Random Discussions On The Case

[tv]

I did not say you did, as I said some, although you are becoming dangerously close, imho. Yes, there was a nobility about the magnificence of the magnificent one's courtroom skills, imho.If you say so, William. We all have our heroes and I'd never attempt to tell you who you should choose as yours.

[William Anthony]

If you say so, William. We all have our heroes and I'd never attempt to tell you who you should choose as yours.

Thank you and you can feel free to choose MF as one of yours, if you are so inclined.

[tv]

You indicated that she was not capable of having those feelings, or was lying about them, so I understand you reason for not wanting to go there.:)

I'm just not feeling energetic enough to explore your roots today. Perhaps we can delve into it another day. :)

[tv]

Thank you and you can feel free to choose MF as one of yours, if you are so inclined.
I'll let you know if that inclination hits me. My biggest living hero is Dr. Ben Carson, a world renowned neurosurgeon, not a police detective involved in a murder case.

[William Anthony]

I'm just not feeling energetic enough to explore your roots today. Perhaps we can delve into it another day. :)

We all have the same roots from the Garden of Eden located in Africa, imho, although time and distance has taken some far from that recognition, imho. :)

[tv]

I called Bailey brilliant long before you mentioned Bugliosi as being brilliant but I do not claim ownership of the adjective.I'm not one that uses makes a habit of overusing superlatives so I'll step aside and let you have it.

[William Anthony]

I'll let you know if that inclination hits me. My biggest living hero is Dr. Ben Carson, a world renowned neurosurgeon, not a police detective involved in a murder case.

My earthly ones are both deceased-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and my daddy.

[tv]

We all have the same roots from the Garden of Eden located in Africa, imho, although time and distance has taken some far from that recognition, imho. :)How lovely. :)

[GreenIce]

Oh, I don't think that she was acting at all. There are people who find those types of vile, reprehensible, despicable, demonic remarks to be gut wrenching.

William,

IMO, it should be noted that any white person who did not cry or cringe in shame when they heard those tapes or when Miss Bell and Miss Singer testified, then they are beyond being able to understand and feel compassion for any other race then their own.

I also think it is interesting to note that LHM said she wanted it to be as realistic as possible. Did you notice that no one the state's side ever disputed that certain cops do talk this way? No one denied that racism is a huge, huge problem between the LAPD and the minority community?

And last but not least, LHM wanted information about women being on the police force. Weren't most of his vile rants directed at minorities and had very little in them about women?

The fact that Miss Bell and Miss Singer, fully believing that Simpson was guilty, still had the courage to come forward is very telling. IMO, it appears to me that both Miss Singer and Miss Bell were paying attention in school and understood the power of hate. Again, IMO.

[William Anthony]

I'm not one that uses makes a habit of overusing superlatives so I'll step aside and let you have it.

How about over use of verbs?:)

[William Anthony]

william,

imo, it should be noted that any white person who did not cry or cringe in shame when they heard those tapes or when miss bell and miss singer testified, then they are beyond being able to understand and feel compassion for any other race then their own.

I also think it is interesting to note that lhm said she wanted it to be as realistic as possible. Did you notice that no one the state's side ever disputed that certain cops do talk this way? No one denied that racism is a huge, huge problem between the lapd and the minority community?

And last but not least, lhm wanted information about women being on the police force. Weren't most of his vile rants directed at minorities and had very little in them about women?

The fact that miss bell and miss singer, fully believing that simpson was guilty, still had the courage to come forward is very telling. Imo, it appears to me that both miss singer and miss bell were paying attention in school and understood the power of hate. Again, imo.

i totally agree and don't think i could have said it any better. Don't ask me what happened, because I put my first sentence in all caps.

[tv]

My earthly ones are both deceased-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and my daddy.MLK is a good choice and I'm sure your Daddy is too. I find that when children name their parents as heroes their parents have been exceptional. Which parent did you inherit your gift of gab from? Or is it entirely yours alone?

[tv]

How about over use of verbs?:)

Example?

[martin II]

If people have been unfairly treated that's going to naturally bias them against whoever they feel mistreated them. Johnnie Cochran used their distrust of LE to the advantage of his case. No other way you can spin it.

Knowing about le abuse in your community and having experienced it personally are two different things.Instead of discussing Furhman in deliberations they discussed the testimony/evidence and Park.

Example;
The jury forman in the Vegas trial told the court that oj got away with murder but when he was informed that this was not a popular thing to say to the judge or the lawyers he claimed he could put that behind him and not allow his bias to influence his decision.The judge put him on the jury.

I have not read anything that would indicate that any jury member had been abused by le.

If you are looking for someone to blame it is not the jury.Look at how the prosecution presented their case and then look at how weak the case they put on was from jump street.imo

[GreenIce]

Please don't point out anything to me. When I read your posts I frequently feel like I'm entering an alternate dimension. You're just way out there, girl! Verbal foreplay?? Exaggerate much?

TV,

You don't have to hide your true feelings about me, I get it, I really do. You have a image to keep up and I am your "Dennis Fung". I totally get it! (I can't seem to get those stupid icons to go in the right place so :)

My question was, if you have the courage to answer it, if you heard MF or some one else speak that way, would you be impressed? In all my years of dating, I have never dated a man who felt they had to impress me by speaking vile and disgusting things about every other race but his.

If this floats your boat, fine. But you do realize that by letting this be your reason for MF talking the way he did, you are labeling every single white female as being impressed with him, as admiring him for his vile ways. Don't put me in that category and as much as your fellow G's hate me, I would like to think they would ask you not to put them in the same category that you have placed yourself in. IMO.

[William Anthony]

MLK is a good choice and I'm sure your Daddy is too. I find that when children name their parents as heroes their parents have been exceptional. Which parent did you inherit your gift of gab from? Or is it entirely yours alone?

My daddy was a man of few words but effective and full of wisdom. My mother spoke more and her words were wise. They raised me to respect authority and I was of the feeling that they over respected authority. It was from there that I developed my loquaciousness when it came to things I viewed as unjust and did not hold that same degree of reverence when it came to abuses by authorities, although I did try to show their wisdom in my speaking. Thanks you.

[William Anthony]

Example?

"I'm not one that uses makes a habit of overusing superlatives so I'll step aside and let you have it." Just making a joke.:)

[tv]

Knowing about le abuse in your community and having experienced it personally are two different things.Instead of discussing Furhman in deliberations they discussed the testimony/evidence and Park.

Example;
The jury forman in the Vegas trial told the court that oj got away with murder
but he could put thatr behind him and not allow his bias to influence his decision.The judge put him on the jury.

If you are looking for someone to blame it is not the jury.Look at how the peosecution presented the case and then look at how weak the case they put on was.imo

martin, I was starting to think you weren't going to show up this morning. :) I do blame the prosecution for underestimating what the defense would do. I've pointed out many things they did that I disagree with but I still think there was plenty of evidence and cause to convict.

[tv]

My daddy was a man of few words but effective and full of wisdom. My mother spoke more and her words were wise. They raised me to respect authority and I was of the feeling that they over respected authority. It was from there that I developed my loquaciousness when it came to things I viewed as unjust and did not hold that same degree of reverence when it came to abuses by authorities, although I did try to show their wisdom in my speaking. Thanks you.

Maybe your less respecful view of authority reflects the times that you grew up in. Loquacious -- that's quite a word. :)

[tv]

"I'm not one that uses makes a habit of overusing superlatives so I'll step aside and let you have it." Just making a joke.:)
Thank you for pointing out my mistake. What would I do without you?

[GreenIce]

She would have to have been clairvoyant to be able to say MF said some of the things he said to her that were the same as those on the tapes. What reason do you feel she had for lying against MF?

William,

I think what most people refuse to recognize and consider is that MF never forgot about those tapes. For whatever reason he was going to use to explain them, he totally denied remembering them. He went to the very same author and bragged about the glove.

I think it was in Lange and VA's book where they write that, Ron Phillips, I think ordered MF not to contact LHM. Not only did he ignore the direct order, he talked about the glove.

IMO, there were several LAPD members who knew about these tapes and either they came forward and this was covered up or they stayed silent, which IMO, is even worse.

[William Anthony]

Maybe your less respecful view of authority reflects the times that you grew up in. Loquacious -- that's quite a word. :)

You are probably correct as I grew up in different times and a different location than they did.

[tv]

TV,

You don't have to hide your true feelings about me, I get it, I really do. You have a image to keep up and I am your "Dennis Fung". I totally get it! (I can't seem to get those stupid icons to go in the right place so :)

My question was, if you have the courage to answer it, if you heard MF or some one else speak that way, would you be impressed? In all my years of dating, I have never dated a man who felt they had to impress me by speaking vile and disgusting things about every other race but his.

If this floats your boat, fine. But you do realize that by letting this be your reason for MF talking the way he did, you are labeling every single white female as being impressed with him, as admiring him for his vile ways. Don't put me in that category and as much as your fellow G's hate me, I would like to think they would ask you not to put them in the same category that you have placed yourself in. IMO.

I don't hate you -- I don't hate anyone. I never said or even hinted at any of the things you just posted. You are the Queen of Confabulation!

[William Anthony]

Thank you for pointing out my mistake. What would I do without you?

Think you were perfect, unless you, like me, have others to remind you that you are not.:)

[William Anthony]

William,

I think what most people refuse to recognize and consider is that MF never forgot about those tapes. For whatever reason he was going to use to explain them, he totally denied remembering them. He went to the very same author and bragged about the glove.

I think it was in Lange and VA's book where they write that, Ron Phillips, I think ordered MF not to contact LHM. Not only did he ignore the direct order, he talked about the glove.

IMO, there were several LAPD members who knew about these tapes and either they came forward and this was covered up or they stayed silent, which IMO, is even worse.

I really don't remember or, if was said, how the dream team learned about the tapes but I think we can safely presume it wasn't from a MF supporter and someone close to him.

[William Anthony]

I don't hate you -- I don't hate anyone. I never said or even hinted at any of the things you just posted. You are the Queen of Confabulation!

Confabulation and you speak of words. :)

[tv]

Confabulation and you speak of words. :)

I like words. People shouldn't limit their vocabularies so much but I'm guilty of being verbally lazy myself.

[William Anthony]

I like words. People shouldn't limit their vocabularies so much but I'm guilty of being verbally lazy myself.

I agree and, perhaps, that is why I enjoy reading legal opinions. I don't speak like I write, as people wouldn't listen to me.:)

[GreenIce]

I don't hate you -- I don't hate anyone. I never said or even hinted at any of the things you just posted. You are the Queen of Confabulation!

TV,

I believe you don't hate one and this is just the impression I get from the passion of your posts, but not your words. There is a difference.

To say that MF was only trying to impress these women by using vile language about minorities and the enjoyment he got out of beating them and the enjoyment he got out of knowing that "everbody knows I did it" but they could do nothing to him, clearly indicates to me that he felt he would be respected and praised for this.

Your problem with MF is that you don't know him personally. You were not the person he said these things to so you can't say how these women felt about their encounters with him. You can't say that a woman didn't cry over what he said, you can't say that her reaction was over acting and that she just wanted her 15 minutes of fame or whatever.

During the trial, how many times did you hear white people say that the "N-word" was only a word? That every group of people that came to America was given a "slur" nick name? Or that if Black people can use that word, then so can we!". It doesn't work that way. By giving MF excuses, which by the way, he is hating, you are denying the pain and suffering of millions of people who have suffered the brutality of hate.

Another point, how this made it into evidence I will never know but it was so here goes. Denise Brown testified that Simpson called Nicole a "fat pig" when she was carrying his child. That was seen as verbal domestic abuse resutling in wounding Nicole so deeply, that she didn't even respond correctly.

Why don't you apply this to MF? How can a man telling his wife that she is fat compared to a man who said the only good n-word is a dead one? Also, the n-word doesn't make a person a racist, it is the words that surround it.

I don't believe any of the women cried because he used the n-word, I think when he said he wanted to gather them up and burn them is what caused the tears. IMO.

[William Anthony]

I think a far more devastating cause to the demise of the prosecution's case would have been had the motion to suppress the evidence gained from the search warrant been sustained. I still don't understand what compelled MF to make the statement, if he goes down, the case goes down.

[GreenIce]

I think a far more devastating cause to the demise of the prosecution's case would have been had the motion to suppress the evidence gained from the search warrant been sustained. I still don't understand what compelled MF to make the statement, if he goes down, the case goes down.

William,

Why do you think MF was so arrogant in his testimony? Why do you think it was him who left that blue bag on the neighbors' property? Why do you think he let VA and Lange commit perjury for him?

MF is a product of the LAPD. For years he learned from the best on his way of thinking, he knew as long as they all stuck to the same story that he would not be caught and he knew what lengths the LAPD and the DA's office would go to protect him.

Bottom line, MF wanted people to know that he did it, he wanted the high of again knowing that they knew he did it and there was nothing they could do to him.

After reading his book, and hearing about the glove on the tape, I was really surprised that he didn't talk about the socks and the blood fingerprint. Screw the glove, you got a bloody fingerprint, what could have topped that?

[tv]

TV,

Again, I am forced to corrrect your misguided thinking. The DA's never, never, ever, ever, ever, underestimated the defense's case. It was clearly spelled how the defense was going to approach this case. Which is why Clark and Darden spent more time protraying themselves as victims of the LAPD, the Judge, the Jury, the FBI, the Crime Lab people.
I don't think you get it. I don't give anything you post any credibiliy. It's easier for me to just dismiss everything you say rather then to spend time weeding through all your untruths and correcting them. Do I need to make it any plainer?

[martin II]

She's lying IMO.

TV
At both places where furhman spoke of his racist attitudes Ms Bell was not the only person to here his rants. At the military office and at her apartment others also heard it also

[GreenIce]

I don't think you get it. I don't give anything you post any credibiliy. It's easier for me to just dismiss everything you say rather then to spend time weeding through all your untruths and correcting them. Do I need to make it any plainer?

TV,

I get that you would rather cut off a limb then ever admit that I have made valid points. You can't respond to them because you know that I do make sense or give a credible alternative to your way of thinking. You don't dismiss everything I say, you read everyone of my posts and continue to tell others what you think I am. However, that will not stop me in correcting every single one of your posts and/or give another point of view.

And tell me, why are my "untruths" ranked so much higher then your "untruths"? Yours are much more hateful and spiteful and you provide no logic in supporting them. Martin mentioned about a poll taken about 85% of white people think Simpson is guilty. I don't trust these polls because I have heard too many times, even on this board, "Everybody Knows He Did It!", if that is true then everybody also followed this case, read all the testimony and based their opinons on WHAT THEY KNOW, not what "everybody" knows.

I truly wonder how can not see the mob mentality when it comes to this case. IMO. But don't worry, I am here for you!:)

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

I have very sensitive question to ask you, so please read this and take your time replying.

I love the history channel. I collect WWII movies. I have seen many, many films on the Holocaust as well as documentaries on the Bataan Death March. Some of surviors and POW's can't forgive what happened to them in the camps. No matter how many years they have been liberated, they can't and will never accept that what happened to them was a consquence of a world gone mad.

And no matter how many years it has been, they can't help but react to when they see and hear a native German speak. That every single person they see of Japanese desent, they still get the same feeling of fear they had over 60 years ago.

Would you call these people racists? As well as, could you both truly understand what these people have gone through and understand why they will never be able tofeel "normal" around Germans or the Japanese? Is their hate understandable and justified?

[martin II]

TV
At both places where furhman spoke of his racist attitudes Ms Bell was not the only person to here his rants. At the military office and at her apartment others also heard it also

If furhman was using his racist rants to impress that woman, i think most women would tell him he needed to deveolop a new line to impress because that one would impress only a very few.
Would it impress you? could he get a date out of you if you were his target???

[tv]

TV,

I get that you would rather cut off a limb then ever admit that I have made valid points. You can't respond to them because you know that I do make sense or give a credible alternative to your way of thinking. You don't dismiss everything I say, you read everyone of my posts and continue to tell others what you think I am. However, that will not stop me in correcting every single one of your posts and/or give another point of view.

And tell me, why are my "untruths" ranked so much higher then your "untruths"? Yours are much more hateful and spiteful and you provide no logic in supporting them. Martin mentioned about a poll taken about 85% of white people think Simpson is guilty. I don't trust these polls because I have heard too many times, even on this board, "Everybody Knows He Did It!", if that is true then everybody also followed this case, read all the testimony and based their opinons on WHAT THEY KNOW, not what "everybody" knows.

I truly wonder how can not see the mob mentality when it comes to this case. IMO. But don't worry, I am here for you!:)

You've gone off the deep end. You say I'm hateful and spiteful but you keep posting to me. I think you're too far out in left field to be credible, you're in la-la land, you're a little wacked. When I post something that isn't true it's because I misread something or just made a mistake. You make up all kinds of things. Example: the sweats were collected and tested, Lange put the blanket over Nicole because he wanted to look the other way (whatever that means), OJ Simpson's DNA was only found on one area of the Rockingham glove...those are just the ones that come to mind. There are many more. If you want to believe that Simpson is innocent that's certainly your right but you don't stick to the facts of the case. It's impossible to have an honest discussion when you post all this untrue junk and profess to know other's private thoughts.

[tv]

If furhman was using his racist rants to impress that woman, i think most women would tell him he needed to deveolop a new line to impress because that one would impress only a very few.
Would it impress you? could he get a date out of you if you were his target???

This has nothing to do with me. LHM sat there through all the tapes and never said a word about his language. She even had a sexual relationship with him knowing he said those things. If I recall she testified that he told her he'd never planted any evidence against anyone. Please correct me if I'm mistaken about her testimony.

[tv]

I agree and, perhaps, that is why I enjoy reading legal opinions. I don't speak like I write, as people wouldn't listen to me.:)
How do you speak? I have always pictured you speaking as you write.

[martin II]

Martin and William,

I have very sensitive question to ask you, so please read this and take your time replying.

I love the history channel. I collect WWII movies. I have seen many, many films on the Holocaust as well as documentaries on the Bataan Death March. Some of surviors and POW's can't forgive what happened to them in the camps. No matter how many years they have been liberated, they can't and will never accept that what happened to them was a consquence of a world gone mad.

