Random Discussions On The Case

[martin II]

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?

tv
First can you give some proof that oj pushed his son to play football.Then some proof that Jason was shy.
I read William C Dears book out linning Jasons life and read nothing about him being shy or that oj desire/pressure that he play football was ever a major issue between them.You do remember when oj and AC returned to rockingham
after that ride it was jason that ignored le and ran to the Bronco to see if his father was ok.

You may get a shock if you read Dears book.Dear documents that the therpist
that was seeing oj, Nicole,Jason and another person actually shreeded all the
of their records two days after the murders and moved his office to Texas.imo

[martin II]

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

I don't know when he heard about Nicoles death or where he was But according to the testimony to those sky caps Marcus Allen caught a plane out of lax a short time before oj talked to them as he was going into the airport to catch his flight to Chicago.imo

[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 would guess that AC and Nicole had something like a brother sister kind of relationship that did not conflict with Nicole and Ojs. I think that oj respected
AC relationship with Nicole and that AC would be the last person that oj would tell he had killed her if he did. imo

[martin II]

OJS activities

Most golfers chip balls at every chance they get.Some golfers even chip balls in their offices while at work.Some do so in the living rooms of their house, and many that have a yard do so there.

ON 6/12 Kato had told oj that he appeared tired and may need to take a nap and that may be true because on the evening of 6/11 i think it was he had returned to Brentwood from a week of work in NY He did play a round of golf on the morning on 6/12. So after returning from Mc Donalds and chipping balls for a few minutes he said he took a short nap used the toilet and then took a shower to refresh himself for his trip.

After the shower he put on a black robe and brought two duffle bags down to the front porch, walked to get the golf bag and moved it to the bench at the porch.

He then turned and walked back into the house and Park says he saw him at this time. He turned on the lights to the porch, answered the buzzer phone, put on his clothes, grabbed his LV bag and came down to the limo.

I see nothing so strange about what he did.

[martin II]

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

Since there was no knife and shoes found to connect oj to the murders i guess it is easy to try to blame someione that knew oj so it must be AC.Even though AC was investigated by Darden as he tried to find something to charge AC with.He found nothing and was forced to give up.So why claim AC did or knew anything.:shrug:

[William Anthony]

Since there was no knife and shoes found to connect oj to the murders i guess it is easy to try to blame someione that knew oj so it must be AC.Even though AC was investigated by Darden as he tried to find something to charge AC with.He found nothing and was forced to give up.So why claim AC did or knew anything.:shrug:

The poster admitted it was only a feeling. I think it would take an unbelievable amount of loyalty to protect the murderer of two people, especially when one of those murdered was a friend.

[martin II]

After some research it seems that RK should have been looked at more closely by the la DA.

[GreenIce]

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

William,

I have to disagree. It was not his downfall, but his crowning moment. It was the downfall of DA's and the other LAPD members. Like one juror said, she embraced him, treated him like an angel on the stand and then denounced him in the closing arguments.

[GreenIce]

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,

I agree with you, it is time to clear this up. Perhaps you can tell me what the difference is between Nicole slapping the maid vs punching the maid?

Simpson used the term "punched".

[GreenIce]

"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."

William,

IMO, Judge Ito's overruling Cochran's objection makes no sense. What does it matter if LHM and MF were lovers? What does that change about the tapes?

IMO, Darden and the Judge with his ruling, were trying to give the impression that LHM was a scorned woman. Again, what does this have to do with the tapes?

[GreenIce]

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,

It appears to me that many people feel if one uses the n-word, then that makes him racist. I totally disagree with this. I do believe it is the other words that surround it tell the real story.

Also, I think most G's have missed JC's point on this. MF was in a position of authority, he was a police officer. Rev. Jackson is not employed by a government or state agency.

It was the same in his closing arguments. He did not compare Hitler's crimes to MF, only that many people felt Hitler was a 'half baked' painter and no matter how much power he countinued, he was still underestimated. Countries who were so afraid of another world war were making concession up concession to him and even after he had them all, he still wanted more.

IMO, JC was right to make that comparison--about what happens when we write off a racist as "half baked". Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

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,

Here is a thought, Paula B. writes in her book that she felt horrified about Nicole's death because she wished her dead. Most people who say this say it to another person or persons.

Doesn't it strike you odd that Paula's car was stolen and there was a log in it documenting Nicole's activities? Could some one have been trying to set Paula up?

[GreenIce]

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

Martin and William,

IMO, there is a way to get a better picture of this event. How many times was Robert H., interviewed by the DA's-LAPD and when did these interviews take place?

It appears to me that Robert H. was told by the DA's he was an important witness to their case. Did Darden go back and interview him after he knew the defense was going to use him for their timeline?

[GreenIce]

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,

Believe it or not, I don't think the DA's were afraid about Rosa's testimony about when she saw the Bronco. IMO, I think they did want her to testify infront of the jury about what she heard that night, rather then what she saw. Nor did they want her to testify about MF's visit the next morning as well as MF asking her permission if he could go back and check things out on her side of the fence.

However, it makes no sense that he would even ask Rosa for permission, since she didn't own the property. Come to think about it, I don't even know if other people were in the house that night.

IMO, I think it is possible that who ever planted the glove realized that a light was on in a room and at that time of the night, it is a fair assumption that someone might be in that room.

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

I can't remember which one of you or if it is both of you regarding, MF's use of the word, "them", when asking what he saw. I never put much stock into this argument until I thought of this today.

Didn't Fuhrman write in his notes the prep may have been bitten by dog? Well why would he even write that unless he saw some evidence to support this? In other words, he had to get close enough to the glove to see a possible dog bite on the glove, wouldn't he? If the Rockingham glove has the bite marks, then isn't that another strong suggestion that MF again has been caught?

Which one of the gloves had the bite marks and where were thest bite marks on the glove. I always wondered how the gloves came off, but now that I think about, I can see a dog biting the glove and person wearing the glove just give it him. Its not like the person is going to win this one!

Also, how were the killers able to keep Kato still and quiet and keep the dog from running inside the condo?

However, even if there are no bite marks on the glove, why did Fuhrman say that the prep may have been bitten by a dog? I don't think it would have been possible to determine by looking at the drops explains why this person is bleeding.

The other thing that confused me is why he wrote possible GSW, possible gun shot wound. How long would it take the smell of the gunpowder to go away? Did MF think that two weapons were used, as in a gun and a knife?

[William Anthony]

William,

Here is a thought, Paula B. writes in her book that she felt horrified about Nicole's death because she wished her dead. Most people who say this say it to another person or persons.

Doesn't it strike you odd that Paula's car was stolen and there was a log in it documenting Nicole's activities? Could some one have been trying to set Paula up?

I am aware of the fact that people sometimes claim their weapons or guns or stolen in an attempt to cover any possible connection to crimes. I have no reason to suggest or imply that Ms. B was involved in the crime but I do find it strange that another person would keep a log on another person's activities, unless the person keeping the log was a PI or LE member and odd that her car was stolen. A log of another person's activities shows a certain amount of obsession for lack of a better word. However, I have known men and women, who have done far more in terms of having suspicions about loved ones or jealousy of another person that have not resorted to murder. I think it may be a symptom of youth but I cannot say that definitively, as I knew an older man who stood all day long on the corner, where we gathered, watching the cars as they went by. When I asked some of my friends why he stood there like he did, they told me he was looking into the passing cars to see if his wife, who had left him, was in any of the cars. I wondered what he would have done had she have been but I had sense enough not to ask him.:)

[William Anthony]

William,

It appears to me that many people feel if one uses the n-word, then that makes him racist. I totally disagree with this. I do believe it is the other words that surround it tell the real story.

Also, I think most G's have missed JC's point on this. MF was in a position of authority, he was a police officer. Rev. Jackson is not employed by a government or state agency.

It was the same in his closing arguments. He did not compare Hitler's crimes to MF, only that many people felt Hitler was a 'half baked' painter and no matter how much power he countinued, he was still underestimated. Countries who were so afraid of another world war were making concession up concession to him and even after he had them all, he still wanted more.

IMO, JC was right to make that comparison--about what happens when we write off a racist as "half baked". Again, IMO.

I could write a thesis on the subject of the use of the N word and other words by who and when and how but I won't. Instead, I ask a question that has always puzzled me when I first leaned of him in high school. Who was Crispus Attucks and why was he at the Boston Tea Party?:)

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, Judge Ito's overruling Cochran's objection makes no sense. What does it matter if LHM and MF were lovers? What does that change about the tapes?

IMO, Darden and the Judge with his ruling, were trying to give the impression that LHM was a scorned woman. Again, what does this have to do with the tapes?

I think Ito allowed the question on the issue of bias. However, Darden had to have a good faith basis for asking the question and Darden had been told by MF that he and LHM had been lovers and allegedly had a letter. However, that letter was never produced and Darden's question was asked in a hearing outside the presence of the jury, IIRC, and never asked in the jury's presence. What makes everyone think that, if it was true, LHM was a scorned woman? Have they ever considered the possibility that she like some of the female witnesses that testified rejected MF after hearing his vile, reprehensible, despicable and demonic words?

[William Anthony]

Martin and William,

I can't remember which one of you or if it is both of you regarding, MF's use of the word, "them", when asking what he saw. I never put much stock into this argument until I thought of this today.

Didn't Fuhrman write in his notes the prep may have been bitten by dog? Well why would he even write that unless he saw some evidence to support this? In other words, he had to get close enough to the glove to see a possible dog bite on the glove, wouldn't he? If the Rockingham glove has the bite marks, then isn't that another strong suggestion that MF again has been caught?

Which one of the gloves had the bite marks and where were thest bite marks on the glove. I always wondered how the gloves came off, but now that I think about, I can see a dog biting the glove and person wearing the glove just give it him. Its not like the person is going to win this one!

Also, how were the killers able to keep Kato still and quiet and keep the dog from running inside the condo?

However, even if there are no bite marks on the glove, why did Fuhrman say that the prep may have been bitten by a dog? I don't think it would have been possible to determine by looking at the drops explains why this person is bleeding.

The other thing that confused me is why he wrote possible GSW, possible gun shot wound. How long would it take the smell of the gunpowder to go away? Did MF think that two weapons were used, as in a gun and a knife?

I will reread the testimony before responding to see if the GSW was brought up during the trial and if he gave an explanation.

[William Anthony]

I am aware of the fact that people sometimes claim their weapons or guns or stolen in an attempt to cover any possible connection to crimes. I have no reason to suggest or imply that Ms. B was involved in the crime but I do find it strange that another person would keep a log on another person's activities, unless the person keeping the log was a PI or LE member and odd that her car was stolen. A log of another person's activities shows a certain amount of obsession for lack of a better word. However, I have known men and women, who have done far more in terms of having suspicions about loved ones or jealousy of another person that have not resorted to murder. I think it may be a symptom of youth but I cannot say that definitively, as I knew an older man who stood all day long on the corner, where we gathered, watching the cars as they went by. When I asked some of my friends why he stood there like he did, they told me he was looking into the passing cars to see if his wife, who had left him, was in any of the cars. I wondered what he would have done had she have been but I had sense enough not to ask him.:)

Correction-...claim there weapons or cars were stolen...

[GreenIce]

I am aware of the fact that people sometimes claim their weapons or guns or stolen in an attempt to cover any possible connection to crimes. I have no reason to suggest or imply that Ms. B was involved in the crime but I do find it strange that another person would keep a log on another person's activities, unless the person keeping the log was a PI or LE member and odd that her car was stolen. A log of another person's activities shows a certain amount of obsession for lack of a better word. However, I have known men and women, who have done far more in terms of having suspicions about loved ones or jealousy of another person that have not resorted to murder. I think it may be a symptom of youth but I cannot say that definitively, as I knew an older man who stood all day long on the corner, where we gathered, watching the cars as they went by. When I asked some of my friends why he stood there like he did, they told me he was looking into the passing cars to see if his wife, who had left him, was in any of the cars. I wondered what he would have done had she have been but I had sense enough not to ask him.:)

Martin,

There was no evidence, in either trial that Simpson was stalking Nicole. There is evidence that she was being stalked but it appears to me that the LAPD showed no interest in this even before the murders happened. And after the murders happened, it was like they couldn't get away from it fast enough.


I wonder if Nicole was told about this? We knew she was getting those phone calls, we knew she was asking friends, including Simpson to be on the look out for someone. I don't understand how all of this could have been overlooked and/or it was written off as being irrelvent. IMO, had the DA's seriously explored these other "leads", the case may have turned out differently---well at least the four lead detectives would not have had the credibililty problems they had. Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

I think Ito allowed the question on the issue of bias. However, Darden had to have a good faith basis for asking the question and Darden had been told by MF that he and LHM had been lovers and allegedly had a letter. However, that letter was never produced and Darden's question was asked in a hearing outside the presence of the jury, IIRC, and never asked in the jury's presence. What makes everyone think that, if it was true, LHM was a scorned woman? Have they ever considered the possibility that she like some of the female witnesses that testified rejected MF after hearing his vile, reprehensible, despicable and demonic words?

William,

You bring up a good point. There were several hours of tapes over a significant amount of time. If LHM and MF had an affair, it is very possible in the beginning she thought he was just telling stories and then became repulsed when she realized that he isn't telling stories, he is the real deal die hard racist.

