mind post it.
It may be that that poster did not realize the conflict in his/her own statement.

[martin II]

So there was a bowl of various pills on a table and no one at the gathering too any but oj.

It is my understanding that in cocain circles the word Hoover refers to someone snorting a large amount of powder cocain.

I have never heard of anyone snorting pills.Kinda hard to do i think.

The hoover report may just be a rummor.

correction: took

[tv]

Usually marijuana causes one to either sleep or head to a mcdonalds or Burger King.That is my understanding.What is yours?martin, I'm a child of the 60's. You forgot the giggles. :)

[William Anthony]

I have concluded that these claims are just sets of random pin ball type accusations with no basic in fact.Whatever comes to mind post it.
It may be that that poster did not realize the conflict in his/her own statement.

Perhaps.

[William Anthony]

martin, I'm a child of the 60's. You forgot the giggles. :)

Good morning, Ms. Tvdinner,

I giggled a lot in the late sixties and early seventies. :)

[tv]

TV,

I'll be honest with you, I don't think Alan Park would have an issue with the "mommy" comments. He struck me as one young man very proud to be a mama's boy. My son to this day, still says that is what he is. It was one thing when he said it when he was a little boy and under 5ft and less then a hundred pounds. Now he is over 6 ft and is over 200 pounds and he says it with the same vigor.

I may be wrong, but if Martin was a lawyer and it was son who was sitting where Park was, he would have been there just like Alan's mother. There was rumour, when he first testified that that he was "legally" a tad "slow". I don't know if this just came out because they were afraid how he would testify but I saw no signs of it. I think he was honest and when he did make a mistake, it was an honest one---like saying he saw another car when one was not there.

Oh and Martin, we have Robert Shapiro to thank for the mother protecting her cub. I would have done the same.http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u113/Ripurthroat/twilight_zone-1.jpg

[tv]

Good morning, Ms. Tvdinner,

I giggled a lot in the late sixties and early seventies. :)

So did I. High on life. :) By the way, good morning.

[William Anthony]

So did I. High on life. :) By the way, good morning.

I remember my platoon sergeant got upset at a guy, who had a French last name and was yelling to him about his conduct and his red eyes and his laughing all the time, when the guy told the sergeant to relax and do what he did. The sergeant asked what that was and he replied, smoke a joint and forget about it. I laughed until I cried.

[tv]

I remember my platoon sergeant got upset at a guy, who had a French last name and was yelling to him about his conduct and his red eyes and his laughing all the time, when the guy told the sergeant to relax and do what he did. The sergeant asked what that was and he replied, smoke a joint and forget about it. I laughed until I cried.

Did the sargeant laugh? :)

[William Anthony]

Did the sargeant laugh? :)

I thought he was going to attack him. When I was leaving this sergeant asked me what I was going to do and I said return to the steel mill. He asked how much it paid. I told him with benefits probably about $8.50 and hour. He called me a liar, saying no one made that much money.:)

[tv]

I thought he was going to attack him. When I was leaving this sergeant asked me what I was going to do and I said return to the steel mill. He asked how much it paid. I told him with benefits probably about $8.50 and hour. He called me a liar, saying no one made that much money.:)
Pretty good money for that time. Wasn't the military paying bout $90 a month?

[William Anthony]

Bobagust,

It is that anal retentive thing of mine and I do apologize to the board. However, I hope this clears up your confusion.:)

June 21st, Park's GJ testimony (I left some off due to length)

"3 Q. YOU RECOGNIZED THAT PERSON WHO ANSWERED THE
4 BELL AS MR. SIMPSON?
5 A. YES, I DID.
6 Q. WHAT DID HE SAY?
7 A. HE SAID, "SORRY. I OVERSLEPT AND I JUST GOT
8 OUT OF THE SHOWER. I WILL BE DOWN IN A MINUTE."
9 Q. NOW, DO YOU SEE THE HEDGE THAT'S SHOWN IN -B,
10 PHOTOGRAPH -B?
11 A. YES, I DO.
12 Q. UNLESS YOU ARE IN FRONT OF THE GATE, IS YOUR
13 VIEW OF THE HOUSE PRETTY MUCH BLOCKED?
14 A. YES, IT IS.
15 Q. PHOTOGRAPH -A, IS THAT THE ASHFORD SIDE GATE
16 THAT YOU WAITED AT WHEN YOU FIRST GOT THERE?
17 A. YES, IT IS.
18 Q. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE MALE WHITE FOR US A LITTLE
19 BIT BETTER.
20 GIVE US A A FURTHER DESCRIPTION OF THE MALE
21 WHITE YOU SPOKE TO.
22 A. LIKE I SAID, HE WAS 5 FOOT 10, 160 POUNDS,
23 BLOND HAIR, SHOULDER-LENGTH, BLUE JEANS, T-SHIRT.
24 THAT'S ABOUT ALL I NOTICED.
25 Q. WAS HE CARRYING ANYTHING?
26 A. HE HAD A FLASHLIGHT.
27 Q. AFTER YOU HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH
28 MR. SIMPSON, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

261

1 A. THE MALE WHITE PAUSED FOR ANOTHER MINUTE AS HE
2 WAS STILL STANDING IN THE SAME POSITION AS WHERE HE WAS.
3 AT THAT TIME, HE PROCEEDED TO COME OVER AND
4 OPEN THE GATE FOR ME."