And no matter how many years it has been, they can't help but react to when they see and hear a native German speak. That every single person they see of Japanese desent, they still get the same feeling of fear they had over 60 years ago.

Would you call these people racists? As well as, could you both truly understand what these people have gone through and understand why they will never be able tofeel "normal" around Germans or the Japanese? Is their hate understandable and justified?

I understand it fully and back them as they are forced to have to deal with it.
On this message board some have instructed william and myself that as blacks we should forget about the past discrimination and move on when ever racism is discussed. That slavery is in the past and there is no reason to discuss it today.Just forget about it. That we are playing some victim for life game.I resent those comments very much.It is like they see no racism in America today.The history of what happened to the jews should never be skipped over just as the history of Slavery will never be ignored by those whose ancestors were enslaved.I fully understand how some jews still feel about some Germans.Some images never leave the mind.

[GreenIce]

You've gone off the deep end. You say I'm hateful and spiteful but you keep posting to me. I think you're too far out in left field to be credible, you're in la-la land, you're a little wacked. When I post something that isn't true it's because I misread something or just made a mistake. You make up all kinds of things. Example: the sweats were collected and tested, Lange put the blanket over Nicole because he wanted to look the other way (whatever that means), OJ Simpson's DNA was only found on one area of the Rockingham glove...those are just the ones that come to mind. There are many more. If you want to believe that Simpson is innocent that's certainly your right but you don't stick to the facts of the case. It's impossible to have an honest discussion when you post all this untrue junk and profess to know other's private thoughts.

TV,

So what you are saying, that if you make a mistake it is because you have misread something or you have made just an honest mistake. Well, why can't you give me the same standard that you have given yourself.

I posted the source about the sweats being taken and tested. I posted the name of it. You just refused to acknowledge that.

Lange said the only reason he put the blanket over Nicole was to protect her from the media, to show respect for her family. I posted the truth of several examples on why this can't be true. Bottom line, Lange had other ways to protect Nicole's body from the press and the public. I am sure few dozens uniforms, standing shoulder to shoulder, placed in front of the condo would have blocked the "looky loos".

You explain why Rockingham was the primary crime scene and Bundy was treated like the secondary crime scene. You explain why so much time was focused on when Kato heard the thumps then doing a rape kit on Mrs Simpson and/or making sure he stomach contents weren't thrown out.

You explain why Lange told Fung to get the blood drops off the back gate and Fung says that Lange never told him to do this? You explain why he didn't do his final walk through. You explain why the blood he told the ME's to take off Nicole's body was not done and you explain why he watched the medical examiner wash away those very same spots?

You toss out more speculation, like Nicole's keys being stolen by Simpson. You have no proof of this but you still firmly believe it. Are you lying to me about this? What Nicole crying and fighting with her best friend that night, are you lying when you say you believe this was Simpson--again, where is your proof.

Speculation is the only thing we have to try to make sense of the evidence or the motives. No one is right and no one is wrong, we just offer different points of view or interpetations of what we have seen or read about this case.

Do I think Tom Lange was happy about what was going on, no. However, do I think he would work very hard at not seeing the obvious, yes. I believe his loyality was to the LAPD, not to Nicole or her family. Compassion during this part of the investigation does not enter into play. IMO.

Again, I know you care--:)

[GreenIce]

I understand it fully and back them as they are forced to have to deal with it.
On this message board some have instructed william and myself that as blacks we should forget about the past discrimination and move on when ever racism is discussed. That slavery is in the past and there is no reason to discuss it today.Just forget about it. That we are playing some victim for life game.I resent those comments very much.It is like they see no racism in America today.The history of what happened to the jews should never be skipped over just as the history of Slavery will never be ignored by those whose ancestors were enslaved.I fully understand how some jews still feel about some Germans.Some images never leave the mind.

Martin,

Okay, here comes the hard part or phase 2. Could MF's hatered be based on one event in his life or does he just hate because it makes him feel better? I won't use the word ignorant because nobody has that excuse and they haven't had for years and years, IMO.

[tv]

TV,

So what you are saying, that if you make a mistake it is because you have misread something or you have made just an honest mistake. Well, why can't you give me the same standard that you have given yourself.

I posted the source about the sweats being taken and tested. I posted the name of it. You just refused to acknowledge that.

Lange said the only reason he put the blanket over Nicole was to protect her from the media, to show respect for her family. I posted the truth of several examples on why this can't be true. Bottom line, Lange had other ways to protect Nicole's body from the press and the public. I am sure few dozens uniforms, standing shoulder to shoulder, placed in front of the condo would have blocked the "looky loos".

You explain why Rockingham was the primary crime scene and Bundy was treated like the secondary crime scene. You explain why so much time was focused on when Kato heard the thumps then doing a rape kit on Mrs Simpson and/or making sure he stomach contents weren't thrown out.

You explain why Lange told Fung to get the blood drops off the back gate and Fung says that Lange never told him to do this? You explain why he didn't do his final walk through. You explain why the blood he told the ME's to take off Nicole's body was not done and you explain why he watched the medical examiner wash away those very same spots?

You toss out more speculation, like Nicole's keys being stolen by Simpson. You have no proof of this but you still firmly believe it. Are you lying to me about this? What Nicole crying and fighting with her best friend that night, are you lying when you say you believe this was Simpson--again, where is your proof.

Speculation is the only thing we have to try to make sense of the evidence or the motives. No one is right and no one is wrong, we just offer different points of view or interpetations of what we have seen or read about this case.

Do I think Tom Lange was happy about what was going on, no. However, do I think he would work very hard at not seeing the obvious, yes. I believe his loyality was to the LAPD, not to Nicole or her family. Compassion during this part of the investigation does not enter into play. IMO.

Again, I know you care--:)

I asked you several times for the source of your information about the sweats and you never provided it. If you did, please refresh my memory. My posting about the keys was because they were found in Simpson's possession...hellooo!! I'm not explaining anything to you about Fung and Lange. I read and posted what Lange said in his book. You said you read the book so no need to repost.

Please continue to post your nonsense...it makes for some entertaining reading when I don't have anything else to do. :seeya:

[martin II]

This has nothing to do with me. LHM sat there through all the tapes and never said a word about his language. She even had a sexual relationship with him knowing he said those things. If I recall she testified that he told her he'd never planted any evidence against anyone. Please correct me if I'm mistaken about her testimony.

i have never read any testimony about lhm having sex with furhman.Where did that come from.

[William Anthony]

William,

Why do you think MF was so arrogant in his testimony? Why do you think it was him who left that blue bag on the neighbors' property? Why do you think he let VA and Lange commit perjury for him?

MF is a product of the LAPD. For years he learned from the best on his way of thinking, he knew as long as they all stuck to the same story that he would not be caught and he knew what lengths the LAPD and the DA's office would go to protect him.

Bottom line, MF wanted people to know that he did it, he wanted the high of again knowing that they knew he did it and there was nothing they could do to him.

After reading his book, and hearing about the glove on the tape, I was really surprised that he didn't talk about the socks and the blood fingerprint. Screw the glove, you got a bloody fingerprint, what could have topped that?

Perhaps, that is why he was hurt, feeling the prosecution had abandoned him and they owed him for his past actions and testimony.:shrug:

[GreenIce]

I asked you several times for the source of your information about the sweats and you never provided it. If you did, please refresh my memory. My posting about the keys was because they were found in Simpson's possession...hellooo!! I'm not explaining anything to you about Fung and Lange. I read and posted what Lange said in his book. You said you read the book so no need to repost.

Please continue to post your nonsense...it makes for some entertaining reading when I don't have anything else to do. :seeya:

TV,

Yes, I did tell you several times it came from a book. The Media and the Spectcle of the Simpson trial--I don't know if I have the exact title. I posted several times it came from a book.

There is no proof that Simpson stole the keys. I have no problem with any one believing the keys were stolen by Simpson, especially the DA's. However, they must not have been able to prove it or the fact that he had her keys would have hurt their case---as in not entering and leaving through the condo rather then having to deal with three different gates and risked being heard.

Yes, I did read Lange's book and of course he is going to be presented as a compassionate gesture and nothing more. The point is, compassion is not on the list of procedures when at a crime scene and he did introduce contamination into the mix with the blanket. Apparently, he made the call to delay the ME's office to come and get the bodies. Don't tell me he did it because of the media and public when he had hours and hours to take away the bodies as well as having other ways to protect Nicole's body and show respect to her family. Not when a rookie cop used Nicole's phone rather then his radio because he knew the media would be all over this.

IMO, the decision to delay the coroner's arrival may not have been Lange's. If it was not his decision then I can see where he would have been acting in anger when covering Nicole's body and perhaps a tad of compassion. But whatever his reasons are, they do not change the fact that the blanket was just one more in a long list of things not to do at crime scene. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Perhaps, that is why he was hurt, feeling the prosecution had abandoned him and they owed him for his past actions and testimony.:shrug:

William,

Have you ever met or seen a racist who is shy and mellow about their beliefs? Ever seen one that would let others to take credit for their brutality or the fear they can install in another human being?

He loved tweaking the DA's, he loved getting under Darden's skin. He loved making comments that led many to believe that he had not changed a bit and they now were stuck with him.

While so much has been focused on MF, he is not the only one in the LAPD. His type of hate is one that is rewarded by his circle of mentors. His hate is undestood by these people. These people taught him how to hate on the job and never worry about getting caught. MF was protected in the LAPD and he knew it. Bottom line, he told them what he was and they didn't believe him. IMO.

[William Anthony]

How do you speak? I have always pictured you speaking as you write.

No, I don't tend to speak in such long sentences and I have been told that when I speak formally I have a Luther thing going in. My instructors say that I speak slowly and have a natural speaking voice. My words tend to be a tad more current when I speak. I think it is because I fear speaking in public.

[GreenIce]

i have never read any testimony about lhm having sex with furhman.Where did that come from.

Martin,

Darden tried to float that LHM was a scorned lover. LHM denied any sexual relationship with him but Darden claimed to have love letters that she wrote to him.

MF in his book says they were lovers and he kept quite about it because he did not want to hurt his wife.

However, even if she did sleep with him, that only proves that she has a thing for skin heads with hair or a skin head to wears and LAPD mask. It doesn't mean that the contents of those tapes are now acceptable, IMO.

There are female skin heads and I am sure a few of them are just as rabid as their male counterparts, IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

Have you ever met or seen a racist who is shy and mellow about their beliefs? Ever seen one that would let others to take credit for their brutality or the fear they can install in another human being?

He loved tweaking the DA's, he loved getting under Darden's skin. He loved making comments that led many to believe that he had not changed a bit and they now were stuck with him.

While so much has been focused on MF, he is not the only one in the LAPD. His type of hate is one that is rewarded by his circle of mentors. His hate is undestood by these people. These people taught him how to hate on the job and never worry about getting caught. MF was protected in the LAPD and he knew it. Bottom line, he told them what he was and they didn't believe him. IMO.

I would say cocksure but not shy or mellow. They do not often speak publicly about their believes except in certain circles or those, who openly admit their feelings, which to some extent, I respect.

[GreenIce]

I would say cocksure but not shy or mellow. They do not often speak publicly about their believes except in certain circles or those, who openly admit their feelings, which to some extent, I respect.

William,

But their actions speak louder then words. There is no doubt in my mind the stick found by the Bronco, the blue plastic bag found and probably other obvious clues that MF left on purpose. Knowing that when ever these items came out in the press or in the trial, he sent the message that he did these things and there is nothing anyone can do to prove it. IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

But their actions speak louder then words. There is no doubt in my mind the stick found by the Bronco, the blue plastic bag found and probably other obvious clues that MF left on purpose. Knowing that when ever these items came out in the press or in the trial, he sent the message that he did these things and there is nothing anyone can do to prove it. IMO.

The fact that Vannatter sent him to Bundy to make a visual comparison of the gloves made me feel that Vannatter suspected MF had done something in regard to that glove.

[William Anthony]

Perhaps, DF collected the Rockingham glove because it looked out of place.:)

[weezer]

She's lying IMO.

". . .The first defense witness, Kathleen Bell, testified that she met Fuhrman at a Marine recruiting center in 1985 or 1986, found him handsome, and wanted to set him up on a date with her friend, Andrea Terry. . ."

I guess she cried all the way to the phone to call her friend for the hook-up! :rolleyes:

[weezer]

"Foss, Joe

Former Marine recruiter who was at the recruiting office the day Kathleen Bell claims she met Mark Fuhrman. Foss told AP on March 16th that Kathleen Bell had been in the Marine office at the same time as Fuhrman at least once. But Foss said he never heard Fuhrman make the racial remarks Bell now alleges."

[weezer]

"If you knit together the threads that they have spun to weave doubt in the jury's minds, a bizarre storyline emerges:

r OJ Simpson was too crippled with arthritis to stab to death his ex- wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her waiter friend, Ronald Goldman.

r He was at home when the killings happened: Rosa Lopez, the next-door- neighbour's maid, saw his car parked outside his house at around the same time, although she's no longer sure when.

r The murders could have been the work of drug gangsters who went to Mrs Simpson's house, perhaps because her friend, Faye Resnick, a confessed cocaine user who had stayed there briefly, had welshed on a payment.

r The police arrived, including Mr Fuhrman, who spirited a bloody glove away by stuffing it in his sock, barged on to Mr Simpson's property and planted it behind a wall. This was because he was racist, or resentful about being bounced off the homicide investigation, or both. He took this risk although he is unlikely to have known if there were eye-witnesses or if Mr Simpson had an alibi.

The defence is not necessarily arguing that all these things happened, just that some of them could have. But, at this stage in the proceedings, it is fair to say that if you tried hawking their storyline around Hollywood, it would hit the wastepaper basket faster than F Lee Bailey can shout "Objection, your honour!"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/oj-lawyers-score-few-points-with-racism-claim-1611669.html

[martin II]

I don't think you get it. I don't give anything you post any credibiliy. It's easier for me to just dismiss everything you say rather then to spend time weeding through all your untruths and correcting them. Do I need to make it any plainer?

tv
straight up babe

if a poster had called me a name and then apologized and i told her not accepted i believe you would tell me i was wrong for not accepting.

[martin II]

martin, I was starting to think you weren't going to show up this morning. :) I do blame the prosecution for underestimating what the defense would do. I've pointed out many things they did that I disagree with but I still think there was plenty of evidence and cause to convict.

tv
The prosecution underested nothing about what the defence would do. They knew quite well that oj had assembeled the dream tean and they were in for serious a fight. the prosecution had 50-60 lawyers helping them and unlimited cash. It was just that the dream team had more brain powder and a better leader.The prosecution knew their case had major problems and they tried to cover it with lab work and WEEKS OF DNA but in the end they could not put togeather a story line that made sense because of the problen in their case.imo

[martin II]

The fact that Vannatter sent him to Bundy to make a visual comparison of the gloves made me feel that Vannatter suspected MF had done something in regard to that glove.

Maby he was hoping furhman would take the glove back where got it from.

[William Anthony]

Maby he was hoping furhman would take the glove back where got it from.

I think Vannatter was signaling MF to go back and make sure no one had seen what MF had done.

[William Anthony]

tv
The prosecution underested nothing about what the defence would do. They knew quite well that oj had assembeled the dream tean and they were in for serious a fight. the prosecution had 50-60 lawyers helping them and unlimited cash. It was just that the dream team had more brain powder and a better leader.The prosecution knew their case had major problems and they tried to cover it with lab work and WEEKS OF DNA but in the end they could not put togeather a story line that made sense because of the problen in their case.imo

I think if one reads Ms. Bell's testimony they will find that Ms. Bell changed her desire to have MF meet her friend Angela Terry after MF spoke the words he did and Ms. Bell even knew MF's birth sign. I was just watching the movie, "A Few Good Men" about the marines.

[William Anthony]

http://www.lovethetruth.com/truth_about_illegal_drugs.htm

An interesting read about LAPD's alleged connection to drugs.

[weezer]

I think if one reads Ms. Bell's testimony they will find that Ms. Bell changed her desire to have MF meet her friend Angela Terry after MF spoke the words he did and Ms. Bell even knew MF's birth sign. I was just watching the movie, "A Few Good Men" about the marines.

keep reading -- angela terry said she did meet fuhrman. :eek:

[GreenIce]

The fact that Vannatter sent him to Bundy to make a visual comparison of the gloves made me feel that Vannatter suspected MF had done something in regard to that glove.

William,

IMO, I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it was MF who "convinced" them to go to Rockingham. First he wanders off and finds the blood on the Bronco, calls VA over and then he finds the glove, alone?

Wasn't there some sort of issue if VA went with Fuhrman to Bronco?

[tv]

i have never read any testimony about lhm having sex with furhman.Where did that come from.
It wasn't testimony. It was in Mark Fuhrman's book. He said a romantic relationship which I took to mean sexual.

[tv]

No, I don't tend to speak in such long sentences and I have been told that when I speak formally I have a Luther thing going in. My instructors say that I speak slowly and have a natural speaking voice. My words tend to be a tad more current when I speak. I think it is because I fear speaking in public.

You are afraid of public speaking? I woulda never thunk it.

[tv]

tv
The prosecution underested nothing about what the defence would do. They knew quite well that oj had assembeled the dream tean and they were in for serious a fight. the prosecution had 50-60 lawyers helping them and unlimited cash. It was just that the dream team had more brain powder and a better leader.The prosecution knew their case had major problems and they tried to cover it with lab work and WEEKS OF DNA but in the end they could not put togeather a story line that made sense because of the problen in their case.imo

Sorry, I disagree. I don't think they had any idea that Johnnie Cochran would resort to any means to get an acquittal.

[tv]

". . .The first defense witness, Kathleen Bell, testified that she met Fuhrman at a Marine recruiting center in 1985 or 1986, found him handsome, and wanted to set him up on a date with her friend, Andrea Terry. . ."

I guess she cried all the way to the phone to call her friend for the hook-up! :rolleyes:

She's full of it IMO. Her story just doesn't make any sense. :rolleyes:

[tv]

I really don't remember or, if was said, how the dream team learned about the tapes but I think we can safely presume it wasn't from a MF supporter and someone close to him.

If I recall correctly it was someone close to him - Laura Hart McKinney.

[tv]

tv
straight up babe

if a poster had called me a name and then apologized and i told her not accepted i believe you would tell me i was wrong for not accepting.