However, Judge Ito's ruling still doesn't make sense. It appears to me that MF was acting more like scorned lover the LHM was. He kept a "love" letter for how many years? Why did he keep such a letter? Why did he call her weeks after the murders and talk about the glove?

I still can't believe Ito didn't let that part in about the glove and how important he was in the case.

Another point, there were many more witnesses the defense could have used to prove MF perjured himself. Was the court going to allow the DA's to ask if they all slept with MF as well? Even the guys?

[GreenIce]

Just to clear this up. Paula's stolen car was not a white bronco. I was under the impression that it was a white bronco but it was not.

[William Anthony]

William,

You bring up a good point. There were several hours of tapes over a significant amount of time. If LHM and MF had an affair, it is very possible in the beginning she thought he was just telling stories and then became repulsed when she realized that he isn't telling stories, he is the real deal die hard racist.

However, Judge Ito's ruling still doesn't make sense. It appears to me that MF was acting more like scorned lover the LHM was. He kept a "love" letter for how many years? Why did he keep such a letter? Why did he call her weeks after the murders and talk about the glove?

I still can't believe Ito didn't let that part in about the glove and how important he was in the case.

Another point, there were many more witnesses the defense could have used to prove MF perjured himself. Was the court going to allow the DA's to ask if they all slept with MF as well? Even the guys?

It is just my belief and I will research the issue, because it is important to me if my health permits me to further my goals, to see if the question was overruled because it happened outside of the presence of the jury, meaning that no prejudice occurred. I agree that the statement, about if MF went down the case went down, should have been allowed. In fact, I do believe that it would have been allowed when MF was recalled by the defense had MF not taken the 5th.

[William Anthony]

Just to clear this up. Paula's stolen car was not a white bronco. I was under the impression that it was a white bronco but it was not.

To me the log was the more important issue.

[William Anthony]

GreenIce,

You know that MF was creating a role, even during the trial, imho. He was creating "Howie Dirty". :)

[martin II]

William,

Here is a thought, Paula B. writes in her book that she felt horrified about Nicole's death because she wished her dead. Most people who say this say it to another person or persons.

Doesn't it strike you odd that Paula's car was stolen and there was a log in it documenting Nicole's activities? Could some one have been trying to set Paula up?

Bosco writes that B Walsh SP told him RK hired him to steal Paulas car and to kill Nicole.It was BW that made the notes of Nicoles movements that were found in Paulas car. BW says he also took pictures of Marcus Allen and Nicole
in the back seat of a car in a parking lot being intimate and gave them to RK.
BW became afraid that he was being set up by RK for Nicoles murder and backed out. He then got high and was stopped by le after a car chase.BW was sentenced and was in jail when Nicole was killed.Some time later he died.

When BW was arrested the notebook containing the notes of Nicoles movements were given to LA DAS office so they had them during the oj trial.

[martin II]

To me the log was the more important issue.

Paulas car was a white FOUR RUNNER.

[martin II]

Bosco
Writes That B Hodgenson sp knew about that notebook and two other detectives were assigned to start a investigation into the matter of the notebook and the gun found on BW.That after a very short time, m Clarke closed the investigation down.That that notebook is still in the hands of LA DAS OFFICE.IMO

[William Anthony]

Bosco
Writes That B Hodgenson sp knew about that notebook and two other detectives were assigned to start a investigation into the matter of the notebook and the gun found on BW.That after a very short time, m Clarke closed the investigation down.That that notebook is still in the hands of LA DAS OFFICE.IMO

I am having trouble getting to the transcripts but was Lang asked about the notebook during the trial. I would think that the notebook would have been discoverable.

[William Anthony]

I have a need to correct an earlier statement as Crispus Attucks was killed at the Boston Massacre.

[martin II]

I am having trouble getting to the transcripts but was Lang asked about the notebook during the trial. I would think that the notebook would have been discoverable.

Bosco:
There were about 20 rolls of Undeveloped film of Nicole that BW said he took and gave to RK.

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

I agree with you, it is time to clear this up. Perhaps you can tell me what the difference is between Nicole slapping the maid vs punching the maid?

Simpson used the term "punched".

I do believe that you can find the definitions of both "slap" and "punch" in any dictionary you may have handy at your desk or online.

Afterward, perhaps you can refer me to where I might find OJ Simpson's statement regarding this incident in which he used the word "punched". I would be more than happy to view his statements regarding such.

After that perhaps you can advise whether or not the difference between slapping and punching is the only issue that you care to clear up in regard to this matter, or if it is equally important to you that the year and reason behind the incident be discussed correctly as I have noted that you have kept mum regarding such.

After that perhaps it is time to clear up several other misconceptions, such as things you have falsely accused me of, or providing those pesky links you said that you would find.

I recall earlier reference to ilk. What goes around comes around perhaps?

Kate

[martin II]

For me it does not matter if nicole slapped Michael or punched her. It was hitting with the hand. whatever it was it was enough for Michael to end up on the floor from the blow. So i would call it a physical attack by Nicole. imo

[Kate Sachel]

For me it does not matter if nicole slapped Michael or punched her. It was hitting with the hand. whatever it was it was enough for Michael to end up on the floor from the blow. So i would call it a physical attack by Nicole. imo

I don't believe that I have disputed whether or not it was a physical attack, nor have I seen anyone else on this forum dispute such.

However, you and GreenIce are so often gung-ho on "correcting" other people's improper descriptions of scenarios and yet neither of the two of you seem to be willing to be corrected in turn. Obviously that is a personal issue that you alone can either choose to address or ignore, but I, at least, am proud to be able to say that when I am wrong I stand corrected. Period. I, at least, am proud to be my very own individual self rather than choosing constantly to find validation in fellow forum goers. I am a "Kate" and not a "G" and I have stood up for the equal rights of every single poster on this forum regardless of whether I agree or disagree with their position and I certainly don't have child-like temper tantrum breakdowns when someone does not agree with me and my views.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Bosco:
There were about 20 rolls of Undeveloped film of Nicole that BW said he took and gave to RK.

I am wondering if the defense had knowledge of these claims.

[martin II]

I am wondering if the defense had knowledge of these claims.

I will let you know if i find it.

It seems that BH and the other two detectives were not pleased that Clarke closed the investigation down.I think one detective interviewed BW and found him very credible althought he was a addict.

[William Anthony]

I will let you know if i find it.

It seems that BH and the other two detectives were not pleased that Clarke closed the investigation down.I think one detective interviewed BW and found him very credible althought he was a addict.

Thanks and I did a word search of Lange's testimony for Wasz but did not find anything. If I was the defense, I would have made a great deal of that issue, if I knew about it.

[martin II]

This is from another source


THE WASZ DOCUMENTS


In the summer of 1994, at the height of the Simpson case frenzy, there was a report that Barbieri's car had been stolen, and when it was recovered in the back of that was found a "stalking diary" that purported to record someone's having followed Nicole, and documented their observations. Like so many other reports, it erupted, blew over, and was quickly replaced by some fresh sensation. It was not until much later that I learned that such an incident did happen, the person who had stalked Nicole was named "Bill Wasz" (see photo), and that this happened six months before the Bundy murders, in January of 1994.

Information about this incident has dribbled out slowly and variously. (Both Barbieri and Lange&Vannatter mention it in their books.) The first that I saw was a January 12, 1998 column by Bill Boyarsky of the L.A. Times, in which he mentioned an incident of meeting Joe Bosco at the Van Nuys courthouse, and Bosco described to him an investigation of the matter that Bosco was involved in.

A few months later, in April of 1998, the "Longo proffer" was circulated among internet gossip outlets, and for the first time named Bill Wasz as being the center of the incident (the person who had stolen Barbieri's car and written the diary.) Larry Longo is a Playa Del Rey attorney who was representing Wasz at the time, and the proffer was a brief recitation of what Wasz would tell prosecutors about the incident, if they were interested. In that, Wasz claimed that he had been hired in January 1994 to first stalk Nicole, and he did that; then he was hired to murder Nicole (with a gun in February 1994), but he double crossed Kardashain and backed out.

[martin II]

The most comprehensive account was published by WorldNetDaily in a series of twelve articles by David Bresnahan in December of 1998. This was the result of actual interviews of Wasz in prison, interviews with other people (including Bosco), and review of documents and other records. It is a very comprehensive and mostly credible account, I think. There is no doubt that Bill Wasz has some connection to the people involved in the Bundy murders, but it could be much debated what that connection is. I have integrated the Wasz account into my own understanding of the crime.

I have previously shown at our site the Boyarsy article and the Longo proffer, and now reprint the Bresnahan series. It consists of 12 text articles and six graphic images of the actual pages from the stalking diary. At the end of the twelfth article there are instructions for writing yourself to Wasz in prison.

[martin II]

Kate,

I agree with you, it is time to clear this up. Perhaps you can tell me what the difference is between Nicole slapping the maid vs punching the maid?

Simpson used the term "punched".

GI

I agree. I don't think it mattered to Michael whether she was hit with a open hand or a closed fist and maby Nicole would not even remember. Trying to determine which is useless unless one is looking to create a argumeent for some other reason. So i am going to call it a fist slap or we can just say that Nicole in her anger HIT Michael which knocked her to the floor.
hahaha

[martin II]

Thanks and I did a word search of Lange's testimony for Wasz but did not find anything. If I was the defense, I would have made a great deal of that issue, if I knew about it.

It seems that L Longo a ex LA DA and representing B Wasz wrote a profer to the la DAS office Curtis Hazell on 3/16/98 to have them interview B Wasz in jail on this issue. There is no record of any response.

[William Anthony]

It seems that L Longo a ex LA DA and representing B Wasz wrote a profer to the la DAS office Curtis Hazell on 3/16/98 to have them interview B Wasz in jail on this issue. There is no record of any response.

Perhaps, the court of public opinion played some part, if there was no response.

[Kate Sachel]

GI

I agree. I don't think it mattered to Michael whether she was hit with a open hand or a closed fist and maby Nicole would not even remember. Trying to determine which is useless unless one is looking to create a argumeent for some other reason. So i am going to call it a fist slap or we can just say that Nicole in her anger HIT Michael which knocked her to the floor.
hahaha

By the way, I can find nothing to substantiate that Michelle was knocked to the floor as a result of Nicole's slap. For those of you who wish to post that this is what happened, kindly supply the information so that it can be viewed by those of us interested in factual events.

Kate

[Jayme K]

That is a possibility but i did read that the case would have never been that long in a British court.

Well huh - we don't live in Britain so I guess it doesn't matter.

[Jayme K]

He is downright lying about covering Nicole's body out of respect. As I posted before, I gave examples how from the minute Officer Riske saw that picture of Simpon on the wall, he knew the media was going to all over.



This is a reckless statement to make and you need to ante up right now about how you KNOW that Lange is downright lying about covering Nicole's body out of respect. He share that with you over coffee and donuts at breakfast or what, cause I don't see an "IMO" following behind.

This nonsense junk that you keep on posting needs to end and it needs to end soon, along with your disgusting remarks toward other people on this board.

[martin II]

GI

Your post bring important information to the thread which has caused informative discussions by most. Please continue.:beer:

[Jayme K]

GI

Your post bring important information to the thread which has caused informative discussions by most. Please continue.:beer:

LMFAO! That's the funniest stuff I've heard all month - THANKS!

[William Anthony]

The prosecution put on fourteen witnesses in their rebuttal case most of whom were there about pictures to rebut the mental picture, imho, which was left in the jury's mind of the gloves that did not fit.

[martin II]

The prosecution put on fourteen witnesses in their rebuttal case most of whom were there about pictures to rebut the mental picture, imho, which was left in the jury's mind of the gloves that did not fit.

True Dat
The jury listened to all of the prosecution witness mistakes and the damage the defence did to these witnesses on cross. The picture was not good and the rebutal witnesses job was to somehow clean up this distorted picture.
The damage was so deep that those witnesses could not make the picture clear.

[GreenIce]

Bosco writes that B Walsh SP told him RK hired him to steal Paulas car and to kill Nicole.It was BW that made the notes of Nicoles movements that were found in Paulas car. BW says he also took pictures of Marcus Allen and Nicole
in the back seat of a car in a parking lot being intimate and gave them to RK.
BW became afraid that he was being set up by RK for Nicoles murder and backed out. He then got high and was stopped by le after a car chase.BW was sentenced and was in jail when Nicole was killed.Some time later he died.

When BW was arrested the notebook containing the notes of Nicoles movements were given to LA DAS office so they had them during the oj trial.

Martin,

The DA's tried like hell to force Kardashian to the stand. With BW's statements alone, the DA's had all the reasons they needed to get him on the stand. In reading all the books, as it happens, OJ and RK were not as close at the time of the murders as they once were. I have read nothing about RK that would lead me to believe that he was not a good man. It appears to me that OJ and Nicole did remain closer to RK's ex-wife, Kris and her new husband (at the time) Bruce Jenner.

I still can't determine if Nicole, Paula and Simpson were told about the notebook. And if someone was watching Nicole, isn't it very possible that someone was also watching OJ Simpson?

[GreenIce]

Bosco
Writes That B Hodgenson sp knew about that notebook and two other detectives were assigned to start a investigation into the matter of the notebook and the gun found on BW.That after a very short time, m Clarke closed the investigation down.That that notebook is still in the hands of LA DAS OFFICE.IMO

Martin,

Isn't it a fair question why this wasn't investigated when the notebook was first found? And what right did Clark have to shut down this investigation? The only reason that I can think that Clark shut it down was because it pointed away from Simpson.