[William Anthony]

Pretty good money for that time. Wasn't the military paying bout $90 a month?

$129.00 for an E1 over 2 (I know personally, :)). I was a burner in the steel mill, which was a part of the general labor department. I estimated my pay including the benefits, we had pretty good benefits. However, the minimum wage for that time I do believe was about $2.15 an hour. Just an ordinary laborer made about $7.00 an hour, including benefits, IIRC.

[tv]

$129.00 for an E1 over 2 (I know personally, :)). I was a burner in the steel mill, which was a part of the general labor department. I estimated my pay including the benefits, we had pretty good benefits. However, the minimum wage for that time I do believe was about $2.15 an hour. Just an ordinary laborer made about $7.00 an hour, including benefits, IIRC.I can remember making $2.10 an hour...it didn't go far even back then. I can also remember eating a lot of macaroni and cheese.

[William Anthony]

I can remember making $2.10 an hour...it didn't go far even back then. I can also remember eating a lot of macaroni and cheese.

I remember making $1.75 but I ate good as I was a busboy for a restaurant.:)

[William Anthony]

Somehow, we have gone from Bundy to Memory Lane. :)

[tv]

I remember making $1.75 but I ate good as I was a busboy for a restaurant.:)
That's kind of like a fringe benefit. I've only had one job that involved food and that Pizza Hut. Being a waitress didn't work out too well for me. :tongue:

[tv]

Somehow, we have gone from Bundy to Memory Lane. :)
True, I guess it's time to get back to Bundy or even Rockingham. I'm sure you'd like to revisit Parker Center. :) Or how about the LAPD lab?

[William Anthony]

True, I guess it's time to get back to Bundy or even Rockingham. I'm sure you'd like to revisit Parker Center. :) Or how about the LAPD lab?

Pursuant to your request,

"MR. SCHECK: NOW, ON THIS DOCUMENT, YOU CAN READ ALONG IF IT HELPS, WITH YOUR COPY, IF YOU WANT, IT REFERS TO ITEM 17, "ONE PAIR OF TENNIS SHOES, REEBOK, RECEIVED IN SEROLOGY BY D. FUNG FROM DETECTIVE LANGE," CORRECT?

MR. FUNG: YES.

MR. SCHECK: UP IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER JUST WHERE "D. FUNG" IS THERE IS A DATE, "6/14/94"?

MR. FUNG: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. SCHECK: AND BELOW THAT IS WRITTEN "ITEM 18, BLOOD SAMPLE IN TUBE FROM SIMPSON."

MR. FUNG: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. SCHECK: AT SOME TIME AFTER JUNE 15TH DID ANYBODY EVER QUESTION YOU ABOUT HOW THE BLOOD VIAL HAD BEEN LABELED 18 IN MR. YAMAUCHI'S REPORTS BUT YOU PUT IT IN YOUR PROPERTY REPORT AS 17?

MR. FUNG: BEING QUESTIONED ABOUT IT, YES.

MR. SCHECK: AND THEN AFTER WRITING THAT NOTATION YOU DECIDED TO ERASE IT?

MR. FUNG: I DID ERASE IT FROM WHAT IS HERE, YES. "

Would you call that doctoring a report?

[martin II]

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u113/Ripurthroat/twilight_zone-1.jpg

GI

I have said that Park was not a bad guy. That he didn't just lie on purpose.

I do believe that he had a habit of transfering information he learned after 6/12 from media and other sources to his testimony.It was obvious when he was presented with a picture of two cars in the driveway.
I also believe Clark over prepared him for his testimony.
Park was questioned about the two cars. He stood his ground.Clarke tried to question him in a way to let him know he was wrong and he still said two cars.I call this a case of him being hard headed.

I might give my son advice but i would not ask him to say anything but the truth.My adbvice would be TELL THE THUTH.This way he would not get tangeled up trying to say something else.

[tv]

GI

I have said that Park was not a bad guy. That he didn't just lie on purpose.

I do believe that he had a habit of transfering information he learned after 6/12 from media and other sources to his testimony.It was obvious when he was presented with a picture of two cars in the driveway.
I also believe Clark over prepared him for his testimony.
Park was questioned about the two cars. He stood his ground.Clarke tried to question him in a way to let him know he was wrong and he still said two cars.I call this a case of him being hard headed.

I might give my son advice but i would not ask him to say anything but the truth.My adbvice would be TELL THE THUTH.This way he would not get tangeled up trying to say something else.

Are you saying that you think Allan Park's mother actually asked him to lie?