It's my call to decide if I will or won't accept an apology. I know what insults me and what doesn't. For example, I'm not upset at you for calling me babe because I know you don't mean it in a derogatory way, right? If it bothers other posters that I show my feelings for GI then I'll stop. It's not my intention to disrupt the thread.

[tv]

tv
The prosecution underested nothing about what the defence would do. They knew quite well that oj had assembeled the dream tean and they were in for serious a fight. the prosecution had 50-60 lawyers helping them and unlimited cash. It was just that the dream team had more brain powder and a better leader.The prosecution knew their case had major problems and they tried to cover it with lab work and WEEKS OF DNA but in the end they could not put togeather a story line that made sense because of the problen in their case.imo

I think the prosecution thought that the large amount of physical evidence, the sequence of events in the time line and the behavior of the defendant would make a good case. It was a good case but they couldn't overcome the juries mistrust of LE and Johnnie Cochran's ability to inflame them.

[martin II]

It wasn't testimony. It was in Mark Fuhrman's book. He said a romantic relationship which I took to mean sexual.

Furhman did most everyone according to him. he did a lot of bragging like when he was at his office braging to fellow officers about Nicoles breast implant.

[tv]

Furhman did most everyone according to him. he did a lot of bragging like when he was at his office braging to fellow officers about Nicoles breast implant.martin, I've never seen Mark Fuhrman or anyone else say he did most everyone. Where did you hear that?

I'm sorry, this is off-topic, but since we're talking about LE, do you know anything about the Rawlings case in DC? I had heard something about it on the news when it happened about a year and a half ago but there was a big article in the Washington Post today. Have you heard of it?

[martin II]

I think the prosecution thought that the large amount of physical evidence, the sequence of events in the time line and the behavior of the defendant would make a good case. It was a good case but they couldn't overcome the juries mistrust of LE and Johnnie Cochran's ability to inflame them.

Clarke said the murders happened at 10:20 pm.She started off wrong. As has been posted all the blood evidence was suspect from the beginning.So there was nothing else.

[tv]

Clarke said the murders happened at 10:20 pm.She started off wrong. As has been posted all the blood evidence was suspect from the beginning.So there was nothing else.

martin, the blood evidence was suspect to the jury because Johnnie Cochran said it was. That's it. No proof. It's irresponsible of the defense to make claims and not have the evidence to back up their claims. Her timeline isn't accurate but her sequence of events is.

[martin II]

It's my call to decide if I will or won't accept an apology. I know what insults me and what doesn't. For example, I'm not upset at you for calling me babe because I know you don't mean it in a derogatory way, right? If it bothers other posters that I show my feelings for GI then I'll stop. It's not my intention to disrupt the thread.

The babe was said with love and to show you i was not being hostile in my post. thanks for accepting it but i will not do it again.:cool:

[fgump2]

Martin,

Thank you for your support. Have you ever noticed that when a case is over turned and the person convicted is then exhonrated, the DA's who prosecuted the case always give the same response---I didn't convict them, a jury convicted them. They say they are not responsible for the detective work because they are not cops. They are not reponsibile for the lab's conduct or results. That their job is to take what is given to them by the cops and crime lab, along with other witnesses and they present it to the jury and if that jury convicts an innocent person, then it is not their fault.

This is why I believe the DA's were thrilled with DF and AM. They were just a couple of more people to use in their "blame game". How many times have we heard DA's say they are not responsible for the witnesses or the evidence they get in cases?

IMO, Clark was setting the stage when she denounced MF, the LAPD and the lab people in her closing arguments. She was begging the jury to convict on evidence that, though flawed, they could believe her because she wouldn't lie to them about it. That she had an obligation not to present evidence that was flawed. Well, every piece of evidence they did present was deeply flawed. Flawed to such an extreme, that she could not have know that something was horribly wrong the evidence.

The other thing that really bothers me is that she showed no real interest about how the glove got behind the wall. Are we to believe that she did not ask this question, a million times and a million times she knew that there was no evidence of this? She did not have to introduce the glove, so why didn't she just take the glove out of the case? She does that, she gets takes Fuhrman out of her case, she takes away all the questions about how the glove got back there.

I know that people who believe that MF planted the glove did it because he wanted in on this case and I don't fault anyone for believing this, but Clark did not have to take the chance.

She denounced JS for lying about selling her story. She did not have to denounce MF while not using the glove. She could have just as easily said that the glove was put there but it was not by Simpson jumping over the fence. That how it got there wasn't by someone being back there that night.

Had she done that, while I still think she would have lost case, she might have gained some credibility about the glove. I can't image that the jury, any jury would have have accepted the glove because there was no proof of anyone dropping it. A loud noise is a loud noise. A loud noise perhaps can make a picture move and shake the ground but it can't mend broken vegitation, it can't hide blood, it can't make the glove debris free nor would it prevent the glove from drying. IMO.

Because Clark used the glove, she shed doubt on the other evidence. It is almost like, okay, the glove has problems, it was found outside, etc., now defense team, explain the blood on the sock. Explain the blood on the back gate.

There is no doubt in my mind that glove really hurt her case.

It appears to me that Lange and VA had problems with the glove too. Why couldn't they have told Clark to leave it alone? That it was just suspicious or too good to be true so lets not take a chance.

As we know, Kato testified about the noises he heard and where he thought they were coming from. Well, isn't or can't noise be distorted as where it was coming from? Kind of like a fire struck, you can hear them but you don't always know for sure where it is coming from, until you see the flashing light.

It appears to me that at least the defense was trying to figure out how the picture moved by pushing up against the wall, but why wasn't any one trying to reproduce the noise? And the picture, did Kato ever put the picture back to where it was or Simpson's sister who moved into the room after Kato left?

Also, to the best of my knowledge, no one including MF ever took Kato behind the way and asked him to "pin point" where he thought the noise came from. Don't you think someone would have asked him to do this? If he heard 3 distinctive thumps, then were are the wall were they?
*****************************************
I think you go too far on assuming you know people's motives and making unpleasant assumpti0ons about people based on their occupation. You have posted a number of times about the motivations and beliefs of DAs, and some of the police (probalby including criminologists). Even if you had worked in a police dept, I would distrust this kind of thinking.

I also disapprove oif your generalizations about DA's even though it is often accurate. I think DAs are probably ofen slow and reluctant to turn over evidence that might help the defence. I recall reading about one DA who went to prison for failure to do that. I think I read that after he got out of prisno he was trying to get another job for a DA office. I hope not. I don't know if he was disbarred.

I think it is human nature for the DA's to be reluctant to turn evidence over, if they think the accused is guilty. A test of the DA's sense of right and wrong. So even though I thiink this is a common problem we shouildn't assume that the DAs are all a bunch of jerks. You claim to be interested in racial equalilty. You should realize that making disparging assumptions about a whole group of people is usaully wrong. Keep telling a man he is no good, and he may prove you right. To make insult any group of pepole on the basis of ther profession, whether it is lawyer, used car dealer, or whatever hurts the public interest. So there is sort of a tension there, a realizatin that both used car dealers and DA's are a necessary part of the country and yet they often have motives to make certain mistakes.

Years ago sme friends of mine complained about a DA named Henry Huidson for publically saying "I live to put people in jail'. They thought this was an inappropriate attitude.. He is now a judge in Virginia, and he sentenced Michael Vick to a sentence longer than the DAs asked for. This is fairly unusual. I disapprove of dog fighting, and don't regard Vick as a model citizen, but I think Henry Hudson's attitude abouthis work could use some improvement; to be less harsh.

[tv]

The babe was said with love and to show you i was not being hostile in my post. thanks for accepting it but i will not do it again.:cool:

I was making a point not being critical. :)

[martin II]

martin, the blood evidence was suspect to the jury because Johnnie Cochran said it was. That's it. No proof. It's irresponsible of the defense to make claims and not have the evidence to back up their claims. Her timeline isn't accurate but her sequence of events is.

TV
There were just too many big questions created by the le and the lab.Many of the prosecutuions witnesses did not hold up very well under cross.

See you may see all the lab problems as small mistakes but i see them as evidence that someone manipulated blood evidence.There were still two jury holdouts until a juror brought up parks testimony.They discussed it and after the readback they decided that parks testimony about what he saw was not possible. This caused them to not believe any of his testimony as per judges instructions.So without park they had to believe that oj was in his house all the time and could not have been at Bundy.This means that all the boold results must have been done with planted blood samples.
When a jury feels that a prosecutor or a major witness has lied to them it usually is not good for them.

[martin II]

I was making a point not being critical. :)

Thanks

[martin II]

*****************************************
I think you go too far on assuming you know people's motives and making unpleasant assumpti0ons about people based on their occupation. You have made many assumption about oj calling a user of uppers and downers and claiming he was a regulsr user of drugs and even i know you don;t know what you werev talking about. You have posted a number of times about the motivations and beliefs of DAs, and some of the police (probalby including criminologists). Even if you had worked in a police dept, I would distrust this kind of thinking.You have posted what your police friends think about certain issues in the case as if what your friends think is important to anyone.

I also disapprove oif your generalizations about DA's even though it is often accurate. i dissaprove of you many negative comments about Dr LEE even though wgh=hat you post about him tells me you are clueless.I think DAs are probably ofen slow and reluctant to turn over evidence that might help the defence. I recall reading about one DA who went to prison for failure to do that. I think I read that after he got out of prisno he was trying to get another job for a DA office. I hope not. I don't know if he was disbarred.This has nothing to do with oj simpson.

I think it is human nature for the DA's to be reluctant to turn evidence overObvioulsy you still don't understand that the prosecvution is required to turn over all evidence they hasve to the defence. TAHT IS THE LAW., if they think the accused is guilty. A test of the DA's sense of right and wrong. So even though I thiink this is a common problem we shouildn't assume that the DAs are all a bunch of jerks. You claim to be interested in racial equalilty. You should realize that making disparging assumptions about a whole group of people is usaully wrong. Keep telling a man he is no good, and he may prove you right. To make insult any group of pepole on the basis of ther profession, whether it is lawyer, used car dealer, or whatever hurts the public interest. So there is sort of a tension there, a realizatin that both used car dealers and DA's are a necessary part of the country and yet they often have motives to make certain mistakes. I have no idea as to what you are talking about.

Years ago sme friends of mine complained about a DA named Henry Huidson for publically saying "I live to put people in jail'. They thought this was an inappropriate attitude.. He is now a judge in Virginia, and he sentenced Michael Vick to a sentence longer than the DAs asked for. This is fairly unusual. I disapprove of dog fighting, and don't regard Vick as a model citizen, but I think Henry Hudson's attitude abouthis work could use some improvement; to be less harsh.


Some day i may be able to understand what you mean by some of your post.

[martin II]

martin, I've never seen Mark Fuhrman or anyone else say he did most everyone. Where did you hear that?

I'm sorry, this is off-topic, but since we're talking about LE, do you know anything about the Rawlings case in DC? I had heard something about it on the news when it happened about a year and a half ago but there was a big article in the Washington Post today. Have you heard of it?

I saw the article and got distracted before reading. so i haver no clue. what happened.

[fgump2]

http://books.google.com/books?id=cdKi_rBZqrYC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=dr.+gerdes+says+LAPD+lab+is+a+cesspool+of+conta mination&source=bl&ots=wAP5njQVy3&sig=C2rLlFWwxk2LfP6feDDRzMnWnPw&hl=en&ei=83XqSbmTKomEtweVgc3GBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6
Reasonable doubt.
************************************************** *
I don't completely defend either the LAPD crime lab (or CA lab or whatever it was), but I would like to raise a hypothetical question from a hypothetical person. This is to make a partial defense of the crime lab(s) in question.

This hypothetical person was in a CA prison serving life without parole. To make it more inflammatory, suppose he was white racist (Aryan nation or KKK) serial killer convicted of killing black people

A large part of the evidence against him was blood DNA processed by Fung and Mazzola and the same lab that processed OJS blood.

He reads the newspaper about how Gerdes said the lab in question was a cesspool of contamination. So he thinks, this is great. This means I will be shortly released or get another trial. Since every aspect of the evidence processing has been questioned, he feels confident that he will be released. Perhaps he even has a video picture of Vannatter or someone handling blood evidence to Mazzola when they should have handed it to Fung. So he runs around and dances with joy. He thinks to himself, it's in the bag. After all this is the sort of thing that seemed to help OJS beat the rap. So he tells every friend and relative that he is about to get out.

Now it is almost 15 years later, and he is still in jail. Could you explain to him why he hasn't been released?

This is easy to ignore, after all it is hypothetical. But I have read other cases in which a lab is doing basically good work, but one worker has made a lot of mistakes, so a lot of people are tried a second time and a few people are released without a trial. To raise my hypothetical question again. Why haven't I heard something about this happening in CA? The problems in CA seem to be worse than one worker screwing things up. I can think of several reasons why I haven't heard this.
- (1) this happened and I didn't hear about it. I don't think this is likely because although I don't live in CA, I have connections there, and follow the news.
- (2). None of the people who know, or knew, the details about the problems with evidence care about justice. I find this easy to believe about the dream team.
- (3) the work of the lab(s) and criminologists, although not very good, never put innocent people in jail. The errors were more about not putting guilty people in jail.

[martin II]

Furhman did most everyone according to him. he did a lot of bragging like when he was at his office braging to fellow officers about Nicoles breast implant.

Furhman lies a lot just like he lied about Nicoles breast, Trying to make coworkers think he knew her intimately.

[weezer]

wonder why the NGs are unwilling to include everything learned since the criminal trial? :shrug:

[martin II]

************************************************** *
I don't completely defend either the LAPD crime lab (or CA lab or whatever it was), but I would like to raise a hypothetical question from a hypothetical person. This is to make a partial defense of the crime lab(s) in question.

This hypothetical person was in a CA prison serving life without parole. To make it more inflammatory, suppose he was white racist (Aryan nation or KKK) serial killer convicted of killing black people

A large part of the evidence against him was blood DNA processed by Fung and Mazzola and the same lab that processed OJS blood.

He reads the newspaper about how Gerdes said the lab in question was a cesspool of contamination. So he thinks, this is great. This means I will be shortly released or get another trial. Since every aspect of the evidence processing has been questioned, he feels confident that he will be released. Perhaps he even has a video picture of Vannatter or someone handling blood evidence to Mazzola when they should have handed it to Fung. So he runs around and dances with joy. He thinks to himself, it's in the bag. After all this is the sort of thing that seemed to help OJS beat the rap. So he tells every friend and relative that he is about to get out.

Now it is almost 15 years later, and he is still in jail. Could you explain to him why he hasn't been released?

This is easy to ignore, after all it is hypothetical. But I have read other cases in which a lab is doing basically good work, but one worker has made a lot of mistakes, so a lot of people are tried a second time and a few people are released without a trial. To raise my hypothetical question again. Why haven't I heard something about this happening in CA? The problems in CA seem to be worse than one worker screwing things up. I can think of several reasons why I haven't heard this.
- (1) this happened and I didn't hear about it. I don't think this is likely because although I don't live in CA, I have connections there, and follow the news.
- (2). None of the people who know, or knew, the details about the problems with evidence care about justice. I find this easy to believe about the dream team.
- (3) the work of the lab(s) and criminologists, although not very good, never put innocent people in jail. The errors were more about not putting guilty people in jail.

Obviously you never heard about the San francisco police lab tech that lied on 500 lab reports in criminal cases.All defendants were set free. In some cases the lab did not even test the evidence just made up reports that helped the prosecution convice 500 people. Yet you think it was impossible for the lapd lab to manipulate blood evidence. gees.

[William Anthony]

************************************************** *
I don't completely defend either the LAPD crime lab (or CA lab or whatever it was), but I would like to raise a hypothetical question from a hypothetical person. This is to make a partial defense of the crime lab(s) in question.

This hypothetical person was in a CA prison serving life without parole. To make it more inflammatory, suppose he was white racist (Aryan nation or KKK) serial killer convicted of killing black people

A large part of the evidence against him was blood DNA processed by Fung and Mazzola and the same lab that processed OJS blood.

He reads the newspaper about how Gerdes said the lab in question was a cesspool of contamination. So he thinks, this is great. This means I will be shortly released or get another trial. Since every aspect of the evidence processing has been questioned, he feels confident that he will be released. Perhaps he even has a video picture of Vannatter or someone handling blood evidence to Mazzola when they should have handed it to Fung. So he runs around and dances with joy. He thinks to himself, it's in the bag. After all this is the sort of thing that seemed to help OJS beat the rap. So he tells every friend and relative that he is about to get out.

Now it is almost 15 years later, and he is still in jail. Could you explain to him why he hasn't been released?

This is easy to ignore, after all it is hypothetical. But I have read other cases in which a lab is doing basically good work, but one worker has made a lot of mistakes, so a lot of people are tried a second time and a few people are released without a trial. To raise my hypothetical question again. Why haven't I heard something about this happening in CA? The problems in CA seem to be worse than one worker screwing things up. I can think of several reasons why I haven't heard this.
- (1) this happened and I didn't hear about it. I don't think this is likely because although I don't live in CA, I have connections there, and follow the news.
- (2). None of the people who know, or knew, the details about the problems with evidence care about justice. I find this easy to believe about the dream team.
- (3) the work of the lab(s) and criminologists, although not very good, never put innocent people in jail. The errors were more about not putting guilty people in jail.

I guess you have answered your own questions. Your hypothetical left off a lot of other pertinent evidence that was included in the Simpson case and that could be hypothetically why your hypothetical convict is still incarcerated.

[martin II]

It's my call to decide if I will or won't accept an apology. I know what insults me and what doesn't. For example, I'm not upset at you for calling me babe because I know you don't mean it in a derogatory way, right? If it bothers other posters that I show my feelings for GI then I'll stop. It's not my intention to disrupt the thread.

i think that both of you are super posters and very informed on the case.

[fgump2]

Some day i may be able to understand what you mean by some of your post.

You are making inaccurate assumptions about me. I realize that the law says that the prosecution is supposed to give all evidence to the defense; that is the mutual discovery law. I just meant that there is a temptation to break the law.

The main point I was making was that it is wrong to make insulting assumptions about "all DAs" or they 'always do this or that' they always say the jury convicted them, not me.