[martin II]

Martin,

Isn't it a fair question why this wasn't investigated when the notebook was first found? And what right did Clark have to shut down this investigation? The only reason that I can think that Clark shut it down was because it pointed away from Simpson.

Bosco said that GG and Clarke were very close and had simular larger obectives in th DAS office.Clarke shut it down over the opinions of other la DAS that wanted to continue.
RK was not as clean as many think he was. BH wanted to continue because he wanted to indict RK.

What i am trying to unravel is when BW double crossed RK on killing nicole did RK just forget about killing Nicole or did he do something else.

[martin II]

Martin,

The DA's tried like hell to force Kardashian to the stand. With BW's statements alone, the DA's had all the reasons they needed to get him on the stand. In reading all the books, as it happens, OJ and RK were not as close at the time of the murders as they once were. I have read nothing about RK that would lead me to believe that he was not a good man. It appears to me that OJ and Nicole did remain closer to RK's ex-wife, Kris and her new husband (at the time) Bruce Jenner.

I still can't determine if Nicole, Paula and Simpson were told about the notebook. And if someone was watching Nicole, isn't it very possible that someone was also watching OJ Simpson?

The notebook contained info of someone trailing her i don't know why le would not inform her.

[martin II]

Martin,

The DA's tried like hell to force Kardashian to the stand. With BW's statements alone, the DA's had all the reasons they needed to get him on the stand. In reading all the books, as it happens, OJ and RK were not as close at the time of the murders as they once were. I have read nothing about RK that would lead me to believe that he was not a good man. It appears to me that OJ and Nicole did remain closer to RK's ex-wife, Kris and her new husband (at the time) Bruce Jenner.

I still can't determine if Nicole, Paula and Simpson were told about the notebook. And if someone was watching Nicole, isn't it very possible that someone was also watching OJ Simpson?

Well with BW statement it would point to someone other than oj that ordered Nicole killed. It would point to RK and Clarke had said it was oj and only oj.
:shrug:

[martin II]

The prosecution put on fourteen witnesses in their rebuttal case most of whom were there about pictures to rebut the mental picture, imho, which was left in the jury's mind of the gloves that did not fit.

Herbert MacDonell the only defence rebutal witness totally destroyed Rubins claim that the gloves had shrinkage of 15--20%.

[martin II]

Martin,

The DA's tried like hell to force Kardashian to the stand. With BW's statements alone, the DA's had all the reasons they needed to get him on the stand. In reading all the books, as it happens, OJ and RK were not as close at the time of the murders as they once were. I have read nothing about RK that would lead me to believe that he was not a good man. It appears to me that OJ and Nicole did remain closer to RK's ex-wife, Kris and her new husband (at the time) Bruce Jenner.

I still can't determine if Nicole, Paula and Simpson were told about the notebook. And if someone was watching Nicole, isn't it very possible that someone was also watching OJ Simpson?

RK became a oj lawyer how would that effect the situation William?

[GreenIce]

I do believe that you can find the definitions of both "slap" and "punch" in any dictionary you may have handy at your desk or online.

Afterward, perhaps you can refer me to where I might find OJ Simpson's statement regarding this incident in which he used the word "punched". I would be more than happy to view his statements regarding such.

After that perhaps you can advise whether or not the difference between slapping and punching is the only issue that you care to clear up in regard to this matter, or if it is equally important to you that the year and reason behind the incident be discussed correctly as I have noted that you have kept mum regarding such.

After that perhaps it is time to clear up several other misconceptions, such as things you have falsely accused me of, or providing those pesky links you said that you would find.

I recall earlier reference to ilk. What goes around comes around perhaps?

Kate

Kate,

Simpson's use of the word "punch" was in the book "Killing Time".

Bottom line, Nicole and OJ Simpson both carry label of batterer. They were both verbally and phycially abusive to one another. That is the bottom line. Both proved they can be incited to such a state of anger or defensive mode, where they will take action to strike first or defend themselves against the other's abuse.

In regards to the link about Marc Klass, I am right you are wrong. He did not volunteer to take the lie detector test. He praised the FBI official who explained to him why it had to be done. Why John Walsh took credit for telling him to take it, I don't know, e-mail him. You have no idea how times these two come up in a search.

I don't care who you are Kate, no is going to fly right into the chair for a lie detector test without thinking it threw. There is no way a parent who truly loved their child and had nothing do with the disappearance or murder of that child would not come unglued once they realized they were suspects. We all know in minds this is a logical place start but when it is happening to you, I can see where a parent could become very, very upset.

I will look for the Paula Zahn interview. I got caught up reading Faye's deposition.

[William Anthony]

RK became a oj lawyer how would that effect the situation William?

I thought he had represented Simpson before. I know that any communication made between Simpson and a lawyer he retained is a privileged communication, under most circumstances. However, the privilege can be waived, if the client does not keep t he conversation private/confidential. According to my understanding, the privilege is not applicable unless the lawyer was retained or an agreement reached that the lawyer was acting on behalf of the client. I could be wrong on the prior representation and they may have just been friends but at the point that an agreement was reached his communications would have been privileged unless waived in some manner.

[martin II]

Bosco said Paula mentioned BW in her book but only to say she did not know him.

[martin II]

I thought he had represented Simpson before. I know that any communication made between Simpson and a lawyer he retained is a privileged communication, under most circumstances. However, the privilege can be waived, if the client does not keep t he conversation private/confidential. According to my understanding, the privilege is not applicable unless the lawyer was retained or an agreement reached that the lawyer was acting on behalf of the client. I could be wrong on the prior representation and they may have just been friends but at the point that an agreement was reached his communications would have been privileged unless waived in some manner.

The agreement prevented the DA from calling him to testify'

True Dat

[martin II]

I thought he had represented Simpson before. I know that any communication made between Simpson and a lawyer he retained is a privileged communication, under most circumstances. However, the privilege can be waived, if the client does not keep t he conversation private/confidential. According to my understanding, the privilege is not applicable unless the lawyer was retained or an agreement reached that the lawyer was acting on behalf of the client. I could be wrong on the prior representation and they may have just been friends but at the point that an agreement was reached his communications would have been privileged unless waived in some manner.

He did represent oj previously.

[GreenIce]

I thought he had represented Simpson before. I know that any communication made between Simpson and a lawyer he retained is a privileged communication, under most circumstances. However, the privilege can be waived, if the client does not keep t he conversation private/confidential. According to my understanding, the privilege is not applicable unless the lawyer was retained or an agreement reached that the lawyer was acting on behalf of the client. I could be wrong on the prior representation and they may have just been friends but at the point that an agreement was reached his communications would have been privileged unless waived in some manner.

William and Martin,

RK's first passion was music. He did say that they had been friends for a long time that they made a lot of money together and they lost a lot of money together. IMO, I think perhaps RK, using his lawyer training helped him in business deals.

However, if BW is telling the truth, it wouldn't matter about Simpson, would it? Wouldn't he be facing charges?

And you know what is really weird, the DA's nor the LAPD ever leaked this information. I remember about the stolen car and notebook but I don't remember anything being said about who was involved until much, much later.

IMO, it appears to me that RK must have been investigated and it was determined that he was not involved in this and would never be involved with something like this.

Why would he want Nicole dead---because she divorced OJ?

[GreenIce]

William and Martin,

Have you given any thought as to why Fuhrman would have wrote in his notes that it was possible that the dog bit the attacker? Also, you both may want to check out Joe Bosco's book, "A Problem of Evidence". To me that was one of the best books written. While he does express his beliefs to Simpson's guilt but he does approach the evidence as "what was the jury supposed to think?".

He worked with Dr. Henry Lee on another case and he does share alot of the conversations that he had with him. However, he does not paint a pretty picture of the Brown family. That is the only part of his book that I disagree with. However, from his point of few, I can understand it. I just don't agree with it.

[martin II]

Prof.MacDonell

Defence Glove shrinkage expert experiment

Pictures were taken of the experiment.

No shrinkage and not possible for gloves to shrink 10-15 as Rubin said.



PROF. MACDONELL: Yes. I--I took the gloves one at a time and put, for example, the right glove on my right hand and a rubber latex glove on my left hand. I had a laboratory technician draw a vacutainer of blood and comparing that to a calibrated vacutainer, I knew how much blood was in that tube. I then poured the blood over the leather glove cupping the palm upward as I'm indicating so it would hold the blood as much as possible (Indicating). This was done very quickly so there would be no clotting involved. There was no anticoagulant in the tube. This was a tube that just drew blood. You must work rather quickly or it will clot. I then put the tube down and began smearing the blood with the rubber tips in my fingers. The reason for the rubber tips and the gloves in total, the rubber ones was because I was going to alternate and put that hand in the left glove next. So I didn't want it wet with blood or anything else. I just kept smearing it around until it was running through my fingers over the glove and around the back and I just kept doing that for approximately half a minute or more or less until I--I felt I was no longer working with wet fluid blood. This was over a very large funnel. The funnel emptied into a graduated cylinder so I could determine the amount of blood that was recovered. Through an independent experiment, I found the amount of blood on the funnel was approximately two drops. So I knew the volume that I started with, the volume I ended with, the volume that was on the funnel and, therefore, the approximate volume of what was on the glove, which was approximately 2 milliliters, and that was a very wet surface, glistening glove.

I immediately took it off and put one in a bag which I sealed up, a plastic Ziploc bag. This was then repeated with the same arm giving blood again. At this time, we had again approximately nine milliliters of blood or thereabouts in the vacutainer, poured it over the other hand, repeated the process, caught the blood that did not adhere to the glove and subtracting the amount of the blood on the fingertips and in the funnel, I concluded again it was 1.9 to 2 milliliters of blood in each case. The amount that was adhering made the gloves very glistening and bloody for one of more descriptive terms and this glove was also allowed to dry without being placed in a bag. These were both done very quickly so there was no clotting of the blood on the surface of the glove.

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

MR. NEUFELD: And what, if any, shrinkage did you observe as a result of your experiment on both the left glove and the right glove?

PROF. MACDONELL: I would have to say it's negligible. They're certainly not congruent because they were done at different times, but I put them down as fairly as possible. That is to say, without any lateral teasing around to stretch them one way or another. Just laid them flat, did the experiment, when they're dried, laid them flat again, and they are not congruent and that is, they're not the same copy. But when you place one over the other and move it around slightly, I could detect no shrinkage or no linear or vertical or horizontal shrinkage at all or change in shift.

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

MR. NEUFELD: Professor MacDonell, in your experiment and based on the experiment that you conducted, could the Rockingham glove and the Bundy glove be smeared with--I'm sorry--could the smearing of the Bundy glove and the Rockingham glove with blood on the evening of June 12th, 1994 account for 10 to 15 percent shrinkage in those gloves?

MS. CLARK: Objection. That's irrelevant, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

PROF. MACDONELL: I can't imagine it's at all possible, no.

[William Anthony]

He did represent oj previously.

The alleged Kardashian connection has given me some food for thought. to begin with I thought that they wanted kardashian to testify as to the contents of the bag he took from Simpson. I have never placed too much importance on the bag, because I gave Simpson credit for not bringing anything incriminating to his residence, if he was the murderer, knowing that the police were there. kardashian's connection seems to be to have arranged a contract killing, according to the information you have posted. The question becomes who would want Ms. NBS dead and for what reason. If Kardashian were acting on Simpson's behalf in that regard, he would have contacted Simpson and let him know what was going on, imho. If Kardashian was working on behalf of someone else or himself, then the bag would have been the perfect opportunity to incriminate Simpson. However, Simpson would have known that there was nothing in the bag that would have incriminated him and that would have given his defense team more information as to who was behind the murders. I think Kardashian was too smart to have lied about the contents of the bag and too smart to allow Simpson to bring incriminating evidence back to Los Angeles. However, by becoming one of Simpson's lawyers, Kardashian would have been able to gain information on the investigation and to deflect attention away from himself. The question then becomes what special knowledge did Kardashian have that allowed him to become one of Simpson's lawyers, since he did not question any witnesses. It is highly likely, imho, that, because he traveled in the Brentwood circle of friends, Kardashian may have been in a unique position to have Ms. NBS's neighbors and friends open up to him. Just some personal thoughts I have on his involvement, since Kardashian's involvement has become more intriguing to me after the information you posted. I do believe that the prosecution would have endlessly pursued the Kardashian connection, since there can be no valid agreement to do anything illegal, if there was evidence of a connection between him and Simpson to arrange a contract killing. The only way the prosecution would not have pursued that angle is, if Kardashian had information that was damaging to the state, imho.

[martin II]

William and Martin,

RK's first passion was music. He did say that they had been friends for a long time that they made a lot of money together and they lost a lot of money together. IMO, I think perhaps RK, using his lawyer training helped him in business deals.

However, if BW is telling the truth, it wouldn't matter about Simpson, would it? Wouldn't he be facing charges?BW would be facing some charges but not murder if he didn't kill Nicole.BH wanted the investigation to continue because he hoped he would be able to indict RK and OJ.But BW did not believe Oj knew anything about RK plan.

And you know what is really weird, the DA's nor the LAPD ever leaked this information. I remember about the stolen car and notebook but I don't remember anything being said about who was involved until much, much later.