I may have put things in my posts that aren't very relevant. I was trying to get across the point that I know that DAs aren't a bunch of angels. Neither are police. Nor is any profession.

I don't have very many police friends, or law enforcement friends, and those that I do have haven't given me their views on the Simpson case(s).

[William Anthony]

She's full of it IMO. Her story just doesn't make any sense. :rolleyes:

I think you should read her testimony before you become so critical.

[martin II]

martin, the blood evidence was suspect to the jury because Johnnie Cochran said it was. That's it. No proof. It's irresponsible of the defense to make claims and not have the evidence to back up their claims. Her timeline isn't accurate but her sequence of events is.

looking at thius jury of strong women i doubt anyone can give them some bs
and get away with it. Clarke found this out the hard way.

[William Anthony]

If I recall correctly it was someone close to him - Laura Hart McKinney.

As I recall Ms. McKinney fought the supoena.

[William Anthony]

Sorry, I disagree. I don't think they had any idea that Johnnie Cochran would resort to any means to get an acquittal.

The magnificent one did not have to resort, only to expose.

[William Anthony]

You are afraid of public speaking? I woulda never thunk it.

There is a degree of cherished anonymity involved in the internet. However, if certain events raise my ire, I can overcome any fear. :)

[William Anthony]

Angela Terry did meet MF but it was not with the desire or assistance of Ms. Bell. It was a chance meeting at Hennessey's bar and Ms. Terry said, "Oh, God" after seeing him and never saw him again.

[martin II]

You are making inaccurate assumptions about me. I realize that the law says that the prosecution is supposed to give all evidence to the defense; that is the mutual discovery law. I just meant that there is a temptation to break the law. In the central park joggers case the prosecution had DNA eviden in favor of about 5 teeagers that were convicted and serves several years in jail the DA witheld this evidence at trial.
several years later it was discovered that the prosecution had and whitheld these results and a the real rapist confessed and his DNA proved that he in fact was the raoist. The original da was never brought to trial.

The main point I was making was that it is wrong to make insulting assumptions about "all DAs" or they 'always do this or that' they always say the jury convicted them, not me.

I may have put things in my posts that aren't very relevant. I was trying to get across the point that I know that DAs aren't a bunch of angels. Neither are police. Nor is any profession.

I don't have very many police friends, or law enforcement friends, and those that I do have haven't given me their views on the Simpson case(s).
Comments were made against the DAS in the case and they deserved every one.

[William Anthony]

"MR. BAILEY: Where you have some talk together?

MS. BELL: I didn't really speak to him. We kind of exchanged glances.

MR. BAILEY: Where did you see him on this third occasion?

MS. BELL: At Hennessey's tavern on Catalina Avenue in Redondo Beach.

MR. BAILEY: Was this an establishment with which you were familiar?

MS. BELL: Somewhat, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Had you been there before?

MS. BELL: Oh, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Had you any prearrangement, to your knowledge, either you or Andrea Terry, to meet Mark Fuhrman at Hennessey's that day?

MS. BELL: Oh, no, no prior arrangement.

MR. BAILEY: Are you able to differentiate these meetings as between `85 and `86? You have said that it occurred in one year or the other. What would be your best recollection?

MS. BELL: Probably `86.

MR. BAILEY: Either the spring or summer?

MS. BELL: Probably the summer.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. But in any event, you saw him in the Marine Corps recruiting station on more than 10 occasions during this period?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, tell me the circumstances of your meeting at Hennessey's tavern. Who were you with?

MS. BELL: I was with Andrea.

MR. BAILEY: What was the purpose or occasion for you being with her? Anything special?

MS. BELL: No, we just stopped.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Why did you go to Hennessey's that day?

MS. BELL: Umm, just to--it is kind of like a local pub, almost like a cheers or something like that, and we just wanted to visit with people.

MR. BAILEY: Can you tell us the time of day?

MS. BELL: I cannot.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. When you were--arrived at Hennessey's, what did you do?

MS. BELL: We just sat down and we just started talking, and usually there are a lot of people that we grew up with that visit there and so we say hello to those people and that is it. I remember where we were sitting and all of that.

MR. BAILEY: Are you familiar with the floor layout at Hennessey's tavern?

MS. BELL: Uh-huh, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Can you give the court and jury some brief description as you walk in the door?

MS. BELL: You walk in Hennessey's and there are some--there are some tables on the left-hand side and the bar is on the left and then on the right there are tables as well and then kind of just one bar going through the middle, and umm, Andrea and I were sitting facing the door.

MR. BAILEY: Were you in a booth or at a table?

MS. BELL: It is considered a booth, yeah.

MR. BAILEY: How many booths are in the bar?

MS. BELL: Oh, I don't know.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

MS. BELL: Probably a good guess would be about ten.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And what did do you after you sat down?

MS. BELL: We--

MR. BAILEY: Did you order something?

MS. BELL: Just were talking--yes. We ordered--I probably ordered cranberry juice with lime and Andrea I don't--I don't even know. We are not real drinkers.

MR. BAILEY: Did either of you order any alcoholic beverages that day?

MS. BELL: Pardon me?

MR. BAILEY: Did either of you order or consume any alcohol while you were in the bar?

MS. BELL: I did not. I don't think Andrea did either.

MR. BAILEY: After you had been there for some period of time did you notice someone you had seen before?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Who was that?

MS. BELL: Mark Fuhrman.

MR. BAILEY: Was he with anyone?

MS. BELL: Yes, he was.

MR. BAILEY: Can you describe the person that he was with?

MS. BELL: Slightly. She was--it was a woman and with sandy blond hair.

MR. BAILEY: And can you give any further description as to her height and weight and so forth?

MS. BELL: No, I really can't. Probably about 5-7.

MR. BAILEY: How was Mark Fuhrman dressed on that occasion?

MS. BELL: I don't remember.

MR. BAILEY: How had he been dressed when you talked to him in the Marine recruiting station, if you recall?

MS. BELL: I think at one time he was wearing sweats and that is all I can remember.

MR. BAILEY: Did you ever see him wearing a police uniform?

MS. BELL: No.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. How long had you been in Hennessey's when he sat down?

MS. BELL: I don't recall.

MR. BAILEY: And when he sat down what, if anything, did do you or say?

MS. BELL: He and this woman sat down facing us and so I saw him immediately and it was very uncomfortable, so I told Andrea that that is that man that I told her about that I at first wanted to set her up with, and then I found out what he believed and, umm, then I asked her if we could leave.

MR. BAILEY: Did he show any signs of recognition while looking in your direction?

MS. BELL: I don't know if he did at first, but as I left did he.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. In what way did he indicate that he might have seen you before?

MS. BELL: He just gave me kind of a nasty look.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, what happened after you said to Andrea that you felt uncomfortable and would like to leave the establishment?

MS. BELL: She said "Okay" and I thought that she was going with me, and umm, she--we started walking toward the door. Mark Fuhrman and this woman were sitting as you walk into Hennessey's and you take your first right. He was sitting at a table to the right and he was sitting facing us. So Andrea and I started walking to the door and when we were walking toward the door we were walking toward Mark Fuhrman and this woman, and she started kind of veeing off toward his table, and I was trying to catch her and telling her, you know, don't--what are you doing, you know, and she kind of had a--kind of a grin on her face like she was going to go get his goat or something like that.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. Did you stay within earshot of the two?

MS. BELL: No, I did not.

MR. BAILEY: What did you do?

MS. BELL: I went to the door. I'm not sure if I waited in my car or waited outside, but I know I left.

MR. BAILEY: Can you recall hearing any conversation from either Andrea Terry, Mark Fuhrman or the lady that was with him that day?

MS. BELL: I did not hear anything.

MR. BAILEY: Can you tell us whether or not you saw her sit down as you walked out the door?

MS. BELL: I thought she was standing facing them, but, umm, I think she was just standing facing them."

[martin II]

martin, the blood evidence was suspect to the jury because Johnnie Cochran said it was. That's it. No proof. It's irresponsible of the defense to make claims and not have the evidence to back up their claims. Her timeline isn't accurate but her sequence of events is.

She agreed with kato that he heard the noise at 10:45

[William Anthony]

martin, the blood evidence was suspect to the jury because Johnnie Cochran said it was. That's it. No proof. It's irresponsible of the defense to make claims and not have the evidence to back up their claims. Her timeline isn't accurate but her sequence of events is.

The defense did not put the blood in those unlikely positions or cause blood to be missing or cause EDTA in an amount that would indicate it came from a dead person to be found on the gate or the socks.

[tv]

The defense did not put the blood in those unlikely positions or cause blood to be missing or cause EDTA in an amount that would indicate it came from a dead person to be found on the gate or the socks.

None of this is true. What blood in what unlikely positions are you talking about?

[William Anthony]

None of this is true. What blood in what unlikely positions are you talking about?

So you are saying that the defense caused the blood to be missing and that the defense caused Martz to find EDTA in an amount that, if not planted a convincing argument must be made otherwise. The blood on the Rockingham drive when the prosecution claimed Simpson entered from behind Kato's quarters where there was no blood.

[tv]

She agreed with kato that he heard the noise at 10:45
He was guessing at the time.

[William Anthony]

He was guessing at the time.

Even when one guesses they can be right. I would guess that you are right sometimes. :)

[martin II]

The defense did not put the blood in those unlikely positions or cause blood to be missing or cause EDTA in an amount that would indicate it came from a dead person to be found on the gate or the socks.

The defense did not exchange the blood samples Mazzola initially initialed.The
defense did not cause CY to spill blood on ojs sample.Tahe defense did not caused vanhatter to do whatever he did with ojs blood.The defense did not switch any blood evidence in the lab.Furhman did not work for the defense. The defense did not cause Park to think he saw what he could not see.The defense did not cause the prosecution to charge oj before their ducks were in line. The defense did not cause Clarke to be appointed lead prosecutor.imo

[GreenIce]

I think Vannatter was signaling MF to go back and make sure no one had seen what MF had done.

William and Martin,

Maybe Lange or Vanatter saw or was told of the photo of Fuhrman before they left for Rockingham. When they saw the glove, perhaps something triggered that memory? I think again, VA and Lange were already covering Fuhrman. IMO.

[William Anthony]

The defense did not exchange the blood samples Mazzola initially initialed.The
defense did not cause CY to spill blood on ojs sample.Tahe defense did not caused vanhatter to do whatever he did with ojs blood.The defense did not switch any blood evidence in the lab.Furhman did not work for the defense. The defense did not cause Park to think he saw what he could not see.The defense did not cause the prosecution to charge oj before their ducks were in line. The defense did not cause Clarke to be appointed lead prosecutor.imo

Did the defense hire AM and DF and did the defense cause Bloomingdales' receipts to be askew and did the defense tell Simpson to do the glove demonstration and did the defense tell Vannatter to show a reckless disregard for the truth and did the defense tell MF to, imho, speak openly to LHM?

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

Maybe Lange or Vanatter saw or was told of the photo of Fuhrman before they left for Rockingham. When they saw the glove, perhaps something triggered that memory? I think again, VA and Lange were already covering Fuhrman. IMO.

I think they told him he had done enough, go take a rest. :)

[martin II]

He was guessing at the time.


William has backed up the time to show it was 10;45 Sorry about that.

[weezer]

"MR. BAILEY: Where you have some talk together?

MS. BELL: I didn't really speak to him. We kind of exchanged glances.

MR. BAILEY: Where did you see him on this third occasion?

MS. BELL: At Hennessey's tavern on Catalina Avenue in Redondo Beach.

MR. BAILEY: Was this an establishment with which you were familiar?

MS. BELL: Somewhat, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Had you been there before?

MS. BELL: Oh, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Had you any prearrangement, to your knowledge, either you or Andrea Terry, to meet Mark Fuhrman at Hennessey's that day?

MS. BELL: Oh, no, no prior arrangement.

MR. BAILEY: Are you able to differentiate these meetings as between `85 and `86? You have said that it occurred in one year or the other. What would be your best recollection?

MS. BELL: Probably `86.

MR. BAILEY: Either the spring or summer?

MS. BELL: Probably the summer.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. But in any event, you saw him in the Marine Corps recruiting station on more than 10 occasions during this period?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, tell me the circumstances of your meeting at Hennessey's tavern. Who were you with?

MS. BELL: I was with Andrea.

MR. BAILEY: What was the purpose or occasion for you being with her? Anything special?

MS. BELL: No, we just stopped.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Why did you go to Hennessey's that day?

MS. BELL: Umm, just to--it is kind of like a local pub, almost like a cheers or something like that, and we just wanted to visit with people.

MR. BAILEY: Can you tell us the time of day?

MS. BELL: I cannot.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. When you were--arrived at Hennessey's, what did you do?

MS. BELL: We just sat down and we just started talking, and usually there are a lot of people that we grew up with that visit there and so we say hello to those people and that is it. I remember where we were sitting and all of that.

MR. BAILEY: Are you familiar with the floor layout at Hennessey's tavern?

MS. BELL: Uh-huh, yes.

MR. BAILEY: Can you give the court and jury some brief description as you walk in the door?

MS. BELL: You walk in Hennessey's and there are some--there are some tables on the left-hand side and the bar is on the left and then on the right there are tables as well and then kind of just one bar going through the middle, and umm, Andrea and I were sitting facing the door.

MR. BAILEY: Were you in a booth or at a table?

MS. BELL: It is considered a booth, yeah.

MR. BAILEY: How many booths are in the bar?

MS. BELL: Oh, I don't know.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

MS. BELL: Probably a good guess would be about ten.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. And what did do you after you sat down?

MS. BELL: We--

MR. BAILEY: Did you order something?

MS. BELL: Just were talking--yes. We ordered--I probably ordered cranberry juice with lime and Andrea I don't--I don't even know. We are not real drinkers.

MR. BAILEY: Did either of you order any alcoholic beverages that day?

MS. BELL: Pardon me?

MR. BAILEY: Did either of you order or consume any alcohol while you were in the bar?

MS. BELL: I did not. I don't think Andrea did either.

MR. BAILEY: After you had been there for some period of time did you notice someone you had seen before?

MS. BELL: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: Who was that?

MS. BELL: Mark Fuhrman.

MR. BAILEY: Was he with anyone?

MS. BELL: Yes, he was.

MR. BAILEY: Can you describe the person that he was with?

MS. BELL: Slightly. She was--it was a woman and with sandy blond hair.

MR. BAILEY: And can you give any further description as to her height and weight and so forth?

MS. BELL: No, I really can't. Probably about 5-7.

MR. BAILEY: How was Mark Fuhrman dressed on that occasion?

MS. BELL: I don't remember.

MR. BAILEY: How had he been dressed when you talked to him in the Marine recruiting station, if you recall?

MS. BELL: I think at one time he was wearing sweats and that is all I can remember.

MR. BAILEY: Did you ever see him wearing a police uniform?

MS. BELL: No.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. How long had you been in Hennessey's when he sat down?

MS. BELL: I don't recall.

MR. BAILEY: And when he sat down what, if anything, did do you or say?

MS. BELL: He and this woman sat down facing us and so I saw him immediately and it was very uncomfortable, so I told Andrea that that is that man that I told her about that I at first wanted to set her up with, and then I found out what he believed and, umm, then I asked her if we could leave.

MR. BAILEY: Did he show any signs of recognition while looking in your direction?

MS. BELL: I don't know if he did at first, but as I left did he.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. In what way did he indicate that he might have seen you before?

MS. BELL: He just gave me kind of a nasty look.

MR. BAILEY: Okay. Now, what happened after you said to Andrea that you felt uncomfortable and would like to leave the establishment?

MS. BELL: She said "Okay" and I thought that she was going with me, and umm, she--we started walking toward the door. Mark Fuhrman and this woman were sitting as you walk into Hennessey's and you take your first right. He was sitting at a table to the right and he was sitting facing us. So Andrea and I started walking to the door and when we were walking toward the door we were walking toward Mark Fuhrman and this woman, and she started kind of veeing off toward his table, and I was trying to catch her and telling her, you know, don't--what are you doing, you know, and she kind of had a--kind of a grin on her face like she was going to go get his goat or something like that.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. Did you stay within earshot of the two?

MS. BELL: No, I did not.

MR. BAILEY: What did you do?

MS. BELL: I went to the door. I'm not sure if I waited in my car or waited outside, but I know I left.

MR. BAILEY: Can you recall hearing any conversation from either Andrea Terry, Mark Fuhrman or the lady that was with him that day?

MS. BELL: I did not hear anything.

MR. BAILEY: Can you tell us whether or not you saw her sit down as you walked out the door?

MS. BELL: I thought she was standing facing them, but, umm, I think she was just standing facing them."

so let me get this straight:

she said she talked with him at the marine recruiting station: Yet the marines in the building at the time said they didn't hear him say anything like she alledged.

she said she remembered him because she thought he was cute and described what she remembered he was wearing: Fuhrman didn't remember her -- couldn't even say the color of her hair.

she and a friend were hanging out at a bar when she saw Fuhrman walk in with a woman and decided to leave because he gave her a 'nasty' look: Fuhrman said it never happened.

she said her friend went to Fuhrman's table to 'get his goat' over something that bell had told her while bell absconded to her car: Anyone have terry's testimony?

[William Anthony]

William has backed up the time to show it was 10;45 Sorry about that.

They used Park's telephone records to verify his time and lend credibility to his estimates but the prosecution did not contest Kato's time estimates. As with everything else, credibility is an issue and the only one we know for sure, who was unbelievable, was MF but some here still want to think him credible. So be it.:)

[weezer]

I think they told him he had done enough, go take a rest. :)

is this some more of you not accusing Fuhrman of planting evidence? :rolleyes:

[tv]

William has backed up the time to show it was 10;45 Sorry about that.


No, sorry, it was 10:51 or 10:52 when Kato heard the thumps.

[tv]

is this some more of you not accusing Fuhrman of planting evidence? :rolleyes:Now, weezer, you know that William dances around the issues so he can't be pinned down later. Word games, you know?

[tv]

Even when one guesses they can be right. I would guess that you are right sometimes. :)
William, you always know exactly what to say to make a person feel good. It must be a gift.

[William Anthony]

No, sorry, it was 10:51 or 10:52 when Kato heard the thumps.

I guess this is one of the time when you would not be right.:)

[William Anthony]

William, you always know exactly what to say to make a person feel good. It must be a gift.

Young gifted and Black.

[William Anthony]

Now, weezer, you know that William dances around the issues so he can't be pinned down later. Word games, you know?

Just my thoughts about the one that said, if he goes down, the case goes down.

[tv]

Young gifted and Black.
Depends on your definition of young. :)

[William Anthony]

Depends on your definition of young. :)

I am not as young as I was yesterday but younger than I will be in thirty seconds, the time Park saw kato still standing there after immediately talking to Simpson from the gate and then seeing Kato proceed from there to let him in. Therefore, Kato was older at that time than he was when he finished his first cursory search which had to be after Kato waited two to three minutes after hearing the thumps and then doing his first cursory search, walking back there and standing there, which means that Park was aging all that time.:)

[tv]

I guess this is one of the time when you would not be right.:)No, I'm right. This is one of those times when you're wrong. Try not to be too upset. :)

[William Anthony]

No, I'm right. This is one of those times when you're wrong. Try not to be too upset. :)

I have no reason to be upset, because the testimonies back me up.:)

[GreenIce]

*****************************************
I think you go too far on assuming you know people's motives and making unpleasant assumpti0ons about people based on their occupation. You have posted a number of times about the motivations and beliefs of DAs, and some of the police (probalby including criminologists). Even if you had worked in a police dept, I would distrust this kind of thinking.

I also disapprove oif your generalizations about DA's even though it is often accurate. I think DAs are probably ofen slow and reluctant to turn over evidence that might help the defence. I recall reading about one DA who went to prison for failure to do that. I think I read that after he got out of prisno he was trying to get another job for a DA office. I hope not. I don't know if he was disbarred.

I think it is human nature for the DA's to be reluctant to turn evidence over, if they think the accused is guilty. A test of the DA's sense of right and wrong. So even though I thiink this is a common problem we shouildn't assume that the DAs are all a bunch of jerks. You claim to be interested in racial equalilty. You should realize that making disparging assumptions about a whole group of people is usaully wrong. Keep telling a man he is no good, and he may prove you right. To make insult any group of pepole on the basis of ther profession, whether it is lawyer, used car dealer, or whatever hurts the public interest. So there is sort of a tension there, a realizatin that both used car dealers and DA's are a necessary part of the country and yet they often have motives to make certain mistakes.

Years ago sme friends of mine complained about a DA named Henry Huidson for publically saying "I live to put people in jail'. They thought this was an inappropriate attitude.. He is now a judge in Virginia, and he sentenced Michael Vick to a sentence longer than the DAs asked for. This is fairly unusual. I disapprove of dog fighting, and don't regard Vick as a model citizen, but I think Henry Hudson's attitude abouthis work could use some improvement; to be less harsh.

fgump2,

I have followed this case for many years, I have spent hours reading about it, at one time I had every single book written on the case and I can only post what I believe and why I believe it it.

Do you honestly believe that every decision the DA's made was based on them wanting to know the truth, regardless where it led them? There is no denying that both sides care about one thing only, and this is winning. I have heard horrific things said about Johnnie Cochran and this case, yet nothing is said about the LAPD and the DA's who nursed and raised Fuhrman into what he became. Do you truly believe they did not know about him? If you did some of the same things he did on the job, would you have a job the next day?

I am serious when I say I have never heard a DA come out in a press conference and say they got it wrong. Never. Nothing is ever their fault. The carry on like their sole purpose in life is to put away the "bad" people, when one their "bads" turn out to be innocent, why aren't they apologizing to the person with as much zeal as they convicted them?

Yes, I question motives but don't you do it as well?

[tv]

I have no reason to be upset, because the testimonies back me up.:)

No, they don't but I don't want to get into a timeline argument. I'll let you and bobaugust do that. :)

[GreenIce]

Sorry, I disagree. I don't think they had any idea that Johnnie Cochran would resort to any means to get an acquittal.

TV,

And look what animal Clark put on the stand trying to get a conviction. The defense did not have a "desperate" defense. They kicked the DA's butts with the DA's own evidence. Clark and Darden put people on the stand they knew were going to lie and they refuse to talk to certain witnesses because they did not want to hear the truth. Go back and read Natalie Singer's exchanges with Chris Darden.

While it is understandable, Darden and Clark went after civillians and their testimony. She wanted to painted them as drunks, Darden bullied immigrants and threatened their American Dream with his cross and you want to say the defense did the same?

No, they didn't. Fung, AM, the LAPD, crime lab people are professionals and they are trained not only in their job but how to testify. Tell me, how much training do you think Darden needed to scare the piss out of Rosa and the dog walker?

Isn't it pathic that the highlight of Darden's accomplishments was his cross examination of Rosa and the dog walker?

[William Anthony]

No, they don't but I don't want to get into a timeline argument. I'll let you and bobaugust do that. :)

Bobaugust can do that all by himself.:)

[William Anthony]

TV,

And look what animal Clark put on the stand trying to get a conviction. The defense did not have a "desperate" defense. They kicked the DA's butts with the DA's own evidence. Clark and Darden put people on the stand they knew were going to lie and they refuse to talk to certain witnesses because they did not want to hear the truth. Go back and read Natalie Singer's exchanges with Chris Darden.

While it is understandable, Darden and Clark went after civillians and their testimony. She wanted to painted them as drunks, Darden bullied immigrants and threatened their American Dream with his cross and you want to say the defense did the same?

No, they didn't. Fung, AM, the LAPD, crime lab people are professionals and they are trained not only in their job but how to testify. Tell me, how much training do you think Darden needed to scare the piss out of Rosa and the dog walker?

Isn't it pathic that the highlight of Darden's accomplishments was his cross examination of Rosa and the dog walker?

Don't forget the glove demo and the crying after the trial.

[martin II]

No, sorry, it was 10:51 or 10:52 when Kato heard the thumps.

You were hanging out with the deers. Kato was talking to his girl.Just because he was not looking at a clock at 10:45 does not mean it could have been 11pm

William has backed up the time from Parks clock to show it was 10:45 so you may want to move that but it is not possible.
i have used katos testimony to prove that oj was in the house just before Park saw him. If you swallow real hard you can take it.:cool:
love

[tv]

i think that both of you are super posters and very informed on the case.

On my behalf, thank you for saying that. :)

[GreenIce]

None of this is true. What blood in what unlikely positions are you talking about?

TV,

The DA's couldn't prove it wasn't true. In fact, they adopted the logic of Hank Goldberg when it came to the nurse. They were going for that the nurse didn't know how much blood he drew, this way, neither side could claim they were right and the jury would have to do decide.

You lack of knowledge of both sides of the evidence is very telling. IMO, you are alot like Miss Clark. There is only one to see things, and that is your way. Trials aren't a one street---just in case you forgotten.

Remember EDTA, first there would be none found, then when it was found, they weren't sure that it was EDTA but if it was EDTA, it was an acceptable amount that is found in all humans. You constantly say that the jury was uneducated, that education is the key to all. Well Dr. Reiders is a doctor with years and years of experience but Roger Martz wasn't even a doctor, was he?

[tv]

You were hanging out with the deers. Kato was talking to his girl.Just because he was not looking at a clock at 10:45 does not mean it could have been 11pm

William has backed up the time from Parks clock to show it was 10:45 so you may want to move that but it is not possible.
i have used katos testimony to prove that oj was in the house just before Park saw him. If you swallow real hard you can take it.:cool:
lovemartin, dear, if you back up the clock from the time of Park's conversation with his boss it comes out to 10:51 or 10:52. You're the one that should try swallowing hard. :)

[weezer]

TV,

The DA's couldn't prove it wasn't true. In fact, they adopted the logic of Hank Goldberg when it came to the nurse. They were going for that the nurse didn't know how much blood he drew, this way, neither side could claim they were right and the jury would have to do decide.

You lack of knowledge of both sides of the evidence is very telling. IMO, you are alot like Miss Clark. There is only one to see things, and that is your way. Trials aren't a one street---just in case you forgotten.

Remember EDTA, first there would be none found, then when it was found, they weren't sure that it was EDTA but if it was EDTA, it was an acceptable amount that is found in all humans. You constantly say that the jury was uneducated, that education is the key to all. Well Dr. Reiders is a doctor with years and years of experience but Roger Martz wasn't even a doctor, was he?

why do you continue to attack tv?

[martin II]

if he goes down, the case goes down.

What did furhman mean by this statement

no twisting please.

[martin II]

martin, dear, if you back up the clock from the time of Park's conversation with his boss it comes out to 10:51 or 10:52. You're the one that should try swallowing hard. :)
tv
If you read one of williams many post on that time issue you will see that you are off.

[martin II]

On my behalf, thank you for saying that. :)


i truly believe that and thanks.Just try to ignore the trouble maker lurking in the background.

[martin II]

Don't forget the glove demo and the crying after the trial.

Darden crying was a good idea for him.The crying was the first effort to appeal to the market he had targeted for his comming book.

[tv]

TV,

The DA's couldn't prove it wasn't true. In fact, they adopted the logic of Hank Goldberg when it came to the nurse. They were going for that the nurse didn't know how much blood he drew, this way, neither side could claim they were right and the jury would have to do decide.

You lack of knowledge of both sides of the evidence is very telling. IMO, you are alot like Miss Clark. There is only one to see things, and that is your way. Trials aren't a one street---just in case you forgotten.

Remember EDTA, first there would be none found, then when it was found, they weren't sure that it was EDTA but if it was EDTA, it was an acceptable amount that is found in all humans. You constantly say that the jury was uneducated, that education is the key to all. Well Dr. Reiders is a doctor with years and years of experience but Roger Martz wasn't even a doctor, was he?

GreenIce/Limakey or whatever your many nics are -- I'm tiring of you very quickly. You're throwing another one of your temper tantrums because I don't see things your way. Just because I didn't address one of your posts (after I told you more than once I'm not interested in discussing the case with you) you made a post about weezer and I being of the same ilk as Mark Fuhrman -- who you think is a racist. Then you crudely described what I called a romantic or sexual relationship as his way of 'getting into a white woman's pants.' After the way you've talked to me and about me (and weezer) you actually think I'm going to get into a serious discussion about the case with you? You're a fruitcake, lady, and I don't give you or anything you post any credibilty. You don't know this case as well as you say you do. You might try reading some of the actual testimony once in a while.

[martin II]

He was guessing at the time.

Clarke walked kato through his testimony and agreed that he heard the noise at 10:45.Hell a poster testified that Kato did not even hear any noise. Go figure.

[tv]

I am not as young as I was yesterday but younger than I will be in thirty seconds, the time Park saw kato still standing there after immediately talking to Simpson from the gate and then seeing Kato proceed from there to let him in. Therefore, Kato was older at that time than he was when he finished his first cursory search which had to be after Kato waited two to three minutes after hearing the thumps and then doing his first cursory search, walking back there and standing there, which means that Park was aging all that time.:)
Park may have been aging but not at the time you thought he was. :) I posted the times a while back that you agreed with. I'm not sure if I can find it now but I'll try. I can't get into a ba/WA style marathon though. My nerves won't take it. :read:

[tv]

i truly believe that and thanks.Just try to ignore the trouble maker lurking in the background.
Well, I do try to ignore GI, but she just won't go away! :D

[GreenIce]

GreenIce/Limakey or whatever your many nics are -- I'm tiring of you very quickly. You're throwing another one of your temper tantrums because I don't see things your way. Just because I didn't address one of your posts (after I told you more than once I'm not interested in discussing the case with you) you made a post about weezer and I being of the same ilk as Mark Fuhrman -- who you think is a racist. Then you crudely described what I called a romantic or sexual relationship as his way of 'getting into a white woman's pants.' After the way you've talked to me and about me (and weezer) you actually think I'm going to get into a serious discussion about the case with you? You're a fruitcake, lady, and I don't give you or anything you post any credibilty. You don't know this case as well as you say you do. You might try reading some of the actual testimony once in a while.

TV,

You are what your are. I call it as I see it. You do the same, so why is fair for you and not for me? You have demonstrated a deep understanding of MF. Why are now offended when you are associated with his way of thinking? I didn't defend him, I didn't make excuses for him, I didn't try to explain his motives----you did. So live with it. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Well, I do try to ignore GI, but she just won't go away! :D

Now, was that nice?!

[tv]

TV,

You are what your are. I call it as I see it. You do the same, so why is fair for you and not for me? You have demonstrated a deep understanding of MF. Why are now offended when you are associated with his way of thinking? I didn't defend him, I didn't make excuses for him, I didn't try to explain his motives----you did. So live with it. IMO.I do NOT do the same. You have told me that I worship the prosecution on my knees as God and that I'm a racist. I've never said those things to you nor would I. You're incapable of discussing the case without getting personal. If you can't accept that someone else has another point of view than you do and that you can't bend them to your way of thinking with your erroneous facts about the case then maybe you don't understand the definition of debate. You don't see me saying you're of OJ Simpson's ilk. That's because I'm not such a hot head as you are. It would help if you'd try to get a grip on your emotions.

[martin II]

Well, I do try to ignore GI, but she just won't go away! :D

i was not referring to GI as no trouble maker and i am sure you know that.She has contributed as much to the discussion and in many instances more that some.I am sure you also know that.:cool:

[tv]

i was not referring to GI as no trouble maker and i am sure you know that.She has contributed as much to the discussion and in many instances more that some.I am sure you also know that.:cool:
martin, you jump to the defense of GreenIce but think it's okay for her to compare weezer and me to someone she considers a racist and to say I worship the prosecution on my knees. I've never asked you to take sides but I see you've taken one. Not a problem. :)

[tv]

Now, was that nice?!
No, but I got a little laugh out of it. :biggrin:

[martin II]

Park may have been aging but not at the time you thought he was. :) I posted the times a while back that you agreed with. I'm not sure if I can find it now but I'll try. I can't get into a ba/WA style marathon though. My nerves won't take it. :read:

TV

If you review parks different testimonies at different times you will come to understand that he was a very confused witness,There is no excuse for the different testimonies he gave at different times on the same issue.

I think he had a serious transposing issue or he was just over prepared and had problems remembering what his testimony should be.

[tv]

TV

If you review parks different testimonies at different times you will come to understand that he was a very confused witness,There is no excuse for the different testimonies he gave at different times on the same issue.

I think he had a serious transposing issue or he was just over prepared and had problems remembering what his testimony should be. I've read his testimony and it's fairly consistent. At least you're not accusing him of lying this time.

[GreenIce]

I do NOT do the same. You have told me that I worship the prosecution on my knees as God and that I'm a racist. I've never said those things to you nor would I. You're incapable of discussing the case without getting personal. If you can't accept that someone else has another point of view than you do and that you can't bend them to your way of thinking with your erroneous facts about the case then maybe you don't understand the definition of debate. You don't see me saying you're of OJ Simpson's ilk. That's because I'm not such a hot head as you are. It would help if you'd try to get a grip on your emotions.

TV,

You are what you are, why the shame now? You have been supportive of MF, you provide excuses for him--again, what is your problem? You think you are allowed to post things about people because you don't agree with them. You don't like it when anyone turns your vicious comments back on to you.

[martin II]

martin, you jump to the defense of GreenIce but think it's okay for her to compare weezer and me to someone she considers a racist and to say I worship the prosecution on my knees. I've never asked you to take sides but I see you've taken one. Not a problem. :)

The only thing i am taking sides with is this shot of Rum and coke right now.
i just think that there are two great posters posting

If i take it upon myself to apologize to you for everyone on the thread would you accept it???I guess that is a good way to say what i am trying to accomplist.

If you don't mind please don't include the nic Martin in the same post as when you use the nic weezer.
love

[GreenIce]

TV

If you review parks different testimonies at different times you will come to understand that he was a very confused witness,There is no excuse for the different testimonies he gave at different times on the same issue.

I think he had a serious transposing issue or he was just over prepared and had problems remembering what his testimony should be.

Martin,

In Joe Bosco's book, he goes into Park's testimony and apparently, Park was unsure of some of the things and only became "positive" on certain questions several months after talking to his mother. Again, that is in Bosco's book.

[tv]

TV,

You are what you are, why the shame now? You have been supportive of MF, you provide excuses for him--again, what is your problem? You think you are allowed to post things about people because you don't agree with them. You don't like it when anyone turns your vicious comments back on to you.

I don't know what shame you're talking about. I haven't supported what Mark Fuhrman said on the tapes. I think they're vile words but I also believe he was making things up for a screen play. I think he was only doing his job the night of the murders -- I don't think he planted or did anything with the glove or any other evidence. If you want to call that supporting him that's up to you. I support the LAPD in this case and he was a member of it. I don't think I've been vicious with you. You've insulted me repeatedly. I'm really tired of arguing with you. I enjoy posting here with the guys, fgump2, Kate and weezer and the others that drop in occasionally. I'd like to continue doing that without being banned so please leave me alone.

[tv]

The only thing i am taking sides with is this shot of Rum and coke right now.
i just think that there are two great posters posting

If i take it upon myself to apologize to you for everyone on the thread would you accept it???I guess that is a good way to say what i am trying to accomplist.

If you don't mind please don't include the nic Martin in the same post as when you use the nic weezer.
love

It's late to be drinking Rum and coke.:)

You don't owe me an apology for anything and I've never asked GI for one. I think weezer is a great poster and is very knowledgable about the case so I don't understand why you wouldn't want your name in the same post as hers. :shrug: I miss all of us posting together. :( By the way, martin, we've had our differences but thank you for sending your love. I'll remember that the next time I get mad at you and it'll make me feel better. :)

[tv]

TV,

I have never doubted your passion or enjoyment of the board. However, IMO, you need to extend the same deep convictions you have for this case to the people who have just as deep convictions as you do but for the "other side". I enjoy the board as well but I did not enjoy the lies and the snide comments you and another poster made about me.

I have no problem leaving you "alone", it was your problem that you couldn't leave me alone. So now that we understand what each other wants, I will leave you alone, but if you make any negative comments, then I will again take on the responsibility of reminding you there are two sides to every thing.

You still don't get it. You accused me of worshiping the prosecution because I disagreed with you. Consider yourself left alone at this point -- I won't even point out your incorrect facts about the case but I'm not going to tolerate anymore character assassinations from you.