IMO, it appears to me that RK must have been investigated and it was determined that he was not involved in this and would never be involved with something like this.BW was not the first person to say RK was involved with the Hollywood mob.

Why would he want Nicole dead---because she divorced OJ?
I would only suggest that it was really someone else that wanted her dead. If you believe wagner then it would be the mob that oj was doing business with on the Sports gambling business which Nicole demanded oj stop.

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

Have you given any thought as to why Fuhrman would have wrote in his notes that it was possible that the dog bit the attacker? Also, you both may want to check out Joe Bosco's book, "A Problem of Evidence". To me that was one of the best books written. While he does express his beliefs to Simpson's guilt but he does approach the evidence as "what was the jury supposed to think?".

He worked with Dr. Henry Lee on another case and he does share alot of the conversations that he had with him. However, he does not paint a pretty picture of the Brown family. That is the only part of his book that I disagree with. However, from his point of few, I can understand it. I just don't agree with it.

GreenIce,

I don't understand the significance you are placing on MF's statement about the dog. I have three dogs and have made some interesting observations about them. Perhaps, that is why I am not getting the significance. Can you explain, because I think I am missing something and I know you have read a lot on the murders and may have considered things I have not? Thanks.

[martin II]

The alleged Kardashian connection has given me some food for thought. to begin with I thought that they wanted kardashian to testify as to the contents of the bag he took from Simpson. I have never placed too much importance on the bag, because I gave Simpson credit for not bringing anything incriminating to his residence, if he was the murderer, knowing that the police were there. kardashian's connection seems to be to have arranged a contract killing, according to the information you have posted. The question becomes who would want Ms. NBS dead and for what reason. If Kardashian were acting on Simpson's behalf in that regard, he would have contacted Simpson and let him know what was going on, imho. If Kardashian was working on behalf of someone else or himself, then the bag would have been the perfect opportunity to incriminate Simpson. However, Simpson would have known that there was nothing in the bag that would have incriminated him and that would have given his defense team more information as to who was behind the murders. I think Kardashian was too smart to have lied about the contents of the bag and too smart to allow Simpson to bring incriminating evidence back to Los Angeles. However, by becoming one of Simpson's lawyers, Kardashian would have been able to gain information on the investigation and to deflect attention away from himself. The question then becomes what special knowledge did Kardashian have that allowed him to become one of Simpson's lawyers, since he did not question any witnesses. It is highly likely, imho, that, because he traveled in the Brentwood circle of friends, Kardashian may have been in a unique position to have Ms. NBS's neighbors and friends open up to him. Just some personal thoughts I have on his involvement, since Kardashian's involvement has become more intriguing to me after the information you posted. I do believe that the prosecution would have endlessly pursued the Kardashian connection, since there can be no valid agreement to do anything illegal, if there was evidence of a connection between him and Simpson to arrange a contract killing. The only way the prosecution would not have pursued that angle is, if Kardashian had information that was damaging to the state, imho.

I agree

BH wanted the DAS office to continue the investigation.I think one detective did invterview BW and got some of his story. But Bw story points the finger at RK as organizing the murder.Clarke had set up her prosecution to say oj and only oj. If the DA had brought this BW stuff into the case then the case would have become much more complicated as the defence would then say oj knew nothing about RK plans and that after BW backed out Rk just hired another killer.So GG and Clarke shut the BW investigation down and no more contacts was made with BW. RK then became a lawyer for oj and this prevented any questions of him.

Not only did oj not bring any dirty bags back to la RK and AC searched the bags at Rk house looking for blood or anything else and found nothing.If oj was the killer i have tried to find a time and place that he would have had the opportunity to get rid of the knife and shoes and have found none.

The odd part is that BW said RK gave him instructions that Nicole was to be murdered at Rockingham not at her house at GG but only when OJ was not home.

When dealing with certain kind of lawyers, mob people and low level drug addict ciminals that deal in contract killings it is difficult to know who is double crossing who.It is a bad mixture.

Bosco knew all the parties including the DAS and he believed BW story.I think Bw died in jail because i think he got 12 years for the Paula car, the gun and the chase.

I don't think oj would ask anyone to kill Nicole.

[martin II]

The alleged Kardashian connection has given me some food for thought. to begin with I thought that they wanted kardashian to testify as to the contents of the bag he took from Simpson. I have never placed too much importance on the bag, because I gave Simpson credit for not bringing anything incriminating to his residence, if he was the murderer, knowing that the police were there. kardashian's connection seems to be to have arranged a contract killing, according to the information you have posted. The question becomes who would want Ms. NBS dead and for what reason. If Kardashian were acting on Simpson's behalf in that regard, he would have contacted Simpson and let him know what was going on, imho. If Kardashian was working on behalf of someone else or himself, then the bag would have been the perfect opportunity to incriminate Simpson. However, Simpson would have known that there was nothing in the bag that would have incriminated him and that would have given his defense team more information as to who was behind the murders. I think Kardashian was too smart to have lied about the contents of the bag and too smart to allow Simpson to bring incriminating evidence back to Los Angeles. However, by becoming one of Simpson's lawyers, Kardashian would have been able to gain information on the investigation and to deflect attention away from himself. The question then becomes what special knowledge did Kardashian have that allowed him to become one of Simpson's lawyers, since he did not question any witnesses. It is highly likely, imho, that, because he traveled in the Brentwood circle of friends, Kardashian may have been in a unique position to have Ms. NBS's neighbors and friends open up to him. Just some personal thoughts I have on his involvement, since Kardashian's involvement has become more intriguing to me after the information you posted. I do believe that the prosecution would have endlessly pursued the Kardashian connection, since there can be no valid agreement to do anything illegal, if there was evidence of a connection between him and Simpson to arrange a contract killing. The only way the prosecution would not have pursued that angle is, if Kardashian had information that was damaging to the state, imho.


I agree that RK knew all the parties and friends and various private investigators that were digging around including DA investigators and if there was info harmful to the state he would have had it.I am sure he knew Bill Pavelic who had all the info on Furhman.

[William Anthony]

I agree

RK then became a lawyer for oj and this prevented any questions of him.

Not only did oj not bring any dirty bags back to la RK and AC searched the bags at Rk house looking for blood or anything else and found nothing.If oj was the killer i have tried to find a time and place that he would have had the opportunity to get rid of the knife and shoes and have found none.

The odd part is that BW said RK gave him instructions that Nicole was to be murdered at Rockingham not at her house at GG but only when OJ was not home.

When dealing with certain kind of lawyers, mob people and low level drug addict ciminals that deal in contract killings it is difficult to know who is double crossing who.It is a bad mixture.

Bosco knew all the parties including the DAS and he believed BW story.I think Bw died in jail because i think he got 12 years for the Paula car, the gun and the chase.

I don't think oj would ask anyone to kill Nicole.

I took the liberty of deleting the first portion of your post, not because it was irrelevant but, because it led to an interesting point. I don't think that becoming one of Simpson's lawyers would have shielded Kardashian from questions concerning his illegal activities or who hired him to contract for the murder. If Ms. Clark shut down the investigation, it would seem to me that it was pointing in some other direction. I also understand your point on Ms. NBS being killed at Rockingham. There is a story related to that point, which I became aware of, but it did not involve anyone in the Simpson case and took place in the town where I was raised, which lends credibility to your point and would indicate that it was to teach Simpson a lesson. I choose not to share the story I know of publicly.

[martin II]

William

One comment about Rubins glove testimony.

His Aris gloves were expensive.They were fine thin gloves made of high quality leather. They were made to fit skin tight.They were priced for high end customers.

But if you happen to wear them on a rainy day and got them wet, you would have to toss them in the trash because they would skrink 10-15% and you would not be able to get your hands in them again.That is according to Rubins testimony.

[Kate Sachel]

Kate,

Simpson's use of the word "punch" was in the book "Killing Time".

Bottom line, Nicole and OJ Simpson both carry label of batterer. They were both verbally and phycially abusive to one another. That is the bottom line. Both proved they can be incited to such a state of anger or defensive mode, where they will take action to strike first or defend themselves against the other's abuse.

In regards to the link about Marc Klass, I am right you are wrong. He did not volunteer to take the lie detector test. He praised the FBI official who explained to him why it had to be done. Why John Walsh took credit for telling him to take it, I don't know, e-mail him. You have no idea how times these two come up in a search.

I don't care who you are Kate, no is going to fly right into the chair for a lie detector test without thinking it threw. There is no way a parent who truly loved their child and had nothing do with the disappearance or murder of that child would not come unglued once they realized they were suspects. We all know in minds this is a logical place start but when it is happening to you, I can see where a parent could become very, very upset.

I will look for the Paula Zahn interview. I got caught up reading Faye's deposition.

"I'm right and you are wrong" - oh my, your childish nature is really beginning to shine through to a very unsavory and almost unhealthy state. You make that bold statement and yet offer me nothing to substantiate your claim. I have told you more than once GreenIce, that I would be more than happy to view any information that you have to substantiate your claim regarding Marc Klaas and stand corrected if that were the case. But you have offered nothing, and when I do as you advised which was to google Marc Klaas and lie detector test I find not one iota of information to substantiate your claim. Nor have two other individuals who have googled the same and posted that they also found nothing at all to substantiate your claim.

I was raised to practice tolerance, patience, and to stand corrected when the situation calls for such. I have no way of knowing how you were raised, but it appears that you have no such interests. I have been nothing but kind to you until you blasted me and then refused to correct your incorrect statements regarding things you claimed I had said and when asked to correct such, instead of being decent you hid behind your refusal to discuss the topic any further.

Perhaps you will mature, and decide that at least with some people on this forum it is not necessary to be hostile and rude. Until such time, I do certainly hope that things in your life are going well and that your son is doing fine also.

In the interim, if you can provide me information regarding Marc Klaas to prove your thus far unsubstantiated claims, I will be still remain happy to stand corrected.

Kate

[martin II]

I took the liberty of deleting the first portion of your post, not because it was irrelevant but, because it led to an interesting point. I don't think that becoming one of Simpson's lawyers would have shielded Kardashian from questions concerning his illegal activities or who hired him to contract for the murder. If Ms. Clark shut down the investigation, it would seem to me that it was pointing in some other direction. I also understand your point on Ms. NBS being killed at Rockingham. There is a story related to that point, which I became aware of, but it did not involve anyone in the Simpson case and took place in the town where I was raised, which lends credibility to your point and would indicate that it was to teach Simpson a lesson. I choose not to share the story I know of publicly.

If it is true that RK wanted her killed at Rockingham but only when Oj was not home. It would seem that this would give oj some alibi of not being the killer.So why not just killer at her home GG or some other place.Why did she have to be klilled at Rockingham?

[Kate Sachel]

Marc Klaas on the Nancy Grace show, aired February 24, 2009

GRACE: Straight out to Marc Klaas, president and founder of Klaas Kids Foundation. Marc, thank you for being with us. I recall distinctly when your child, Polly Klaas, went missing, you approached police to say, Polygraph me. Do it right now. Now, tell me something, Marc. Why were you so adamant that you be polygraphed immediately?

MARC KLAAS, KLAAS KIDS FOUNDATION: Well, there were a couple of reasons. Number one, I wanted to eliminate myself as a suspect so law enforcement could then focus their full resource on whatever had happened to Polly. But more than that, we wanted to make sure that the focus stayed exactly on where is Polly and not tangential questions about the family, et cetera, et cetera.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0902/24/ng.01.html


Kate

[William Anthony]

If it is true that RK wanted her killed at Rockingham but only when Oj was not home. It would seem that this would give oj some alibi of not being the killer.So why not just killer at her home GG or some other place.Why did she have to be klilled at Rockingham?

In the incident that took place in the town I was raised, the family members selected to be murdered, were to send a message to another family member. This could have been the reason for the selection of the location, to signal that the person was not safe, even at home.

[William Anthony]

William

One comment about Rubins glove testimony.

His Aris gloves were expensive.They were fine thin gloves made of high quality leather. They were made to fit skin tight.They were priced for high end customers.

But if you happen to wear them on a rainy day and got them wet, you would have to toss them in the trash because they would skrink 10-15% and you would not be able to get your hands in them again.That is according to Rubins testimony.

Some things just don't make common sense.

[martin II]

I took the liberty of deleting the first portion of your post, not because it was irrelevant but, because it led to an interesting point. I don't think that becoming one of Simpson's lawyers would have shielded Kardashian from questions concerning his illegal activities or who hired him to contract for the murder. If Ms. Clark shut down the investigation, it would seem to me that it was pointing in some other direction. I also understand your point on Ms. NBS being killed at Rockingham. There is a story related to that point, which I became aware of, but it did not involve anyone in the Simpson case and took place in the town where I was raised, which lends credibility to your point and would indicate that it was to teach Simpson a lesson. I choose not to share the story I know of publicly.

There were some comments that the Bundy murders were done to teach oj a lesson.

[martin II]

Some things just don't make common sense.

Maby Rubin didn't know that Aris considered the gloves as disposables.

[martin II]

In the incident that took place in the town I was raised, the family members selected to be murdered, were to send a message to another family member. This could have been the reason for the selection of the location, to signal that the person was not safe, even at home.

I do agree.

That is the way the mob thinks and acts.

[William Anthony]

Maby Rubin didn't know that Aris considered the gloves as disposables.