[GreenIce]

They used Park's telephone records to verify his time and lend credibility to his estimates but the prosecution did not contest Kato's time estimates. As with everything else, credibility is an issue and the only one we know for sure, who was unbelievable, was MF but some here still want to think him credible. So be it.:)

William,

I truly wonder what the four lead detectives cell phone records showed. I find it odd that when the defense finally got these, much of it was blacked out. Makes no sense to me.

[GreenIce]

Clarke walked kato through his testimony and agreed that he heard the noise at 10:45.Hell a poster testified that Kato did not even hear any noise. Go figure.

Martin,

One thing I could never understand is why Clark never brought Kato back to the stand and confront him about the book he was doing. I makes no sense why she treated him the way she did if she only wanted or needed his thump time.

Now, I am not taking shot at all men, but I kept on thinking when Clark was trying to get him describe "upset" did she not realize she is talking to a guy? Did not hear the part where in the midst of this "upset" Kato is giving a phone number of another model---not sure if she was the playboy bunny but I kept on thinking, leave it alone, you are going nowwhere with this!

[tv]

martin, I'll catch up with you tomorrow about the Rawlings case. :) :seeya:

[fgump2]

fgump2,

I am serious when I say I have never heard a DA come out in a press conference and say they got it wrong. Never. Nothing is ever their fault. The carry on like their sole purpose in life is to put away the "bad" people, when one their "bads" turn out to be innocent, why aren't they apologizing to the person with as much zeal as they convicted them?

Yes, I question motives but don't you do it as well?
************************************************** *****
I have can accept the fact that both DAs and defense lawyers get too aggressive about winning. I have sometimes been too aggressive about chess and other trivia when there is no money attached. I admit I have a hard time understanding the roles of both DAs and criminal lawyers, but that isn't the point. There is a lot I don't know about criminal law.
There must be some serious turmoil for both when they come across some facts not to their liking.

I object when people make unpleasant remarks about all the members of a necessary profession. To me there is a big difference between saying most DA’s have certain faults, as opposed to saying all DAs have certain faults. .
I can accept the first, but not the second.

[GreenIce]

************************************************** *****
I have can accept the fact that both DAs and defense lawyers get too aggressive about winning. I have sometimes been too aggressive about chess and other trivia when there is no money attached. I admit I have a hard time understanding the roles of both DAs and criminal lawyers, but that isn't the point. There is a lot I don't know about criminal law.
There must be some serious turmoil for both when they come across some facts not to their liking.

I object when people make unpleasant remarks about all the members of a necessary profession. To me there is a big difference between saying most DA’s have certain faults, as opposed to saying all DAs have certain faults. .
I can accept the first, but not the second.

fgump2,

If you have an example where a DA comes out and said they convicted someone on perjured testimony or on evidence they later learned was tampered, then please let me know. However, to be fair to the DA's, they might not have this option.

Think about it, if a DA comes out and says that the person was convicted on perjured/tampered with evidence, the questions will start like, when did you know and what did you do about it?

While it may appear that my comments are directed at the state, my comments are really directed at the system.

[tv]

************************************************** *****
I have can accept the fact that both DAs and defense lawyers get too aggressive about winning. I have sometimes been too aggressive about chess and other trivia when there is no money attached. I admit I have a hard time understanding the roles of both DAs and criminal lawyers, but that isn't the point. There is a lot I don't know about criminal law.
There must be some serious turmoil for both when they come across some facts not to their liking.

I object when people make unpleasant remarks about all the members of a necessary profession. To me there is a big difference between saying most DA’s have certain faults, as opposed to saying all DAs have certain faults. .
I can accept the first, but not the second.
Fgump2, I have seen DA's apologize for making a mistake. It doesn't happen routinely but it does happen. I don't think any profession is all bad or all good. Every profession is populated by individuals -- some bad, some good, some in between. I just saw a case on TV the other day where a mother was convicted of killing her baby with antifreeze. She was in prison for a few years and then her younger child got sick with the same illnesses as her first. The doctors discovered it was a genetic defect that turned the bodie's own chemistry into a similiar substance. She was freed and the DA apologized with her by his side at a press conference. There are others but I'd have to think about it.

[William Anthony]

No, sorry, it was 10:51 or 10:52 when Kato heard the thumps.

Impossible.

[William Anthony]

martin, dear, if you back up the clock from the time of Park's conversation with his boss it comes out to 10:51 or 10:52. You're the one that should try swallowing hard. :)

The problem is that this sighting of Kato happened after Kato had finished his first cursory search.

[William Anthony]

tv
If you read one of williams many post on that time issue you will see that you are off.

To those that have eyes, let them see.:)

[William Anthony]

Park may have been aging but not at the time you thought he was. :) I posted the times a while back that you agreed with. I'm not sure if I can find it now but I'll try. I can't get into a ba/WA style marathon though. My nerves won't take it. :read:

I agree with you about the times, only disagree with another poster, who, as you seem to, think Park's sighting of Kato was when Kato exited his quarters, but from the testimonies, we know Park saw Kato after Kato finished his first cursory search, which neither you nor the other poster factored into your time line.

[William Anthony]

William,

I truly wonder what the four lead detectives cell phone records showed. I find it odd that when the defense finally got these, much of it was blacked out. Makes no sense to me.

Probably a lot of numbers to coffee shops that deliver.:) On the serious side, I would to and also they were using phones within the crime scenes and I am not sure if those records were produced.

You made a post asking what Martz is-somewhere between a zombie and a full-fledged ghost by his testimony, smile.

[William Anthony]

"MR. DARDEN: When Mark Fuhrman used these words in your presence why didn't you just tell him to stop?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of that question. I object to the form of that question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: For the same reason I didn't tell him to stop when he told me of police procedures, cover-ups, other information that I felt were important for me to have a clear understanding in context of this material that I was writing. He told me many things that I thought were important for me to understand, many things I hadn't been aware of, as did other officers of the Los Angeles Police Department, as did many of the other interviews that I did and ride-alongs I went on. I was in a journalistic mode. I was not judgmental. And I needed that information to help me write a more realistic journalistic piece and I did not ask him to stop using the type of normal ordinary language he would use or other officers would use. I needed to know how he would speak.

MR. DARDEN: You told us yesterday that there was no racial subplot to the screenplay you were planning to write, correct?

MS. MCKINNY: That is accurate.

MR. DARDEN: And yet you use this epithet in your screenplay anyway; is that also correct?

MS. MCKINNY: That is true.

MR. DARDEN: Now, your relationship in 1985 with Mark Fuhrman, was it only professional?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. This is irrelevant and immaterial.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: He was--it was--I'm sorry. It was a business relationship. He was a technical advisor for the screenplay.

MR. DARDEN: And that is it?

MS. MCKINNY: Yes."

[martin II]

I agree with you about the times, only disagree with another poster, who, as you seem to, think Park's sighting of Kato was when Kato exited his quarters, but from the testimonies, we know Park saw Kato after Kato finished his first cursory search, which neither you nor the other poster factored into your time line.

Park said he saw Kato come from the back of the house area to the ashford sirewalk and just stand there.
Kato said he came from his room and walked directly to the s path without stopping.

Park then says he look at Kato and he was still standing on the sidewalk before Kato opened the gate.

So obviously park thought that Kato was still standfing in ther original spot on ashford before letting him in but this could not be true because Kato had already walked past the front door to go to the path.
park was simply wrong.

[William Anthony]

Park said he saw Kato come from the back of the house area to the ashford sirewalk and just stand there.
Kato said he came from his room and walked directly to the s path without stopping.

Park then says he look at Kato and he was still standing on the sidewalk before Kato opened the gate.

So obviously park thought that Kato was still standfing in ther original spot on ashford before letting him in but this could not be true because Kato had already walked past the front door to go to the path.
park was simply wrong.

The obvious import of the testimonies is that Park was mistaken as to where he claimed he saw Kato come from or that was suggested to him. I believe everyone understood that he was mistaken, which is why Ms. Clark never refuted Kato's time of hearing the thumps as ten forty five and his ending his phone call with Ms. Rachel at ten forty seven to ten forty eight, which could have easily been established by the phone records. The fact that they never introduced them to refresh Kato's memory is circumstantial evidence that his estimations were correct. Ms. Clark was in the precarious position of proving Park mistaken without saying he was.

[William Anthony]

Tvdinner,

If there was no racial subplot to the movie, why was MF tossing the N word around like it was salad?

[martin II]

I've read his testimony and it's fairly consistent. At least you're not accusing him of lying this time.

A couple days ago in a testimony post park was told that from his position at the Ashford gate there was a big bush that prevented hin from seeing the front of the house.Guess what, Park agreed.
The jury went to rockingham to view the property.In their deliberations they asked for a readback of Parks testimony because there were jury questions about what he testified to.
After the read back they discussed his testimony again and all came to the conclusion that he could not have seen what he said he saw from the Ashford gate, having satisfied all questions they voted not guilty.
This is one example of his confusing testimony.

[martin II]

Probably a lot of numbers to coffee shops that deliver.:) On the serious side, I would to and also they were using phones within the crime scenes and I am not sure if those records were produced.

You made a post asking what Martz is-somewhere between a zombie and a full-fledged ghost by his testimony, smile.

Well after his simpson testimony the FBI demoted him from his lab supervisor position to something lower maby near the mail room.I will assume this is because even they could not understand how he could be dead by his own
experiment and still testify.imo

[martin II]

"MR. DARDEN: When Mark Fuhrman used these words in your presence why didn't you just tell him to stop?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of that question. I object to the form of that question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: For the same reason I didn't tell him to stop when he told me of police procedures, cover-ups, other information that I felt were important for me to have a clear understanding in context of this material that I was writing. He told me many things that I thought were important for me to understand, many things I hadn't been aware of, as did other officers of the Los Angeles Police Department, as did many of the other interviews that I did and ride-alongs I went on. I was in a journalistic mode. I was not judgmental. And I needed that information to help me write a more realistic journalistic piece and I did not ask him to stop using the type of normal ordinary language he would use or other officers would use. I needed to know how he would speak.

MR. DARDEN: You told us yesterday that there was no racial subplot to the screenplay you were planning to write, correct?

MS. MCKINNY: That is accurate.

MR. DARDEN: And yet you use this epithet in your screenplay anyway; is that also correct?

MS. MCKINNY: That is true.

MR. DARDEN: Now, your relationship in 1985 with Mark Fuhrman, was it only professional?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. This is irrelevant and immaterial.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MCKINNY: He was--it was--I'm sorry. It was a business relationship. He was a technical advisor for the screenplay.

MR. DARDEN: And that is it?


MS. MCKINNY: Yes."

tv
Furhman tried to suggest that the relationship was something sexual which
caused you to say he had sex with her lhm

She says it was only a business relationship.

[William Anthony]

Tvdinner,

You and I were both wrong. I suggested that someone close to MF alerted the defense to the existence of the LHM tapes and you suggested it was LHM. However, this is how it came about.

http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=65515&id=31903

“....Shortly after the Fourth of July weekend, our investigator Bill Pavelic informed me that a friend of mine, a lawyer from San Francisco, had called him several times about Mark Fuhrman. This lawyer was someone Bill had worked with before, on my recommendation. The lawyer was aware, as anyone paying even mild attention to the case would have been, that Mark Fuhrman was of key concern to the defense team. "A lawyer in Los Angeles is offering to sell audiotapes of Mark Fuhrman that will blow your case wide open," our contact told Bill. He had heard this from two tabloid reporters, who were as curious to hear the tapes as one might expect but who were also concerned about being victims of some kind of scam...”

“....The Los Angeles lawyer's name was Matthew Schwartz, and he represented someone named Laura Hart McKinney. She was a screenwriter and had recently interviewed Fuhrman as part of a film project she was trying to develop about Los Angeles cops. Schwartz stated that the tapes contained many, many examples of clear perjury on the race issue, and the use of the “N” word in particular. Furthermore, they were a police "textbook" on framing blacks and planting evidence. There were fifteen hours of tape, approximately three hundred transcript pages. The bidding price of these tapes was slated to start at $250,000....”

It seems MF's worst mistake was to want to be seen on national television while testilying.

[William Anthony]

tv
Furhman tried to suggest that the relationship was something sexual which
caused you to say he had sex with her lhm

She says it was only a business relationship.

Maybe, MF thought that every time he used the N word Ms. McKinney became more and more enamored with him but he soon found out he was mistaken.

[martin II]

Probably a lot of numbers to coffee shops that deliver.:) On the serious side, I would to and also they were using phones within the crime scenes and I am not sure if those records were produced.

You made a post asking what Martz is-somewhere between a zombie and a full-fledged ghost by his testimony, smile.

Or on their cell phones communicating with each other as various ones were
moving around from Rockingham to Bundy and back to rockingham to rockingham and Bundy to Bundy doing whatever they were doing.

Since no detective made notes of their activities at Rockingham there is no way to know who was where and what they did at what time.

[martin II]

Tvdinner,

If there was no racial subplot to the movie, why was MF tossing the N word around like it was salad?

Well my answer is Regardless of what LHM hired him to talk about, Women in the lapd, Furhman wanted to tell her of his experiences as a lapd cop abusing
minorities.So he just started comming out of his mouth with this crap and changed her objective for the play.He wanted to get his stuff in.imo

[William Anthony]

Or on their cell phones communicating with each other as various ones were
moving around from Rockingham to Bundy and back to rockingham to rockingham and Bundy to Bundy doing whatever they were doing.

Since no detective made notes of their activities at Rockingham there is no way to know who was where and what they did at what time.

“....The sudden prominence of Mark Fuhrman in the preliminary hearing rang all of Bill Pavelic's alarm bells. Prior to that, we'd barely been aware of Fuhrman's involvement in the case, let alone that he was a key - if not the key - police detective in the investigation, at least in the all-important first hours. In the early reports provided to us by the prosecution, Mark Fuhrman's name never appeared at all: He wasn't in the arrest reports filed on O.J. and A.C.; the property reports didn't mention him; the coroner's report didn't mention him; the June 15 follow-up report didn't mention him; the murder reports didn't mention him; the June 13 and June 28 search warrants and affidavits didn't mention him. Furthermore, nowhere was it stated, in any L.A.P.D. report, that Fuhrman was the one who discovered the glove at each scene....”

[martin II]

The obvious import of the testimonies is that Park was mistaken as to where he claimed he saw Kato come from or that was suggested to him. I believe everyone understood that he was mistaken, which is why Ms. Clark never refuted Kato's time of hearing the thumps as ten forty five and his ending his phone call with Ms. Rachel at ten forty seven to ten forty eight, which could have easily been established by the phone records. The fact that they never introduced them to refresh Kato's memory is circumstantial evidence that his estimations were correct. Ms. Clark was in the precarious position of proving Park mistaken without saying he was.

William the big quesiton:

Clarke must have gotten Kato to testify to the time of the noise that she agreed with as 10:45 before the defense called Heidstra to testify.

[William Anthony]

Well my answer is Regardless of what LHM hired him to talk about, Women in the lapd, Furhman wanted to tell her of his experiences as a lapd cop abusing
minorities.So he just started comming out of his mouth with this crap and changed her objective for the play.He wanted to get his stuff in.imo

That diarrhea of the mouth served to be his ultimate downfall.

[martin II]

“....The sudden prominence of Mark Fuhrman in the preliminary hearing rang all of Bill Pavelic's alarm bells. Prior to that, we'd barely been aware of Fuhrman's involvement in the case, let alone that he was a key - if not the key - police detective in the investigation, at least in the all-important first hours. In the early reports provided to us by the prosecution, Mark Fuhrman's name never appeared at all: He wasn't in the arrest reports filed on O.J. and A.C.; the property reports didn't mention him; the coroner's report didn't mention him; the June 15 follow-up report didn't mention him; the murder reports didn't mention him; the June 13 and June 28 search warrants and affidavits didn't mention him. Furthermore, nowhere was it stated, in any L.A.P.D. report, that Fuhrman was the one who discovered the glove at each scene....”


The prosecution knew what his history was and tried to hide him as long as they could.

I have tried to figure thjis issue out also.
We know that Park was on the phone talking to dale at a certain time.
What we don't know is who or what was it that caused him to say someone home. Was it Kato, oj or the lights comming on at the front porch.

He never said what he told Dale other than someone home and Dale never testified that he identified who, what caused him to say someone home.

[William Anthony]

William the big quesiton:

Clarke must have gotten Kato to testify to the time of the noise that she agreed with as 10:45 before the defense called Heidstra to testify.

"THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Mr. Cochran, where are you going with this?

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: You've already gotten out that he was asked about his immigration status.

MR. COCHRAN: Right. But he also--what he would say is that this is an offer of proof of what he told me, but Darden asked where he was from and he says, "What are you doing here? Don't you want to go back there" or words to that effect. He took that has an indication that they are saying you should get lost or get out of here, and he was offended by that, so before I would ask that in front of the jury I wanted to at least preview that to you. That is what he indicated to me. So I wanted to ask him that question. And it would be improper if that happened. And I wasn't there, but that is what the witness says and he says they were unfriendly and nasty to him and asked about his immigration status. They had no interest at all in any of the events of what he had seen, but they just wanted to know about him and his job and that sort of thing and he felt they treated him badly as a citizen. That is what he felt. So before I asked that question, as I promised you, side bars, I promised you I would come up. And it goes to their whole stand and rush to judgment aspect.

MR. DARDEN: I'm extremely disappointed, your Honor, in Mr. Cochran, that he would resort to this type of character assassination of myself. In any event, that is completely irrelevant. And so that the record is clear, we had a talk about your Honor and France and I asked him when was the last time he had been home. I already knew that he was an American citizen because he had told me that he was. And I asked him where he was from because I heard that he was from France and we had a conversation with another French woman and I wanted to know if he spoke French and where he was from and that will become apparent I think as we go through the cross-examination. But you know, this is low. This is low.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, first of all, talking about low, they asked questions in front of a jury. I have the dignity and integrity to ask you before I say anything. I have an obligation to my client. If a witness tells me something, I have an obligation to come up here and ask you, not like they do in front of the jury. I'm telling what you the witness has indicated to me.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Cochran is desperate. None of that happened.

MR. COCHRAN: Desperate?

MR. DARDEN: I should indicate this as well. I was actually very ill that morning, but I know you don't care much about that.

THE COURT: I take it this is a 352 objection because what is said to him and what his impressions were as to what he meant is really not tremendously relevant at this point.

MR. COCHRAN: Relevant--isn't it? Well, your Honor--relevant, your Honor? Here is the reason it is relevant, and I will submit it after that. We hear all this talk about a search for truth. We find out there are all these witnesses that have come forward, who they know about, credible, who have information that was far different than what they have said. Truth according to the Prosecution, and then there is the truth, and so then if these people are all relevant and the witnesses are--who they don't want fit into their timeline are treated in a certain way. Isn't that relevant, your Honor?

THE COURT: It is relevant and these people come in through the Defense and testify.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Heidstra does fit into our timeline."

Another of the prosecution's mistakes, imho.

[martin II]

That diarrhea of the mouth served to be his ultimate downfall.

When Furhman was running his mouth about all this racial stuff, didn't he know that if the play was successful all lapd would know it was him that was talking.Did he think that lapd would be pleased with his words describing how they work or did he just did not care what they or the public thought about him.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution knew what his history was and tried to hide him as long as they could.

I have tried to figure thjis issue out also.
We know that Park was on the phone talking to dale at a certain time.
What we don't know is who or what was it that caused him to say someone home. Was it Kato, oj or the lights comming on at the front porch.

He never said what he told Dale other than someone home and Dale never testified that he identified who, what caused him to say someone home.

As far as I can figure out, it was when he saw Simpson walk "back" into his house.

[William Anthony]

When Furhman was running his mouth about all this racial stuff, didn't he know that if the play was successful all lapd would know it was him that was talking.Did he think that lapd would be pleased with his words describing how they work or did he just did not care what they or the public thought about him.

I think that in his mind he thought he was the big bad untouchable MF.

[martin II]

"THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Mr. Cochran, where are you going with this?

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: You've already gotten out that he was asked about his immigration status.

MR. COCHRAN: Right. But he also--what he would say is that this is an offer of proof of what he told me, but Darden asked where he was from and he says, "What are you doing here? Don't you want to go back there" or words to that effect. He took that has an indication that they are saying you should get lost or get out of here, and he was offended by that, so before I would ask that in front of the jury I wanted to at least preview that to you. That is what he indicated to me. So I wanted to ask him that question. And it would be improper if that happened. And I wasn't there, but that is what the witness says and he says they were unfriendly and nasty to him and asked about his immigration status. They had no interest at all in any of the events of what he had seen, but they just wanted to know about him and his job and that sort of thing and he felt they treated him badly as a citizen. That is what he felt. So before I asked that question, as I promised you, side bars, I promised you I would come up. And it goes to their whole stand and rush to judgment aspect.

MR. DARDEN: I'm extremely disappointed, your Honor, in Mr. Cochran, that he would resort to this type of character assassination of myself. In any event, that is completely irrelevant. And so that the record is clear, we had a talk about your Honor and France and I asked him when was the last time he had been home. I already knew that he was an American citizen because he had told me that he was. And I asked him where he was from because I heard that he was from France and we had a conversation with another French woman and I wanted to know if he spoke French and where he was from and that will become apparent I think as we go through the cross-examination. But you know, this is low. This is low.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, first of all, talking about low, they asked questions in front of a jury. I have the dignity and integrity to ask you before I say anything. I have an obligation to my client. If a witness tells me something, I have an obligation to come up here and ask you, not like they do in front of the jury. I'm telling what you the witness has indicated to me.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Cochran is desperate. None of that happened.

MR. COCHRAN: Desperate?

MR. DARDEN: I should indicate this as well. I was actually very ill that morning, but I know you don't care much about that.

THE COURT: I take it this is a 352 objection because what is said to him and what his impressions were as to what he meant is really not tremendously relevant at this point.

MR. COCHRAN: Relevant--isn't it? Well, your Honor--relevant, your Honor? Here is the reason it is relevant, and I will submit it after that. We hear all this talk about a search for truth. We find out there are all these witnesses that have come forward, who they know about, credible, who have information that was far different than what they have said. Truth according to the Prosecution, and then there is the truth, and so then if these people are all relevant and the witnesses are--who they don't want fit into their timeline are treated in a certain way. Isn't that relevant, your Honor?

THE COURT: It is relevant and these people come in through the Defense and testify.

MR. DARDEN: Mr. Heidstra does fit into our timeline."

Another of the prosecution's mistakes, imho.

First the prosecution said the murders happened at 10:20. The defence then brought in Heidstra and blew the 10:20 time line out of the water.Then Dar and two big cops went to Heidstras house to interview him but what Darden did was tried to bully heidstra by asking him about his immagraiton status.Heidstra said he felt threatened by Darden.
Unable to move Heidstra by bully him into changing his testimony Darden then agrees that they agree with the defence timeline set by Heidstra.Darden did the same bullying with Rosa and she and her friend ran.imo

[William Anthony]

First the prosecution said the murders happened at 10:20. The defence then brought in Heidstra and blew the 10:20 time line out of the water.Then Dar and two big cops went to Heidstras house to interview him but what Darden did was tried to bully heidstra by asking him about his immagraiton status.Heidstra said he felt threatened by Darden.
Unable to move Heidstra by bully him into changing his testimony Darden then agrees that they agree with the defence timeline set by Heidstra.Darden did the same bullying with Rosa and she and her friend ran.imo

You mean you think Darden wasn't being his usual charming self.

[martin II]

As far as I can figure out, it was when he saw Simpson walk "back" into his house.

So from his talk to DALE he did not specify that he had seen Kato at that time.Which leads me to believe that Kato walked right through the Ashford
area to the pathway and Park actually did not see him in the dark.Something else is Park was looking through the Ashford verticle metal bars on the gate
and his view would be blocked to some extent.imo

[William Anthony]

First the prosecution said the murders happened at 10:20. The defence then brought in Heidstra and blew the 10:20 time line out of the water.Then Dar and two big cops went to Heidstras house to interview him but what Darden did was tried to bully heidstra by asking him about his immagraiton status.Heidstra said he felt threatened by Darden.
Unable to move Heidstra by bully him into changing his testimony Darden then agrees that they agree with the defence timeline set by Heidstra.Darden did the same bullying with Rosa and she and her friend ran.imo

Once Darden made that representation, the prosecution should have set out to prove Kato wrong as to the times he heard the thumps and brought in Ms. Shively to testify but prepared her for the cross that was to come, which would have been, imho, something to the effect that she thought every Black man driving in Brentwood at night was either Marcus Allen or Simpson.:)

[William Anthony]

So from his talk to DALE he did not specify that he had seen Kato at that time.Which leads me to believe that Kato walked right through the Ashford
area to the pathway and Park actually did not see him in the dark.Something else is Park was looking through the Ashford verticle metal bars on the gate
and his view would be blocked to some extent.imo

Park could not have seen Kato walk from where he said he did, when he said he did, as he never saw Kato do his first cursory search but did see Kato still standing there and then proceed to walk over and let him in.

[martin II]

You mean you think Darden wasn't being his usual charming self.

I think that Darden thought that he and the two big DAS would make Heidstra shake to his bones with the talk about his immigration status and that Heidstra would dissapear as a witness.I think Darden put pressure on Rosas friend and she did run. Because if Rosas observations about the Bronco came in this would create a big problem for the prosecution.But in the end
it did not matter because the time Kato heard the noise and that Park saw the two bags on the porch means that when he saw oj, oj was returning into his house.imo

[martin II]

Park could not have seen Kato walk from where he said he did, when he said he did, as he never saw Kato do his first cursory search but did see Kato still standing there and then proceed to walk over and let him in.

Absolutely correct.

[William Anthony]

I think that Darden thought that he and the two big DAS would make Heidstra shake to his bones with the talk about his immigration status and that Heidstra would dissapear as a witness.I think Darden put pressure on Rosas friend and she did run. Because if Rosas observations about the Bronco came in this would create a big problem for the prosecution.But in the end
it did not matter because the time Kato heard the noise and that Park saw the two bags on the porch means that when he saw oj, oj was returning into his house.imo

Why would Darden think that Heidstra wasn't where he wanted to be?

[martin II]

Once Darden made that representation, the prosecution should have set out to prove Kato wrong as to the times he heard the thumps and brought in Ms. Shively to testify but prepared her for the cross that was to come, which would have been, imho, something to the effect that she thought every Black man driving in Brentwood at night was either Marcus Allen or Simpson.:)

Well that was a boo boo on Dardens and Clarks part.If when Kato testified about 10:45 noise they knew what Heidstra was going to say,They created their own conflict.Maby that is why Darden went to Heidstras house and tried to bully him.imo

[William Anthony]

Absolutely correct.

Thank you.

[William Anthony]

Well that was a boo boo on Dardens and Clarks part.If when Kato testified about 10:45 noise they knew what Heidstra was going to say,They created their own conflict.Maby that is why Darden went to Heidstras house and tried to bully him.imo

Why would Darden ask question of Heidstra's citizenship status? Was that relevant to what Heidstra saw or heard?

[Kate Sachel]

I have previously said that Simpson was stupid and that I believe him to be guilty of spousal abuse or an abuser, if you will. There is no doubt that he did a lot of stupid things, which I found above the level of stupidity. However, I questioned whether he was so stupid or was he trying to cover for someone. I have not formed a conclusion on that. What I am saying is that I question whether his stupid and offensive actions and remarks were by design in order to subvert attention to himself. I agree that he did nothing to improve his public image but I believe that was ruined in a large part by the court of public opinion's reaction to the criminal murder verdict.

Your last sentence I cannot disagree with, as you said that is how you see it from your perspective as a lady. I can only speak from a perspective as a Black male. From those different perspectives, I can say that I find the actions of a racist corrupt LE member and the actions of a spousal abuser as vile and reprehensible.

I do not recall you ever posting that you believed OJ Simpson to be guilty of spousal abuse or an abuser, but it is quite refreshing to read it now. It is nice to realize that there are individuals who can, and are willing, to separate the two issues of the murder of Nicole and the abuse of Nicole.

Kate

[martin II]

Why would Darden think that Heidstra wasn't where he wanted to be?

That seems to have been Dardens MO. The big bad DA comming to HELP/FORCE witnesses to get their story straight according to him.imo

[martin II]

Why would Darden ask question of Heidstra's citizenship status? Was that relevant to what Heidstra saw or heard?

No it was not but Darden tried to scare Heidstra with it.

[William Anthony]

I do not recall you ever posting that you believed OJ Simpson to be guilty of spousal abuse or an abuser, but it is quite refreshing to read it now. It is nice to realize that there are individuals who can, and are willing, to separate the two issues of the murder of Nicole and the abuse of Nicole.

Kate

Yes, I have said it in the past, which I truly believe. I do separate the issues and do not condone much of Simpson's conduct and question whether or not he was that stupid or stupid like a fox. I sometimes park my car in a haphazard fashion but have not been charged with murder so far. :) Sometimes, I just don't feel like correcting my parking. :) Glad to see you back.

[William Anthony]

No it was not but Darden tried to scare Heidstra with it.

So, you don't think Darden was simply making small talk, when he had a double murder case and one of the victims was Simpson's former wife and the case would gather a lot of publicity? Don't you think he was just being nice?:)

[Kate Sachel]

TV,

I have the jurors' book. I haven't come across it yet, but I am still looking.
Did you read Faye Resnick's depo from the civil trial? When there are errors in a book, most often the "author" will blame the write or the publisher. Yes, they do make it "readable" but that does mean they give an accurate description.

For example, a few days ago I made a post about Nicole punching the maid and decking her. Kate posted that she didn't punch the maid, she slapped the maid and the maid fell down. Kate and I both describing an act of violence on Nicole's part. Which one sounds better? Which one presents the better "picture"?

I only remember one person blaming their co-author, ghost writer, or publisher.

Let us be very clear that it was not an attempt on my part to paint a better picture. I found it unfortunate that two people were unwilling to end blatantly false discussion regarding the incident between Nicole and Michelle.

The facts are that the incident did not happen in 1898 on the evening that OJ beat Nicole, it was not in regard to any earrings, nor did Nicole punch Michelle.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Yes, I have said it in the past, which I truly believe. I do separate the issues and do not condone much of Simpson's conduct and question whether or not he was that stupid or stupid like a fox. I sometimes park my car in a haphazard fashion but have not been charged with murder so far. :) Sometimes, I just don't feel like correcting my parking. :) Glad to see you back.

Personally, I don't believe that it is so much stupidity as it is years of being accustomed to having everything that he says accepted at face value. OJ Simpson had attained a status that I consider even beyond celebrity. What made him so extremely endearing to so many was the fact that, despite that status, he treated everyone he encountered with respect and a down to earth quality that is rarely found in the rich and famous. The exception to that being, in my opinion, the two women that he married in his life.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

TV

If you review parks different testimonies at different times you will come to understand that he was a very confused witness,There is no excuse for the different testimonies he gave at different times on the same issue.

I think he had a serious transposing issue or he was just over prepared and had problems remembering what his testimony should be.

I feel the same regarding OJ's different responses at different times on the same issue. He was chipping balls, he was showering, he was napping.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Personally, I don't believe that it is so much stupidity as it is years of being accustomed to having everything that he says accepted at face value. OJ Simpson had attained a status that I consider even beyond celebrity. What made him so extremely endearing to so many was the fact that, despite that status, he treated everyone he encountered with respect and a down to earth quality that is rarely found in the rich and famous. The exception to that being, in my opinion, the two women that he married in his life.

Kate

I did not follow his professional career much and even less of his acting career. I know very little of how he treated people and did not understand the status that he received by so many. I think anyone, who accomplished as much as he did, would have to have some degree of intelligence. I don't know if he was arrogant as some have surmised but I believe it would take an extreme amount of arrogance to override intelligence, which is why I believe his stupid conduct may be intentional so as to deflect attention from a loved one. Like I said I do not know enough about him to state any of this as fact and I am simply questioning his conduct.

[tv]

That diarrhea of the mouth served to be his ultimate downfall.
I agree that Mark Fuhrman made a poor judgement in using that language but he seems to be doing alright now. He's a bestselling author and a contributor on Fox news. I'm sure life could be worse for him. On the other hand, OJ Simpson is sitting in a little cell...his diarrhea of the mouth seems to have been his downfall also.

On that note, can you guys talk about anything besides Dennis Fung, Mark Fuhrman or Allan Park? How about the fact that OJ Simpson's blood was found in three places on the Rockingham glove and there's no proof that you've been able to show that the glove was planted? How about OJ Simpson's blood and the victim's blood in the Bronco? How about Nicole being afraid of no one but OJ Simpson on the night she was killed? How about OJ Simpson's tell-all book? You keep mentioning Det. Fuhrman taking the 5th? What about AC Cowlings taking the 5th? If you think Mark Fuhrman was hiding something then what was AC Cowlings hiding?

[tv]

I did not follow his professional career much and even less of his acting career. I know very little of how he treated people and did not understand the status that he received by so many. I think anyone, who accomplished as much as he did, would have to have some degree of intelligence. I don't know if he was arrogant as some have surmised but I believe it would take an extreme amount of arrogance to override intelligence, which is why I believe his stupid conduct may be intentional so as to deflect attention from a loved one. Like I said I do not know enough about him to state any of this as fact and I am simply questioning his conduct.

William, are you talking about Jason Simpson?

[William Anthony]

I agree that Mark Fuhrman made a poor judgement in using that language but he seems to be doing alright now. He's a bestselling author and a contributor on Fox news. I'm sure life could be worse for him. On the other hand, OJ Simpson is sitting in a little cell...his diarrhea of the mouth seems to have been his downfall also.

On that note, can you guys talk about anything besides Dennis Fung, Mark Fuhrman or Allan Park? How about the fact that OJ Simpson's blood was found in three places on the Rockingham glove and there's no proof that you've been able to show that the glove was planted? How about OJ Simpson's blood and the victim's blood in the Bronco? How about Nicole being afraid of no one but OJ Simpson on the night she was killed? How about OJ Simpson's tell-all book? You keep mentioning Det. Fuhrman taking the 5th? What about AC Cowlings taking the 5th? If you think Mark Fuhrman was hiding something then what was AC Cowlings hiding?

I meant his ultimate downfall in wanting to be the most famous in The Trial of the Century, when he came off, imho, as the most infamous. Oh yes, America is apologetic to those, who speak of racism, depending on who is the victim of such racist speech. MF could be worse but America seems content to forgive his transgressions and even reward him for them to some extent.

There are posts about many many others other than MF, DF and AP. However, you seem to only have noticed posts about those three but, if you recheck, you will see that I am correct. In fact, we were discussing the blood on the glove, in connection with the word, "them" and how the blood could have gotten "in" the Bronco, before we got side lined. We have discussed the evidence of planting. Since I have done no independent investigation into the planting, I must rely on the evidence of planting.
You speak of proof but I think you should consider that the prosecution failed to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the murderer and the only proof beyond a reasonable doubt that was shown as a result of the trial was that MF committed perjury. In that vein and since AC was not charged with perjury, I think their taking of the 5th puts them in a different posture, not saying that anyone should say that they incriminated themselves, but that it is fitting to consider what role MF's taking of the 5th played in his subsequent perjury conviction.

[William Anthony]

William, are you talking about Jason Simpson?

I am talking about explanations for Simpson's seeming stupid conduct.

[Kate Sachel]

I meant his ultimate downfall in wanting to be the most famous in The Trial of the Century, when he came off, imho, as the most infamous. Oh yes, America is apologetic to those, who speak of racism, depending on who is the victim of such racist speech. MF could be worse but America seems content to forgive his transgressions and even reward him for them to some extent.


I know that we have held discussion regarding this matter on previous occasions, but I see no difference between a white man who uses racial slurs and a black man who does the same. I cannot speak for all of America, but I can say with certainty that while I found Jesse Jackson's use of the "n" word to be vile, I do not think it to discredit all of the wonderful work in civil rights that he has done.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

*****************************************
I think you go too far on assuming you know people's motives and making unpleasant assumpti0ons about people based on their occupation. You have posted a number of times about the motivations and beliefs of DAs, and some of the police (probalby including criminologists). Even if you had worked in a police dept, I would distrust this kind of thinking.