Places the saying, slippery when wet, in a new context.:)

[martin II]

Places the saying, slippery when wet, in a new context.:)

This experiment along with the pictures could have had a conclusive impact on the jury that was supported by the demo that there was no shrinkage of the gloves and that those that were thought to be the murder gloves really did not fit oj Simpson because the size was too small.imo

[William Anthony]

This experiment along with the pictures could have had a conclusive impact on the jury that was supported by the demo that there was no shrinkage of the gloves and that those that were thought to be the murder gloves really did not fit oj Simpson because the size was too small.imo

It is the height of inconsistency to say that the gloves did fit and then say they would have fit if not for the shrinkage and the latex. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

MR. COCHRAN: And you shared with us I believe yesterday that those gloves are designed to fit rather snuggly; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And when they fit snuggly, they don't just fall off, do they?

MR. RUBIN: No, they do not.

MR. COCHRAN: They have to be kind of taken off, don't they?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they would.

MR. COCHRAN: And you have to use some effort and some energy to take them off, don't you?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, Mr. Rubin.

[William Anthony]

I wonder what LE's thoughts were on someone wearing gloves that were too small to a crime scene to commit murder.

[martin II]

It is the height of inconsistency to say that the gloves did fit and then say they would have fit if not for the shrinkage and the latex. :shrug:

I don't understand why the prosecution would expect the jury or anyone else to believe this inconsistency.

[martin II]

MR. COCHRAN: And you shared with us I believe yesterday that those gloves are designed to fit rather snuggly; is that correct?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And when they fit snuggly, they don't just fall off, do they?

MR. RUBIN: No, they do not.

MR. COCHRAN: They have to be kind of taken off, don't they?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, they would.

MR. COCHRAN: And you have to use some effort and some energy to take them off, don't you?

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, Mr. Rubin.

Rubin had bragged so much on the quality of his gloves and how snug they fit
that he didn't realize he had backed himself into a corner that his gloves would not just slip off without a lot of effort. The idea that the glove would just slip off in a struggles is not likely.

Cochran gave Rubin the impression that he was agreeing that the gloves had very special qualities.I don't think Rubin realized that the fourth question would conflict with what the prosecution had claimed that the glove just slipped off.
Cochran is good.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

Why would Wasz steal Paula's car and was it truly stolen?:shrug:

[martin II]

William,

Here is a thought, Paula B. writes in her book that she felt horrified about Nicole's death because she wished her dead. Most people who say this say it to another person or persons.

Doesn't it strike you odd that Paula's car was stolen and there was a log in it documenting Nicole's activities? Could some one have been trying to set Paula up?

BW says RK told him to steal Paulas car and then stash it for use in the murders later. That he was to use his own car to do the stalking and picture taking.Instead BW stole Paulas car and used it to do the stalking etc.which is why when he was caught he was in Paulas car.

If BW had not been caught and had used Paulas car to get to where he was going to kill Nicole then it is possible that he would have been seen leaving the scene in her car or would have left it at the scene on purpose and this would have pointed a finger to Paula.But what if Paula had a alibi or was out of town modeling.

[martin II]

Martin,

Why would Wasz steal Paula's car and was it truly stolen?:shrug:

B Wasz said RK paid him to steal Paulas car.Told him the date and time she would be at the hairdresser. BW went there and the car was in the mall parking lot.I think the key was left in the ignition. Not sure.
BW also claimed that RK told him that he wanted BW to use a 25 pistol and shoot her in the head and he would get the gun for him.BW said no he would get his own head. BW felt using another persons gun was not his style and set up bells went off in his head.So BW went to a lady friends house and stole two guns 25 & a 45.The 45 was found in Paulas car when he was caught after the police chase with the notebook and some cocain. A detective from where he was arrested called Paula and told her they had her car.

[martin II]

Martin,

Believe it or not, I don't think the DA's were afraid about Rosa's testimony about when she saw the Bronco. IMO, I think they did want her to testify infront of the jury about what she heard that night, rather then what she saw. Nor did they want her to testify about MF's visit the next morning as well as MF asking her permission if he could go back and check things out on her side of the fence.

However, it makes no sense that he would even ask Rosa for permission, since she didn't own the property. Come to think about it, I don't even know if other people were in the house that night.

IMO, I think it is possible that who ever planted the glove realized that a light was on in a room and at that time of the night, it is a fair assumption that someone might be in that room.


The other question is who were the people that Rosa said she head on ojs property at 12;00 midnight.

[William Anthony]

B Wasz said RK paid him to steal Paulas car.Told him the date and time she would be at the hairdresser. BW went there and the car was in the mall parking lot.I think the key was left in the ignition. Not sure.
BW also claimed that RK told him that he wanted BW to use a 25 pistol and shoot her in the head and he would get the gun for him.BW said no he would get his own head. BW felt using another persons gun was not his style and set up bells went off in his head.So BW went to a lady friends house and stole two guns 25 & a 45.The 45 was found in Paulas car when he was caught after the police chase with the notebook and some cocain. A detective from where he was arrested called Paula and told her they had her car.

The story gets more and more bizarre and it would seem that Paula had some knowledge that her car was to be taken. I agree with GreenIce that it would seem to implicate Paula in the murders, if what was reported is true.

[martin II]

The story gets more and more bizarre and it would seem that Paula had some knowledge that her car was to be taken. I agree with GreenIce that it would seem to implicate Paula in the murders, if what was reported is true.

I was thinking about that but in some cumminities people leave the keys in their cars or are in a habit of doing so.Other wise someone close to her knew her regular schedule to have her hair done and where the hairdresser was located.Its like people going to the gym on a schedule.
I know my wife goes on a strict schedule to the same person.

Everything posted comes from Boscos book and several inverviews of BW by him.Also there was story in the LA Times and some other paper reporting about the same info.I will look for the date.

[martin II]

Longo the ex prosecuter and then BW lawyer points out that BW only stole the things he said RK told him to steal.
He stole the car RK told him to steal.
At Kay Lewis house there was money, jewelry etc But BW only stole the items that RK told him he needed. one 35 mm camera when there were were several cameras insight. And the gun. A thief stealing for himself would have taken everything.:cool:

[martin II]

When Rk learned that the story was about to break he went to oj yelling that ojs people were responsible for this story about him to take the heat off oj.

RK denied ever knowing BW

Recently oj told Bosco that although RK betrayed him in his book. He did not believe that RK would have been involved on something like this.

I wish i could cut and paste some of the book contents but it is blocked.

[martin II]

GI i am reading Boscos book now and posting from it.

corection i am reading a article commisioned by the BBC WRITTEN BY bosco.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

I don't understand the significance you are placing on MF's statement about the dog. I have three dogs and have made some interesting observations about them. Perhaps, that is why I am not getting the significance. Can you explain, because I think I am missing something and I know you have read a lot on the murders and may have considered things I have not? Thanks.

William,

Didn't Mark Fuhrman say that he never got close enough to the glove and the hat? That he was never "alone" with the evidence? IMO, his notes suggesting that the bleeding could have been from a dog bite, that he got close enough to the gloves, and I am saying gloves that he was able to see perhaps a dog bite on them.

How else could have made those comments? Was he just being clever suggesting they died of possible GSW? In other words, if he did see the bite marks on the glove, then he could not have written that in his notes.

And if he got that close to the glove to see bite marks, then he was close enough to see if was a ski mask or watch cap. Also, there was a pizza menu he mentions, is the same sheet of paper that a possible footprint on it?

[William Anthony]

I was thinking about that but in some cumminities people leave the keys in their cars or are in a habit of doing so.Other wise someone close to her knew her regular schedule to have her hair done and where the hairdresser was located.Its like people going to the gym on a schedule.
I know my wife goes on a strict schedule to the same person.

Everything posted comes from Boscos book and several inverviews of BW by him.Also there was story in the LA Times and some other paper reporting about the same info.I will look for the date.

I am not doubting the story. I just think that there are things in it that point to an involvement that I can't completely comprehend. The keys left in the ignition suggests a knowledge that the car was going to be taken, for whatever reason, be it insurance purposes or another. It is possible that Paula knew her car was going to be taken but did not suspect she was being set up, which would indicate that someone knew of the feelings between Paula and Ms. NBS. I think again that Paula may not have been the one to be framed for the murder but implicated in it. Implicating her in the murder of Ms. NBS and the desired location of the murder may have also been a signal to Simpson that he was unsafe and they could make it look as though anyone was responsible.

[William Anthony]

William,

Didn't Mark Fuhrman say that he never got close enough to the glove and the hat? That he was never "alone" with the evidence? IMO, his notes suggesting that the bleeding could have been from a dog bite, that he got close enough to the gloves, and I am saying gloves that he was able to see perhaps a dog bite on them.

How else could have made those comments? Was he just being clever suggesting they died of possible GSW? In other words, if he did see the bite marks on the glove, then he could not have written that in his notes.

And if he got that close to the glove to see bite marks, then he was close enough to see if was a ski mask or watch cap. Also, there was a pizza menu he mentions, is the same sheet of paper that a possible footprint on it?

If MF did say that he never got close enough to the glove and hat, then the picture of him pointing to the items makes him misspoken and I believe he testified that he turned the glove over with a pen. My dogs have two masters and I am not the one who feeds them the most. However, when there is a play fight, the dogs jump to my defense, whether or not I am the one acting like I am attacking. Needless to say, this upsets my wife.:) The reason I mention this is because I am not the one prone to raising my voice or showing displays of temperament. I can only speak for my dogs but they seem to judge by the personality of the master. I mention this because a dog may not always side with the master who is being attacked, if the attacker is a master. However, they will always side with the master if the master is being attacked by a stranger or, if the master is attacking a stranger who fights back. If the Simpson's dogs are like mine, the likely place to look for a dog bite would have been on Mr. RG, imho.

[martin II]

I am not doubting the story. I just think that there are things in it that point to an involvement that I can't completely comprehend. The keys left in the ignition suggests a knowledge that the car was going to be taken, for whatever reason, be it insurance purposes or another. It is possible that Paula knew her car was going to be taken but did not suspect she was being set up, which would indicate that someone knew of the feelings between Paula and Ms. NBS. I think again that Paula may not have been the one to be framed for the murder but implicated in it. Implicating her in the murder of Ms. NBS and the desired location of the murder may have also been a signal to Simpson that he was unsafe and they could make it look as though anyone was responsible.

Good thought.
I have read so many killings by the mob that on the surface seems like a senseless killing and the method of killing made no sense to the average person. But the killings were done in a way that sent clear messages to those on the inside that clearly understood why.

John Gotti killing Paul Constlano was not just a power struggle but it sent a clear message to other members that drug selling was now ok.
The place and time he was killed sent a message that no place was safe.

[martin II]

If MF did say that he never got close enough to the glove and hat, then the picture of him pointing to the items makes him misspoken and I believe he testified that he turned the glove over with a pen. My dogs have two masters and I am not the one who feeds them the most. However, when there is a play fight, the dogs jump to my defense, whether or not I am the one acting like I am attacking. Needless to say, this upsets my wife.:) The reason I mention this is because I am not the one prone to raising my voice or showing displays of temperament. I can only speak for my dogs but they seem to judge by the personality of the master. I mention this because a dog may not always side with the master who is being attacked, if the attacker is a master. However, they will always side with the master if the master is being attacked by a stranger or, if the master is attacking a stranger who fights back. If the Simpson's dogs are like mine, the likely place to look for a dog bite would have been on Mr. RG, imho.

A very wise observation.
I am not sure the dog had come from upstairs with the kids until after both were killed.
Wagner suggest that the dog heard Nicole open the door and go outside as he was half sleep in the
in the kids room. When he did not hear Nicole return inside and the door close he came to look for her and this led him to the front door and down the steps to the yard.

[martin II]

William,

Didn't Mark Fuhrman say that he never got close enough to the glove and the hat? That he was never "alone" with the evidence? IMO, his notes suggesting that the bleeding could have been from a dog bite, that he got close enough to the gloves, and I am saying gloves that he was able to see perhaps a dog bite on them.

How else could have made those comments? Was he just being clever suggesting they died of possible GSW? In other words, if he did see the bite marks on the glove, then he could not have written that in his notes.

And if he got that close to the glove to see bite marks, then he was close enough to see if was a ski mask or watch cap. Also, there was a pizza menu he mentions, is the same sheet of paper that a possible footprint on it?

Was the foot print on the piece of paper made by BM shoe or some other shoe?

[GreenIce]

Was the foot print on the piece of paper made by BM shoe or some other shoe?

Martin,

I believe it was consistent with the same pattern on Ron's jeans, and one or two of the tiles.

[GreenIce]

Marc Klaas on the Nancy Grace show, aired February 24, 2009

GRACE: Straight out to Marc Klaas, president and founder of Klaas Kids Foundation. Marc, thank you for being with us. I recall distinctly when your child, Polly Klaas, went missing, you approached police to say, Polygraph me. Do it right now. Now, tell me something, Marc. Why were you so adamant that you be polygraphed immediately?

MARC KLAAS, KLAAS KIDS FOUNDATION: Well, there were a couple of reasons. Number one, I wanted to eliminate myself as a suspect so law enforcement could then focus their full resource on whatever had happened to Polly. But more than that, we wanted to make sure that the focus stayed exactly on where is Polly and not tangential questions about the family, et cetera, et cetera.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0902/24/ng.01.html


Kate

Kate,

I am still looking for that link. However, it was several years ago. I never realized just how long ago Polly was murdered, 1993 I believe. There are tons of pages on this. Haven't given up yet!