I also disapprove oif your generalizations about DA's even though it is often accurate. I think DAs are probably ofen slow and reluctant to turn over evidence that might help the defence. I recall reading about one DA who went to prison for failure to do that. I think I read that after he got out of prisno he was trying to get another job for a DA office. I hope not. I don't know if he was disbarred.

I think it is human nature for the DA's to be reluctant to turn evidence over, if they think the accused is guilty. A test of the DA's sense of right and wrong. So even though I thiink this is a common problem we shouildn't assume that the DAs are all a bunch of jerks. You claim to be interested in racial equalilty. You should realize that making disparging assumptions about a whole group of people is usaully wrong. Keep telling a man he is no good, and he may prove you right. To make insult any group of pepole on the basis of ther profession, whether it is lawyer, used car dealer, or whatever hurts the public interest. So there is sort of a tension there, a realizatin that both used car dealers and DA's are a necessary part of the country and yet they often have motives to make certain mistakes.

Years ago sme friends of mine complained about a DA named Henry Huidson for publically saying "I live to put people in jail'. They thought this was an inappropriate attitude.. He is now a judge in Virginia, and he sentenced Michael Vick to a sentence longer than the DAs asked for. This is fairly unusual. I disapprove of dog fighting, and don't regard Vick as a model citizen, but I think Henry Hudson's attitude abouthis work could use some improvement; to be less harsh.

I understand what you are trying to say in this post, however it is important to note that the DA has a responsibility to seek equal and impartial justice no matter how strong the personal belief that the defendant is guilty.


The DA represents the People, which includes all people, not only victims of a crime but the defendant as well. It is not a prosecutor's job to convict, it is their job to see that justice is done.

Kate

[tv]

I am talking about explanations for Simpson's seeming stupid conduct.
You referred to a loved one. I'm asking you if you are talking about Jason Simpson.

[William Anthony]

I know that we have held discussion regarding this matter on previous occasions, but I see no difference between a white man who uses racial slurs and a black man who does the same. I cannot speak for all of America, but I can say with certainty that while I found Jesse Jackson's use of the "n" word to be vile, I do not think it to discredit all of the wonderful work in civil rights that he has done.

Kate

I haven't heard of any wonderful works performed by MF in the area of civil rights.

[William Anthony]

You referred to a loved one. I'm asking you if you are talking about Jason Simpson.

Whomsoever Simpson may have or loves.

[tv]

Whomsoever Simpson may have or loves.

Feeling non committal again today?

[William Anthony]

I understand what you are trying to say in this post, however it is important to note that the DA has a responsibility to seek equal and impartial justice no matter how strong the personal belief that the defendant is guilty.


The DA represents the People, which includes all people, not only victims of a crime but the defendant as well. It is not a prosecutor's job to convict, it is their job to see that justice is done.

Kate

I agree but all too often a DA's rating and promotion is based on his/her conviction record.

[William Anthony]

Feeling non committal again today?

Aren't all men that way?:) I just think there are serious questions about who the murderer is. I am not convinced as some that Simpson is the murderer.

[Kate Sachel]

I haven't heard of any wonderful works performed by MF in the area of civil rights.

Please do not turn this into something it is not.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I agree but all too often a DA's rating and promotion is based on his/her conviction record.

I understand that but my point is that a DA has a responsibility to the People that should be upheld, and with that responsibility comes no excuse for not disclosing information that they have, even if favorable to the defendant.

Kate

[tv]

Aren't all men that way?:) I just think there are serious questions about who the murderer is. I am not convinced as some that Simpson is the murderer.

IMO, no one in Simpson's circle of loved ones had a reason or the mental capability to kill Nicole and Ron. Ron put up a tremendous fight for his life. He would have had a much better chance against Jason or any female among Simpson's loved ones. AC and Marcus Allen are the only males I can think of besides Jason that you may be thinking of and we know Marcus Allen was on vacation. Am I leaving out someone obvious?

[tv]

I meant his ultimate downfall in wanting to be the most famous in The Trial of the Century, when he came off, imho, as the most infamous. Oh yes, America is apologetic to those, who speak of racism, depending on who is the victim of such racist speech. MF could be worse but America seems content to forgive his transgressions and even reward him for them to some extent.

There are posts about many many others other than MF, DF and AP. However, you seem to only have noticed posts about those three but, if you recheck, you will see that I am correct. In fact, we were discussing the blood on the glove, in connection with the word, "them" and how the blood could have gotten "in" the Bronco, before we got side lined. We have discussed the evidence of planting. Since I have done no independent investigation into the planting, I must rely on the evidence of planting.
You speak of proof but I think you should consider that the prosecution failed to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was the murderer and the only proof beyond a reasonable doubt that was shown as a result of the trial was that MF committed perjury. In that vein and since AC was not charged with perjury, I think their taking of the 5th puts them in a different posture, not saying that anyone should say that they incriminated themselves, but that it is fitting to consider what role MF's taking of the 5th played in his subsequent perjury conviction.
You can't brush aside AC's reason for taking the 5th but condemn Mark Fuhrman for his. They both exercised their rights under the law.

[William Anthony]

Please do not turn this into something it is not.

Kate

I wasn't trying to. I understand why you do not discredit Jackson's work and he does not hold the same recognition, imho, that he once did in regard to some of his comments about Jews and Blacks. However, some of America seemed to embrace MF despite his comments.

[William Anthony]

I understand that but my point is that a DA has a responsibility to the People that should be upheld, and with that responsibility comes no excuse for not disclosing information that they have, even if favorable to the defendant.

Kate

Agreed.

[William Anthony]

IMO, no one in Simpson's circle of loved ones had a reason or the mental capability to kill Nicole and Ron. Ron put up a tremendous fight for his life. He would have had a much better chance against Jason or any female among Simpson's loved ones. AC and Marcus Allen are the only males I can think of besides Jason that you may be thinking of and we know Marcus Allen was on vacation. Am I leaving out someone obvious?

I don't know how you know of Jason's strengths. I think I would rather struggle with someone older rather than younger, if for no other reason than endurance. How much mental capability do you think is required to commit murder? I don't know if you are leaving someone obvious out as I do not all those Simpson loved or loves.

[William Anthony]

You can't brush aside AC's reason for taking the 5th but condemn Mark Fuhrman for his. They both exercised their rights under the law.

I haven't brushed aside anyone's reason for taking the 5th but I have stated that it is only natural to consider what part MF's taking of the 5th may have had in his subsequent perjury conviction, whereas AC was not subsequently convicted of perjury and a similar consideration would be irrelevant.

[tv]

I don't know how you know of Jason's strengths. I think I would rather struggle with someone older rather than younger, if for no other reason than endurance. How much mental capability do you think is required to commit murder? I don't know if you are leaving someone obvious out as I do not all those Simpson loved or loves.

William, Ron and Jason were very close in age -- only two years difference. Jason had played some football but he wasn't the powerful figure his father was. When I speak of mental capabililty I'm talking of being coldhearted and vicious enough to commit such a crime. It was a crime of rage in more than one expert's opinion. Who else had that rage against Nicole?

[tv]

I haven't brushed aside anyone's reason for taking the 5th but I have stated that it is only natural to consider what part MF's taking of the 5th may have had in his subsequent perjury conviction, whereas AC was not subsequently convicted of perjury and a similar consideration would be irrelevant.

AC took the 5th for some reason. What do you think it was? I think he's the one person in the world that knows for sure what happened besides OJ Simpson. Before you say anything about proof -- I don't have any.

[martin II]

I agree that Mark Fuhrman made a poor judgement in using that language but he seems to be doing alright now. He's a bestselling author and a contributor on Fox news. I'm sure life could be worse for him. On the other hand, OJ Simpson is sitting in a little cell...his diarrhea of the mouth seems to have been his downfall also.

On that note, can you guys talk about anything besides Dennis Fung, Mark Fuhrman or Allan Park? How about the fact that OJ Simpson's blood was found in three places on the Rockingham glove and there's no proof that you've been able to show that the glove was planted? How about OJ Simpson's blood and the victim's blood in the Bronco? How about Nicole being afraid of no one but OJ Simpson on the night she was killed? How about OJ Simpson's tell-all book? You keep mentioning Det. Fuhrman taking the 5th? What about AC Cowlings taking the 5th? If you think Mark Fuhrman was hiding something then what was AC Cowlings hiding?


Taking the 5th
I think ac was close to Nicole as well as OJ.
I believe that ac had a different reason for taking the 5th as opposed to Furhman.
I believe AC did not want to be questioned any further because he knew it would involve private stuff about Nicole as well as OJ.AC was also close to the Browns. I think it was out of respect for Nicole and the Browns that he did not want to be forced to open a can of worms showing Nicoles faults or
hurt the Browns more or OJS faults as far as abuse or anything else.I think he may have thought that enough had already been said about both.
AC had already been investigated by Darden and nothing was found to be out of order or any crime commited.

It may be that Furhman had fear of more N question use but i believe his main reason for taking the 5th was to evade more digging into his lapd record and or questions about all of his activities on 6/12--6/13 and after related to the case.Bill Pavalic stated that there was much more about Furhman activities that he evaded by talking the 5th.

imo

[William Anthony]

William, Ron and Jason were very close in age -- only two years difference. Jason had played some football but he wasn't the powerful figure his father was. When I speak of mental capabililty I'm talking of being coldhearted and vicious enough to commit such a crime. It was a crime of rage in more than one expert's opinion. Who else had that rage against Nicole?

You know that I have stayed away from this issue. I only question whether or not Simpson's conduct could have been by designed. I have had people feel rage for me that I have never offended. I had one, who later became my friend, tell me as much. I have had those same feelings about others. As Cedrick the Entertainer said, I had those feelings of "I wish he/she would" looking for an excuse to become violent. We never know who hates us or why, imho.

[William Anthony]

AC took the 5th for some reason. What do you think it was? I think he's the one person in the world that knows for sure what happened besides OJ Simpson. Before you say anything about proof -- I don't have any.

Have any evidence of, :)?

[martin II]

William, Ron and Jason were very close in age -- only two years difference. Jason had played some football but he wasn't the powerful figure his father was. When I speak of mental capabililty I'm talking of being coldhearted and vicious enough to commit such a crime. It was a crime of rage in more than one expert's opinion. Who else had that rage against Nicole?

Read William C Dears book and to you will find plenty on Jasons rage towards Nicole.

I think the way both were killed indicates that the killer meant to make sure both were dead.I don't know that it had to be only rage regardless of what some experts say.

[martin II]

Have any evidence of, :)?

Yep
What is the evidence that ac knew what happened??since there is no proof.

[tv]

Have any evidence of, :)?

Not really. I just have the knowledge that they had a life-long and very close friendship. I also know that OJ Simpson is a talker that was unlikely to keep what he did completely to himself. AC appeared to have genuine feelings for Nicole but he may have thought that betraying his friend's confidence wouldn't bring her back anyway. I told you before it's a feeling.

[tv]

Read William C Dears book and to you will find plenty on Jasons rage towards Nicole.

I think the way both were killed indicates that the killer meant to make sure both were dead.I don't know that it had to be only rage regardless of what some experts say.

It's my understanding that Jason and Nicole had a good relationship. If Jason could be responsible where is the forensic evidence? He had a lot of anger toward his father as evidenced by him trying to destroy the statue of his father with a baseball bat.

[William Anthony]

Not really. I just have the knowledge that they had a life-long and very close friendship. I also know that OJ Simpson is a talker that was unlikely to keep what he did completely to himself. AC appeared to have genuine feelings for Nicole but he may have thought that betraying his friend's confidence wouldn't bring her back anyway. I told you before it's a feeling.

I understand. I get the feeling that AC was much more powerful than we think in terms of his ability to be a friend and, once he made a friend of Nicole, his feelings toward her and her children would have made his speak out but you maybe right as he may have chosen to remain silent out of respect for her and her children.

[martin II]

IMO, no one in Simpson's circle of loved ones had a reason or the mental capability to kill Nicole and Ron. Ron put up a tremendous fight for his life. He would have had a much better chance against Jason or any female among Simpson's loved ones. AC and Marcus Allen are the only males I can think of besides Jason that you may be thinking of and we know Marcus Allen was on vacation. Am I leaving out someone obvious?

tv

when oj was at LAX on 6/12 at about 11: 15 talking to one of the sky caps that he gave the authograph to the Sky Cap said that just before Oj arrived
Marcus Allen had just caught a plane at the airport. So he may have been on vacation the next day or after but it appeaers that he was in LA ON 6/12 according to the sky cap.

[tv]

tv

when oj was at LAX on 6/12 at about 11: 15 talking to one of the sky caps that he gave the authograph to the Sky Cap said that just before Oj arrived
Marcus Allen had just caught a plane at the airport. So he may have been on vacation the next day or after but it appeaers that he was in LA ON 6/12 according to the sky cap.

What reason would he have to kill Ron and Nicole?

[tv]

I understand. I get the feeling that AC was much more powerful than we think in terms of his ability to be a friend and, once he made a friend of Nicole, his feelings toward her and her children would have made his speak out but you maybe right as he may have chosen to remain silent out of respect for her and her children.

I don't thing it would be out of respect for Nicole but rather out of respect for his friendship with Simpson. At times, people do things out of loyalty whether they want to do them or not. I don't see any trace of AC in Simpson's life in recent years.

[martin II]

It's my understanding that Jason and Nicole had a good relationship. If Jason could be responsible where is the forensic evidence? He had a lot of anger toward his father as evidenced by him trying to destroy the statue of his father with a baseball bat.

tv
The base ball incident was one incident of anger by jason agianst oj. Since then there does not seem to have been another like that up to today.Jason lives in Florida also and is employed as a cook.

[William Anthony]

It's my understanding that Jason and Nicole had a good relationship. If Jason could be responsible where is the forensic evidence? He had a lot of anger toward his father as evidenced by him trying to destroy the statue of his father with a baseball bat.

I know you like my stories so here's another one. After my father died, I refused to do a job in the steel mill, which was outside my job description. A Black male, who we referred to as an uncle tom, was sitting in the foreman's office when I refused. He spoke up and said I wasn't half the man my father was and that my father would have just did the job. I asked him was he half the man his father was. He said no but he was trying to be. I told him that was the difference. I know who I am but he did not, only not that politely. The foreman couldn't control his laughter. My father had the wisdom to raise me to be my own man, which avoided a lot of anger resulting from competition, if you catch my meaning. The only thing I wanted to better my father in was in wisdom but I think I failed.

[martin II]

I don't thing it would be out of respect for Nicole but rather out of respect for his friendship with Simpson. At times, people do things out of loyalty whether they want to do them or not. I don't see any trace of AC in Simpson's life in recent years.

I don't think AC would want to trash Nicole anymore than Faye did in talks with Cora or her book. Do you have any way of knowing what AC relationship is with oj?

[tv]

tv
The base ball incident was one incident of anger by jason agianst oj. Since then there does not seem to have been another like that up to today.Jason lives in Florida also and is employed as a cook.

There's none that we know of but I've read that OJ Simpson was disappointed in Jason as an athlete. That kind of thing can be very hard on a kid trying to live up to his talented and famous father's expectations.

[tv]

I don't think AC would want to trash Nicole anymore than Faye did in talks with Cora or her book. Do you have any way of knowing what AC relationship is with oj?I don't know what it is now, no.

[William Anthony]

I don't thing it would be out of respect for Nicole but rather out of respect for his friendship with Simpson. At times, people do things out of loyalty whether they want to do them or not. I don't see any trace of AC in Simpson's life in recent years.

You may be right but I was taught to stand up for what is right, even if it means my friends or family are wrong and, if they are truly friends and loved ones, they will understand. I do not believe in misplaced loyalty as the person, if they are able to understand, will see that I am being loyal by trying to make them see the error of their ways and, if they don't, so be it.

[martin II]

What reason would he have to kill Ron and Nicole?

I did not say Marcus Allen killed anyone.I just correctred your statement that he was on vacation someplace.

[tv]

I know you like my stories so here's another one. After my father died, I refused to do a job in the steel mill, which was outside my job description. A Black male, who we referred to as an uncle tom, was sitting in the foreman's office when I refused. He spoke up and said I wasn't half the man my father was and that my father would have just did the job. I asked him was he half the man his father was. He said no but he was trying to be. I told him that was the difference. I know who I am but he did not, only not that politely. The foreman couldn't control his laughter. My father had the wisdom to raise me to be my own man, which avoided a lot of anger resulting from competition, if you catch my meaning. The only thing I wanted to better my father in was in wisdom but I think I failed.

Interesting story. We all have to follow our own drummer and establish our own identity.

Do you think that it's possible that OJ Simpson pushed his shy, less talented son to excel in athletics? Don't you think that could make a son angry toward his father?

[martin II]

There's none that we know of but I've read that OJ Simpson was disappointed in Jason as an athlete. That kind of thing can be very hard on a kid trying to live up to his talented and famous father's expectations.

Jason dropped the football playing and went to cook school.He was employed as a cook in a local resturant when the murders occured.You may be trying to create some issues that don't exist to bash oj again.

[tv]

I did not say Marcus Allen killed anyone.I just correctred your statement that he was on vacation someplace.

He was on vacation when he was notified of Nicole's death.

[tv]

You may be right but I was taught to stand up for what is right, even if it means my friends or family are wrong and, if they are truly friends and loved ones, they will understand. I do not believe in misplaced loyalty as the person, if they are able to understand, will see that I am being loyal by trying to make them see the error of their ways and, if they don't, so be it.

Possibly Al Cowlings doesn't share your philosophy.

[tv]

Jason dropped the football playing and went to cook school.He was employed as a cook in a local resturant when the murders occured.You may be trying to create some issues that don't exist to bash oj again.

I'm not trying to bash him. These problems exist in many families. I was just trying to figure out the dynamics of their relationship. Time for me to take a break.

[William Anthony]

Interesting story. We all have to follow our own drummer and establish our own identity.

Do you think that it's possible that OJ Simpson pushed his shy, less talented son to excel in athletics? Don't you think that could make a son angry toward his father?

Very possible as I have seen that done and it usually leads to sons that want to outdo their fathers in some area, if they fail in one.

[William Anthony]

Possibly Al Cowlings doesn't share your philosophy.

Possibly, but from what little I read of AC he seems to be his own man.