[GreenIce]

If MF did say that he never got close enough to the glove and hat, then the picture of him pointing to the items makes him misspoken and I believe he testified that he turned the glove over with a pen. My dogs have two masters and I am not the one who feeds them the most. However, when there is a play fight, the dogs jump to my defense, whether or not I am the one acting like I am attacking. Needless to say, this upsets my wife.:) The reason I mention this is because I am not the one prone to raising my voice or showing displays of temperament. I can only speak for my dogs but they seem to judge by the personality of the master. I mention this because a dog may not always side with the master who is being attacked, if the attacker is a master. However, they will always side with the master if the master is being attacked by a stranger or, if the master is attacking a stranger who fights back. If the Simpson's dogs are like mine, the likely place to look for a dog bite would have been on Mr. RG, imho.


William,

Two key issues fon this for me, one is the timing. Didn't Fuhrman say that he completed his notes when he was told that RHD was taking over? And according to him, the only time he got close enough to the glove was when that picture was taken.

The other is, why did Fuhrman assume that a dog bite could have caused the blood drops? Also, I don't remember which glove had the possible dog bite on it.

[fgump2]

Rubin had bragged so much on the quality of his gloves and how snug they fit
that he didn't realize he had backed himself into a corner that his gloves would not just slip off without a lot of effort. The idea that the glove would just slip off in a struggles is not likely.

Cochran gave Rubin the impression that he was agreeing that the gloves had very special qualities.I don't think Rubin realized that the fourth question would conflict with what the prosecution had claimed that the glove just slipped off.
Cochran is good.
**********************************************
The defense did have a good point there, but not a decisive one. I think that Rubin was more interested in being honest than in helping the prosecution. One of the posters probably GI suggested the do may have bitten the glove and pulled it off. If that happened, the glove would probably have dog saliva and maybe blood on it.

It is possible that OJS may have deliberately taken it off in the middle of the fight, although this doesn’t seem likely.

The most likely possibility is that both Ron and OJS were full of adrenaline and under those conditions it is difficult to predict what would happen.

Anyone who believes the defense story about the cuts on the left hand should be able to believe almost anything about either the left hand glove or the socks. The defense story is that OJS, a right handed man, got the cuts and scratches on his left hand picking up glass. There were at least three cuts, and numerous scratches, almost all on the back of the left hand (maybe all). This would be unusual enough if he was left handed, but really unusual for a right handed person.

Johnnie Cochran did a fairly good job in the trial. He won. Probably one of the best jobs of courtroom race pandering ever; but he did make some mistakes. The defense story of how a bloody footprint got in the bronco makes no sense. The defense said that Mark Fuhrman stepped in the blood and then tracked it into the bronco. This was contradicted by the fact that at least one criminologist said that only the killer stepped in the blood (and therefore no policemen did). No criminologist contradicted this. It is true that all criminologists make mistakes, but this is a fairly simple and important part of the crime scene. Another problem with the defense had on the footprint is that there were photos of the cops that night which showed their shoes. The FBI foot expert said that none of the photographed shoes, including Fuhrman’s, could have made the footprint. The defense never raised any questions about the photos of Fuhrman in his shoes that night.

Johnnie Cochran also called on a man who filmed an exercise video of OJS a few weeks before the killings. The guy helped the prosecution more than the defense. For two reasons. First of all he said OJS was in surprisingly good shape. Secondly the video showed OJS making a joke about wife beating.

[GreenIce]

**********************************************
The defense did have a good point there, but not a decisive one. I think that Rubin was more interested in being honest than in helping the prosecution. One of the posters probably GI suggested the do may have bitten the glove and pulled it off. If that happened, the glove would probably have dog saliva and maybe blood on it.

It is possible that OJS may have deliberately taken it off in the middle of the fight, although this doesn’t seem likely.

The most likely possibility is that both Ron and OJS were full of adrenaline and under those conditions it is difficult to predict what would happen.

Anyone who believes the defense story about the cuts on the left hand should be able to believe almost anything about either the left hand glove or the socks. The defense story is that OJS, a right handed man, got the cuts and scratches on his left hand picking up glass. There were at least three cuts, and numerous scratches, almost all on the back of the left hand (maybe all). This would be unusual enough if he was left handed, but really unusual for a right handed person.

Johnnie Cochran did a fairly good job in the trial. He won. Probably one of the best jobs of courtroom race pandering ever; but he did make some mistakes. The defense story of how a bloody footprint got in the bronco makes no sense. The defense said that Mark Fuhrman stepped in the blood and then tracked it into the bronco. This was contradicted by the fact that at least one criminologist said that only the killer stepped in the blood (and therefore no policemen did). No criminologist contradicted this. It is true that all criminologists make mistakes, but this is a fairly simple and important part of the crime scene. Another problem with the defense had on the footprint is that there were photos of the cops that night which showed their shoes. The FBI foot expert said that none of the photographed shoes, including Fuhrman’s, could have made the footprint. The defense never raised any questions about the photos of Fuhrman in his shoes that night.

Johnnie Cochran also called on a man who filmed an exercise video of OJS a few weeks before the killings. The guy helped the prosecution more than the defense. For two reasons. First of all he said OJS was in surprisingly good shape. Secondly the video showed OJS making a joke about wife beating.

fgump2,

I think it is unfair to say JC was race "pandering". IMO, to suggest that means that we have never have had race issues in this country. That there have never been cases when police officers have framed minorities or planted evidence. Please note, not one juror who truly believed evidence was planted, ever said it was done because of the color of Mr. Simpson's skin. While I do believe that MF has some serious issues, I do not believe that if he planted the glove, it was purely racially motiviated.

In JC's closing arguments, his main theme was "Rush To Judgement". He said that he believes VA and Lange truly believed that Simpson was guilty from the get go and that nothing was going to change that. I do believe it is a very agrument to make.

Whatever reputation the LAPD has within its communities that they bound to serve and protect is one they have earned year after year, after year, after year.......IMO.

You seem to really want to learn about the case, I suggest you read "American Tragedy". To me it is one of the best neutral books that was written. Mr. Schiller had an agreement with the defense, however, the author does believe that Simpson is guilty. Another good one is Joe Bosco's book, "A Problem of Evidence". He is not saying that Simpson is innocent but he does lay it out why the DA's cheated and why they got caught. "Cheated" was his word.

[martin II]

**********************************************
The defense did have a good point there, but not a decisive one. I think that Rubin was more interested in being honest than in helping the prosecution. One of the posters probably GI suggested the do may have bitten the glove and pulled it off.I don't think anyone has said the dog pulled the glove off.You may want to check that again. If that happened, the glove would probably have dog saliva and maybe blood on it.

It is possible that OJS may have deliberately taken it off in the middle of the fight, although this doesn’t seem likely.Why would a killer pull his glove off and leave it.?

The most likely possibility is that both Ron and OJS were full of adrenaline and under those conditions it is difficult to predict what would happen. If you read cochrans questions of Rubin posted above, Rubin says the glove was made to fit skin tight and WOULD NOT SLIP OF WITHOUT SOME EFFORT.So why would you sugest that the glove would come off easily?

Anyone who believes the defense story about the cuts on the left hand should be able to believe almost anything about either the left hand glove or the socks. The defense story is that OJS, a right handed man, got the cuts and scratches on his left hand picking up glass.Not true.the doctor that examined ojs hands said the cuts were made by a jagged edge of a piece of glass not the smooth edge of a knife. There were at least three cuts, and numerous scratches, almost all on the back of the left hand The cut was on the finger not on the back of the hand.(maybe all). This would be unusual enough if he was left handed, but really unusual for a right handed person.

Johnnie Cochran did a fairly good job in the trial. He won. Probably one of the best jobs of courtroom race pandering ever; but he did make some mistakes. The defense story of how a bloody footprint got in the bronco makes no sense. The defense said that Mark Fuhrman stepped in the blood and then tracked it into the bronco.Can you give a link to thjis claim.I have never heard this. This was contradicted by the fact that at least one criminologist said that only the killer stepped in the blood (and therefore no policemen did). No criminologist contradicted this. It is true that all criminologists make mistakes, but this is a fairly simple and important part of the crime scene. Another problem with the defense had on the footprint is that there were photos of the cops that night which showed their shoes. The FBI foot expert said that none of the photographed shoes, including Fuhrman’s, could have made the footprint. The defense never raised any questions about the photos of Fuhrman in his shoes that night.

Johnnie Cochran also called on a man who filmed an exercise video of OJS a few weeks before the killings. The guy helped the prosecution more than the defense. For two reasons. First of all he said OJS was in surprisingly good shape. Secondly the video showed OJS making a joke about wife beating.

Not true
The exercise man said oj was in such pain that he could not complete the exercise video as planned.That oj had to take frequent rest because of Knee
problems.
If you read the testimony of Professor H MacDonnel's experiement you will see that there was no shrinkage of the glove and that it was not possible for it to shrink 10-15 % as Rubin claimed.

Rubin in his efforts to support the prosecution made many conflicting statements about the gloves.Would it surprise you that Rubin after claiming the gloves shrunk 10-15% then , when asked by Cochran if 3 cc of liquid would make the glove shrink he responded NO He also testrified that glove would not come off easily without a lot of effort so why would you say the glove slipped off in a struggle?? That is a conflict right there.

[martin II]

Martin,

I believe it was consistent with the same pattern on Ron's jeans, and one or two of the tiles.

This foot print not like BM indicates a forth person was at Bundy.I don't know how the prosecution explained this.

[William Anthony]

"MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Bodziak, perhaps you could step down, and using this chart, can you tell us what you did in trying to make an analysis to determine whether or not there were any footwear impressions on this item of evidence?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. On September 1st I came to the Los Angeles Police Department and examined this carpet and I was asked to attempt to enhance, that is, make it easier to see, the blood impression, particularly this area here, (Indicating), but any other area of the carpet as well, that might contain some blood and possibly a shoe impression. And by doing so I first treated the carpeting with what is known as a fixative and that is so that when the subsequent enhancement solutions contacted the blood, that is where it will not run away and just dissolve, but it will stay in its fixed position on that respective area of carpeting. I then treated the carpeting with luminol. Luminol is a material which reacts with a substance in the blood and it must be done in total darkness. And that was photographed. And when blood reacts with luminol you get a luminescence or a glowing in the dark, in layman's terms. And that was photographed. And then subsequent to that I treated the carpeting with a material called luco crystal violet, which also reacts with material in the blood, but which turns a crystal violet color, and that is now seen, since it can be done in normal light. That was photographed. And you can see the entire mat as well as the enhanced area. That is now seen as a dark violet area of staining and there is a lot of little drops, but also primarily this area here which is the entry point to the Bronco. In other words, if this door is opened, this is the part that you would step up into if you were getting into the car, into the Bronco.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you look at that area where a person steps up into if they were getting into the Bronco?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. And after I treated the carpet with any chemicals at all, I examined the photographs which were taken immediately upon the acquisition of the Bronco, as well as the current condition of it, and you could see the reddish or reddish brown staining in this area, but not as clear as it can be seen now.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So both of the photos that we are showing here, do both of these show the carpet in its enhanced condition?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. This is after the total enhancement process to your right on the chart shows the whole piece of carpeting that had been cut out of the driver's side on the floor, and to the left is an enlarged area to natural size of this approximate area, (Indicating), the area where the feet would be, if you were sitting in a seat.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you now tell us, and if you need to use either an overlay or a shoe to do this, one of our shoe soles, can you tell us what you did in order to try to make a comparison?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, as I had mentioned before, before the break, the blood, after going down the long walkway to--across the driveway to a possible car that was parked there, would not have an imprint in it from the bottom of the shoe, like it would have further back up the sidewalk, but instead it would have had blood up in the areas or grooves of the shoe between the design elements and possibly blood that was wedged in crevasses between the perimeter or even around the edge of the shoe and would have therefore still survived that distance, that far along. And what I did was take a test impression in a transparent form, such as I have previously showed, and I tried to put it--position it different ways over the impression where you would normally step up and enter into the Bronco to see if I could get any of the features in this enhanced impression to correspond with the Silga sole, such as I had with the other comparisons that I made. And I was not able to make--take an overlay and actually reconstruct the exact position of that shoe to the point where I could say it was absolutely the Silga design and even go farther and say it was the same. There just wasn't enough detail and of course it is not representing the normal design of the case, but it is just wherever there happened to be some blood up in the grooves and wherever the carpeting had to go up, it just randomly whipped down the--

MR. GOLDBERG: So this would be in the negative area?

MR. BODZIAK: In the negative areas of the shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: Or the areas in the grooves, so to speak?

MR. BODZIAK: Yeah. I did notice that there was this area here which could possibly have been a border of the shoe, and there also is some little what I call squiggles or little "S" shapes which might represent the curved areas between the design elements, but they weren't clear enough or reliable enough to make any kind of a positive determination.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you point out to the areas that you did just refer to and maybe draw in a little arrow, if you can do that without drawing over any significant portion of the photograph that would hide something that you needed to do in your analysis?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay.

MR. GOLDBERG: Why don't you just draw a little red arrow and try to avoid any areas that were significant in terms of what you looked at?

MR. BODZIAK: Okay. This area here, (Indicating), was the area that I referred to that might be the border of the shoe, and this area down here, (Indicating), where it changes direction, kind of like an "S" is an example of that possible--the negative area of the shoe.

MR. GOLDBERG: Stop for a second. Can you take the rubber shoe and describe for us how it is that that is possibly consistent with the sole of the Silga?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes. Well, the--I don't know how well this can be seen with the light, but the--if you follow the grooves between the design elements, they change direction, so there is gentle curves between those design elements, and that would be the area that would be--still might be some blood in it at that point back down the driveway, that far from the actual crime scene. And these little changes of directions that you can see down here, (Indicating), as well as this border, and you really can't see any of them clear enough to make an overlay, but you can see something that suggests that, but there is just not enough detail to absolutely say that that is representative of the Silga sole.

[martin II]

**********************************************
The defense did have a good point there, but not a decisive one. I think that Rubin was more interested in being honest than in helping the prosecution. One of the posters probably GI suggested the do may have bitten the glove and pulled it off. If that happened, the glove would probably have dog saliva and maybe blood on it.

It is possible that OJS may have deliberately taken it off in the middle of the fight, although this doesn’t seem likely.

The most likely possibility is that both Ron and OJS were full of adrenaline and under those conditions it is difficult to predict what would happen.

Anyone who believes the defense story about the cuts on the left hand should be able to believe almost anything about either the left hand glove or the socks. The defense story is that OJS, a right handed man, got the cuts and scratches on his left hand picking up glass. There were at least three cuts, and numerous scratches, almost all on the back of the left hand (maybe all). This would be unusual enough if he was left handed, but really unusual for a right handed person.

Johnnie Cochran did a fairly good job in the trial. He won. Probably one of the best jobs of courtroom race pandering ever; but he did make some mistakes. The defense story of how a bloody footprint got in the bronco makes no sense. The defense said that Mark Fuhrman stepped in the blood and then tracked it into the bronco. This was contradicted by the fact that at least one criminologist said that only the killer stepped in the blood (and therefore no policemen did). No criminologist contradicted this. It is true that all criminologists make mistakes, but this is a fairly simple and important part of the crime scene. Another problem with the defense had on the footprint is that there were photos of the cops that night which showed their shoes. The FBI foot expert said that none of the photographed shoes, including Fuhrman’s, could have made the footprint. The defense never raised any questions about the photos of Fuhrman in his shoes that night.

Johnnie Cochran also called on a man who filmed an exercise video of OJS a few weeks before the killings. The guy helped the prosecution more than the defense. For two reasons. First of all he said OJS was in surprisingly good shape. Secondly the video showed OJS making a joke about wife beating.


FGUMP2
As posted above there was a shoe print on Rons jeans and on a piece of paper found at Bundy.This print did not match the other BM prints.

Does this tell you that a forth person was at Bundy during the murders and if so who do you think that person was?

[William Anthony]

**********************************************

Johnnie Cochran did a fairly good job in the trial. He won. Probably one of the best jobs of courtroom race pandering ever; but he did make some mistakes.



Since you have suggested that the magnificent one did one of the best jobs of courtroom race pandering ever, then do you believe that there was a basis which allowed the magnificent to pander to race?

[martin II]

William,

Two key issues fon this for me, one is the timing. Didn't Fuhrman say that he completed his notes when he was told that RHD was taking over? And according to him, the only time he got close enough to the glove was when that picture was taken.

The other is, why did Fuhrman assume that a dog bite could have caused the blood drops? Also, I don't remember which glove had the possible dog bite on it.

Furhman was very close to the glove when the picture was taken and he was verty close when he returned to Bundy to compare that glove to the one at Rockingham.So thats twice.

[William Anthony]

Anyone who believes the defense story about the cuts on the left hand should be able to believe almost anything about either the left hand glove or the socks. The defense story is that OJS, a right handed man, got the cuts and scratches on his left hand picking up glass. There were at least three cuts, and numerous scratches, almost all on the back of the left hand (maybe all). This would be unusual enough if he was left handed, but really unusual for a right handed person.

How about all the witnesses that testified that they saw no cut to Simpson's hand or bandage prior to his arrival in Chicago?

[William Anthony]

William,

Two key issues fon this for me, one is the timing. Didn't Fuhrman say that he completed his notes when he was told that RHD was taking over? And according to him, the only time he got close enough to the glove was when that picture was taken.

The other is, why did Fuhrman assume that a dog bite could have caused the blood drops? Also, I don't remember which glove had the possible dog bite on it.

I don't remember any testimony about a dog bite on the glove. I remember some testimony of dog hairs found on some of the items of evidence, which I believe the defense argued was from the dragging of the bodies through the crime scene and that dog hairs on the Rockingham glove suggested that the glove originated at Bundy. I did not place too much significance on the latter argument as it would have been at Bundy despite who deposited it at Rockingham. However, recognizing the magnificent one's magnificence, I will go back and review that portion for something I may have overlooked.

[martin II]

Which lead detective ordered Furhman to have his picture taken pointing to the glove.It would seem that if a picture was required DF should have been the one in the picture.Was this another instance of Furhman interjectring himself into a important aspect of the crime scene?

[martin II]

How about all the witnesses that testified that they saw no cut to Simpson's hand or bandage prior to his arrival in Chicago?

There were at least 4 witnesses including the plane captain that sat next to oj and got his autograph that teststified they saw no cuts or bandages on ojs hands but yet a poster post that oj had multiple cuts on the back of his hand.

[William Anthony]

There were at least 4 witnesses including the plane captain that sat next to oj and got his autograph that teststified they saw no cuts or bandages on ojs hands but yet a poster post that oj had multiple cuts on the back of his hand.

I think the poster was referring to old scratches/cuts on Simpson's hand and there were no bruises to Simpson's body, IIRC.

[William Anthony]

GreenIce,

Sometimes it is easy to overlook the obvious, as it pertained to the dog hairs on the Rockingham glove. If the Rockingham glove had not been on the ground at Bundy, then the only way the dog hair could have gotten on the glove was if the dog came in contact with it or the glove came in contact with some other item that had the Bundy dog's hair on it. The inference drawn from this would be in connection to MF's slip/non slip of the tongue, when he said the word them and that there were two gloves at Bundy but one mysteriously got to Rockingham behind Kato's quarters were MF investigated and found no evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters before he allegedly found the glove. Thanks, for making me consider the significance of the dog hairs.

[William Anthony]

I would like to review them briefly with you. Both gloves, no hair consistent with Mr. Simpson on the Bundy glove, no hair consistent with Mr. Simpson on the Rockingham glove. That's the slide we put up. Do you know what we should have added to that slide? Very significant facts that I hope you don't forget. There was an unidentified Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove. Did they test Mark Fuhrman? Did we get a hair exemplar from him? Uh-uh. Also--and this is a fascinating point. Kato the dog, his hair was found on the Rockingham glove. And I'd like to read this testimony to you because I don't think it was an answer that Miss Clark particularly liked, and this was in the cross-examination of Mr. Deedrick. "Question: --" and they were talking about Kato's hair on page 34349 of the transcript: "Is the finding of such hairs, Kato's hairs on the Rockingham glove, accounted for by possible contact between the wearer of that glove, the murderer, and Kato the dog either during or immediately after the murders?

"Answer: Could have. It could have been a direct transfer from the dog or, as I stated before, an indirect transfer from hairs at the crime scene. "Question: That would say where? "Answer: On the ground maybe. Would have to have been on the ground. "Question: Have to have been on the ground? "Answer: Or perhaps from one of the victims who had been on the ground and collected the hairs. "Question: And that you previously described those as being common to the under part of the dog as opposed to the tougher, the coat?" Now, he's talking about the hair. This was a soft hair from Kato the dog found on the Rockingham glove. "Answer: Okay. It may be just a matter of semantics here. When I say the under part, under the fur, under the outer coat, which could have been on the belly, it could have been on the back, but it is just the soft, fine hairs that are closer to the body.

"Question: If that dog used this shaded place to sleep or lie down on a regular basis when it was in the Bundy residence, might you expect to find some fur hairs left behind in the soil? "Answer: I would expect that, yes. "Question: And if the Rockingham glove were deposited any time on that soil, the Rockingham glove being on the Bundy soil in the closed-in area were deposited any time on this soil, might that not explain the presence of those hairs?

"Answer: It could, yes." So very simply, he's saying that this is hair from the soft under belly of Kato the dog, the kind you would expect to be shed if he were lying on the ground there, not the kind that you get if the dog sort of passed you, all right, or comes up on you as you're--they're going to probably claim fleeing the crime scene or something. It's a soft hair. It's the kind you would find on the ground in the closed-in area.

What does that mean? That means that Rockingham glove started at Bundy. Somebody took it somewhere else, and you know who that was.

[martin II]

GreenIce,

Sometimes it is easy to overlook the obvious, as it pertained to the dog hairs on the Rockingham glove. If the Rockingham glove had not been on the ground at Bundy, then the only way the dog hair could have gotten on the glove was if the dog came in contact with it or the glove came in contact with some other item that had the Bundy dog's hair on it. The inference drawn from this would be in connection to MF's slip/non slip of the tongue, when he said the word them and that there were two gloves at Bundy but one mysteriously got to Rockingham behind Kato's quarters were MF investigated and found no evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters before he allegedly found the glove. Thanks, for making me consider the significance of the dog hairs.

If the killing took only 1 1 1/2 minutes then i believe the killers had left Bundy before the dog came out from the house to the yard.Therefore there would be no opportunity for dog hairs to be on the rockingham glove unless the rockingham glove was still at Bundy when the dog came out.But this would mean that oj did not bring the glove from Bundy to Rockingham.Someone else did.imo

correction

Nicole comes out to yard.
Dog simi sleep up stairs.
Victims killed in 1 1/2 minutes.
Killer leaves Bundy with one glove.
Niciole does not come back inside in the time expected by the dog so the dog goes looking for her and finds her on the ground.
---------
It is not possible for dog hairs to be on the glove (rockingham) the killer left with because the dog was still in the house. This supports the idea that someone else brought the rockingham glove to rockingham some time after the dog came out of the house or that the rockingham glove was found
at Bundy by le on the ground and dog hairs on the ground got on the glove and was then carried to Rockingham by someone.imo

[martin II]

The fact that Furhman said he saw THEM at Bundy gives support to the idea
that someone took the glove from Bundy after le arrived.

[martin II]

fgump2

Oj was a running bacl for four years at USC and he played the same position
in the NFL for several years.Like other pro running backs he was left with severe ankle, knee and hip injuries along with Artharitis of the knees, hip and hands.
The exercise video trainer testified that he had to stop the production several times because oj could not keep up physically with the scrip as written. In order to kill two people in such a short period of time, both who were in great physical shape, the killer would have to be in supreme condition
and have above normal strength.This simply was not the condition oj was in.
The video trainer never testified that oj was in great shape so i think you are in error when you say he said he was.imo

[martin II]

Since you have suggested that the magnificent one did one of the best jobs of courtroom race pandering ever, then do you believe that there was a basis which allowed the magnificent to pander to race?

The accused was a famous, wealthy, handsom, mandingo type black man. one victim was a young, handsom white man the other a blue eyed bottle blond attractive female. Race was going to be discussed in this case regardless as long as the case was tried in America.When the verdict was different from what some expected, race was given to explain the verdict.The jury must have been racist in order to come to a verdict that some thought was wrong.They must have been ignorant because they did not see the evidence/testimony as i saw it.

[martin II]

Martin,

The DA's tried like hell to force Kardashian to the stand. With BW's statements alone, the DA's had all the reasons they needed to get him on the stand. In reading all the books, as it happens, OJ and RK were not as close at the time of the murders as they once were. I have read nothing about RK that would lead me to believe that he was not a good man. It appears to me that OJ and Nicole did remain closer to RK's ex-wife, Kris and her new husband (at the time) Bruce Jenner.

I still can't determine if Nicole, Paula and Simpson were told about the notebook. And if someone was watching Nicole, isn't it very possible that someone was also watching OJ Simpson?

I think the prosecutrion wanted RK on the stand seeking a opportunitry to
create discussion about the golf ball bag that was by OJS Bently that he took to Chicago.

[fgump2]

I believe that OJS had a problem with anger and domestic violence, and that if we examine these two problems in his life, and his unwillingness to admit to serious mistakes in those areas, it is logical to think that OJS was a psychopath who was capable of murder.
The following pieces of information are from Petrocelli’s book:
Police description of DM of 1989 New Years incident::
P 446 Police Officer John Edwards said she was wearing only a bra and sweatpants and said: “He’s going to kill me; he’s going to kill me”. Edwards saw a human hand print on her neck. “with the outline of at least three fingers”.
Then OJS yelled: I don’t want this woman in my house anymore, I got two other women. Edwards said ‘His face was in a rage. Two veins on his neck…they were pulsating rapidly, you could see them very clearly;
The police report said OJS went in the house, and the loyal housekeeper, Michelle Abudram opened the back door of the police cruiser, grabbed Nicole’s arm, started pummeling on her, and tried to pull her out. Simpson then came out of the house, and asked Officer Edwards:”what makes you so special? Why to you want to make a big deal out of this?

P187 Faye Resnicks description of OJS anger: it was like watching a man possessed, his jaw would protrude, sweat would come pouring from his head… He would perspire through his Clothing

P 187 :Nicole Simpson’s description: When he gets this crazed look, I get scared… all his veins pop out

P 243: Cora Fischman told Barbara Walters that Simpson had a violent temper

The fact that OJS has never acknowledged either having an anger problem or mistreating Nicole makes his behavior all the more disturbing. I read OJS’s description of his 1989 incident, and he lied about it. He made it seem like there he wasn’t very angry, and there wasn’t much violence.

I feel critical of people like WA, Martin, and GI who feel so much more critical of Mark Fuhrman than they are of Orenthal Simpson. Who are nation’s heroes are is important.

I also feel critical of GI for saying that Nicole was just as much an abuser as OJS. Nicole was wrong to hit Michele, but there two people aren’t comparable.

This brings up another important point. The police could easily have badly damaged the career of OJS if they had wanted to before the murders. It would have been easy to send the information to a scandal sheet. It might not have ended his career as a PR man, but it would have badly damaged it.
One pages 301 to 303 of Pretrocelli’s book, Frank Olson a top executive of Hertz, found out about the real truth of the 1989 incident and said this: “I was stunned.. I was embarrassed. If I had any idea at the time that it was the circumstances that it was, O.J. Simpson would never have worked another day for Hertz”. So there it is, evidence that the LA police including Mark Fuhrman could easily have sabotaged Mr. Simpson’s career and they chose not to. The general public didn't know how bad the 1989 incident was, nor did they know that there were other times when Nicole called the police about domestic violence.

[fgump2]

fgump2

Oj was a running bacl for four years at USC and he played the same position
in the NFL for several years.Like other pro running backs he was left with severe ankle, knee and hip injuries along with Artharitis of the knees, hip and hands.
The exercise video trainer testified that he had to stop the production several times because oj could not keep up physically with the scrip as written. In order to kill two people in such a short period of time, both who were in great physical shape, the killer would have to be in supreme condition
and have above normal strength.This simply was not the condition oj was in.
The video trainer never testified that oj was in great shape so i think you are in error when you say he said he was.imo

************************************************** *****
I shouldn't have used the term 'race pandering'. That was inflamatory and wrong.

I think that adrenaline and excitement could cause OJS or anyone else to forget their aches and pains and do things they normally couldn't do. Most people have heard stories of 110 lb women lifting cars off of their children. Most of these stories are probably made up, but contain a bit of truth. Intense emotion can increase anybody's strength and endurance. When I was younger, the excitement of doing things like childhood/teenage games would cause me to forget an aching back or knee. I don't know if Ron and Nicole would have benefited from the excitment. It might be that the excitment and adrenaline take a few minutes to kick in and improve a person's abilities. Many abused women freeze up wihen the see a man who has beaten them. Ron might have been more confused than angry or afraid for the first minutes or two. All three people would have been extremely excited. We don't know what the excitment would have done to any of them.

[martin II]

I believe that OJS had a problem with anger and domestic violence, and that if we examine these two problems in his life, and his unwillingness to admit to serious mistakes in those areas, it is logical to think that OJS was a psychopath who was capable of murder. OJ admitted to the 1989 abuse of nicole there was a court hearing on the matter and it may have been reported in the media. To say he never admitted to it is not correct
The following pieces of information are from Petrocelli’s book:
Police description of DM of 1989 New Years incident::
P 446 Police Officer John Edwards said she was wearing only a bra and sweatpants and said: “He’s going to kill me; he’s going to kill me”. Edwards saw a human hand print on her neck. “with the outline of at least three fingers”.
Then OJS yelled: I don’t want this woman in my house anymore, I got two other women.It was posted here that the two women oj referred to were the maid and the nanny not other two lovers Edwards said ‘His face was in a rage. Two veins on his neck…they were pulsating rapidly, you could see them very clearly;
The police report said OJS went in the house, and the loyal housekeeper, Michelle Abudram opened the back door of the police cruiser, grabbed Nicole’s arm, started pummeling on her, and tried to pull her outIf this were true then the officer would have had to arrest Michael. Simpson then came out of the house, and asked Officer Edwards:”what makes you so special? Why to you want to make a big deal out of this?

P187 Faye Resnicks description of OJS anger: it was like watching a man possessed, his jaw would protrude, sweat would come pouring from his head… He would perspire through his ClothingFaye said a lot of things that were not true. Some believe she lied when she said Nicole freebased cocain with her.

P 187 :Nicole Simpson’s description: When he gets this crazed look, I get scared… all his veins pop out

P 243: Cora Fischman told Barbara Walters that Simpson had a violent temper

The fact that OJS has never acknowledged either having an anger problem or mistreating Nicole makes his behavior all the more disturbing. I read OJS’s description of his 1989 incident, and he lied about it. He made it seem like there he wasn’t very angry, and there wasn’t much violence.

I feel critical of people like WA, Martin, and GI who feel so much more critical of Mark Fuhrman than they are of Orenthal Simpson. Who are nation’s heroes are is important.

I also feel critical of GI for saying that Nicole was just as much an abuser as OJS. Nicole was wrong to hit Michele, but there two people aren’t comparable.

This brings up another important point. The police could easily have badly damaged the career of OJS if they had wanted to before the murders. It would have been easy to send the information to a scandal sheet. It might not have ended his career as a PR man, but it would have badly damaged it.
One pages 301 to 303 of Pretrocelli’s book, Frank Olson a top executive of Hertz, found out about the real truth of the 1989 incident and said this: “I was stunned.. I was embarrassed. If I had any idea at the time that it was the circumstances that it was, O.J. Simpson would never have worked another day for Hertz”. So there it is, evidence that the LA police including Mark Fuhrman could easily have sabotaged Mr. Simpson’s career and they chose not to. The general public didn't know how bad the 1989 incident was, nor did they know that there were other times when Nicole called the police about domestic violence.

We all have our opinions.

[bobaugust]

This foot print not like BM indicates a forth person was at Bundy.I don't know how the prosecution explained this.


The only bloody shoe prints found at Bundy the morning after the murders came from one kind of shoe. Size 12 shoes with Silga soles.

bobaugust

[fgump2]

How about all the witnesses that testified that they saw no cut to Simpson's hand or bandage prior to his arrival in Chicago?
From a previous posting you gave
Since you have suggested that the magnificent one did one of the best jobs of courtroom race pandering ever, then do you believe that there was a basis which allowed the magnificent to pander to race?

************************************************** *****
The point that witnesses said the saw no signs of injuries to his hand is a valid point; but we should remember that criminologists and memory experts agree that people forget details that seem important quite fast. The condition of his left hand wouldn't seem important at the time. Also the cuts and scratches were on the back of his hand. It might have been interesting to see how visible or obvious the bandages were the next day. It would also matter how soon the people realized that the condition of the left hand mattered.

I am way short of being an expert on forensic memory. But I have read that experiments have shown that people's memories are inaccurate a few minutes after seeing something, and get more inaccurate with time. Of course the applies to prosecution witnesses also.

Some of the people may not have seen the back part of his left hand. Two people said they felt they got a good look at his left hand and saw no sign of injuries; but they had quite different memories of the clothing he was wearing. More evidence that memory is fallible.

I apologize for using the term race pandering. That was inflamatory and wrong.

[bobaugust]

I would like to review them briefly with you. Both gloves, no hair consistent with Mr. Simpson on the Bundy glove, no hair consistent with Mr. Simpson on the Rockingham glove. That's the slide we put up. Do you know what we should have added to that slide? Very significant facts that I hope you don't forget. There was an unidentified Caucasian hair on the Rockingham glove. Did they test Mark Fuhrman? Did we get a hair exemplar from him? Uh-uh. Also--and this is a fascinating point. Kato the dog, his hair was found on the Rockingham glove. And I'd like to read this testimony to you because I don't think it was an answer that Miss Clark particularly liked, and this was in the cross-examination of Mr. Deedrick. "Question: --" and they were talking about Kato's hair on page 34349 of the transcript: "Is the finding of such hairs, Kato's hairs on the Rockingham glove, accounted for by possible contact between the wearer of that glove, the murderer, and Kato the dog either during or immediately after the murders?

"Answer: Could have. It could have been a direct transfer from the dog or, as I stated before, an indirect transfer from hairs at the crime scene. "Question: That would say where? "Answer: On the ground maybe. Would have to have been on the ground. "Question: Have to have been on the ground? "Answer: Or perhaps from one of the victims who had been on the ground and collected the hairs. "Question: And that you previously described those as being common to the under part of the dog as opposed to the tougher, the coat?" Now, he's talking about the hair. This was a soft hair from Kato the dog found on the Rockingham glove. "Answer: Okay. It may be just a matter of semantics here. When I say the under part, under the fur, under the outer coat, which could have been on the belly, it could have been on the back, but it is just the soft, fine hairs that are closer to the body.

"Question: If that dog used this shaded place to sleep or lie down on a regular basis when it was in the Bundy residence, might you expect to find some fur hairs left behind in the soil? "Answer: I would expect that, yes. "Question: And if the Rockingham glove were deposited any time on that soil, the Rockingham glove being on the Bundy soil in the closed-in area were deposited any time on this soil, might that not explain the presence of those hairs?

"Answer: It could, yes." So very simply, he's saying that this is hair from the soft under belly of Kato the dog, the kind you would expect to be shed if he were lying on the ground there, not the kind that you get if the dog sort of passed you, all right, or comes up on you as you're--they're going to probably claim fleeing the crime scene or something. It's a soft hair. It's the kind you would find on the ground in the closed-in area.

What does that mean? That means that Rockingham glove started at Bundy. Somebody took it somewhere else, and you know who that was.

"Answer: Okay. It may be just a matter of semantics here. When I say the under part, under the fur, under the outer coat, which could have been on the belly, it could have been on the back, but it is just the soft, fine hairs that are closer to the body.”

I agree the killer’s right hand glove started at Bundy and somebody took it to Rockingham. The evidence is that somebody was the dog’s master who had made personal contact with his dog while wearing those gloves. We know who that somebody is from the blood and fiber evidence found on that glove as well as photographs showing that someone previously wearing the same exact kind of gloves. Orenthal James Simpson.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The fact that Furhman said he saw THEM at Bundy gives support to the idea
that someone took the glove from Bundy after le arrived.

No, the fact is that that someone testified he was referring to the actual evidence in this case; a knit hat and one glove that he saw under the plant leaves at Bundy at the feet the male victim. The same exact evidence the two patrol officers who arrived at Bundy over two hours before that someone arrived testified to seeing.

bobaugust

[martin II]

From a previous posting you gave
Since you have suggested that the magnificent one did one of the best jobs of courtroom race pandering ever, then do you believe that there was a basis which allowed the magnificent to pander to race?

************************************************** *****
The point that witnesses said the saw no signs of injuries to his hand is a valid point; but we should remember that criminologists and memory experts agree that people forget details that seem important quite fast. The condition of his left hand wouldn't seem important at the time. Also the cuts and scratches were on the back of his hand. It might have been interesting to see how visible or obvious the bandages were the next day. It would also matter how soon the people realized that the condition of the left hand mattered.

The captain sat next to oj on the plane and had a conversation with him.Oj gave him a autograph. i don't think memory matters in this situation.since all were in a position to observe oj hands up close and none saw and cuts etc.It is logical as you often say,that his hands were not cut. All had plenty of time to review what they saw by the time they testified.
I am way short of being an expert on forensic memory. But I have read that experiments have shown that people's memories are inaccurate a few minutes after seeing something, and get more inaccurate with time. Of course the applies to prosecution witnesses also.

Some of the people may not have seen the back part of his left hand. Two people said they felt they got a good look at his left hand and saw no sign of injuries; but they had quite different memories of the clothing he was wearing. More evidence that memory is fallible.

I apologize for using the term race pandering. That was inflamatory and wrong.

Based on testimony of Nicoles and ojs friends both had tempers(Nicole showed hers when she hit Michael) and both had used drugs from time to time. There was no reason for Nicole to hit Michael and no reason for her to have treated Michael as she had.imo

[martin II]

From a previous posting you gave
Since you have suggested that the magnificent one did one of the best jobs of courtroom race pandering ever, then do you believe that there was a basis which allowed the magnificent to pander to race?

************************************************** *****
The point that witnesses said the saw no signs of injuries to his hand is a valid point; but we should remember that criminologists and memory experts agree that people forget details that seem important quite fast. The condition of his left hand wouldn't seem important at the time. Also the cuts and scratches were on the back of his hand.The Doctor that examined ojs hands testified that the cuts were on oj fingers not the back of his hand. It might have been interesting to see how visible or obvious the bandages were the next day. It would also matter how soon the people realized that the condition of the left hand mattered.

I am way short of being an expert on forensic memory. But I have read that experiments have shown that people's memories are inaccurate a few minutes after seeing something, and get more inaccurate with time. Of course the applies to prosecution witnesses also.

Some of the people may not have seen the back part of his left hand. Two people said they felt they got a good look at his left hand and saw no sign of injuries; but they had quite different memories of the clothing he was wearing. More evidence that memory is fallible.

I apologize for using the term race pandering. That was inflamatory and wrong.

Thanks

[William Anthony]

I believe that OJS had a problem with anger and domestic violence, and that if we examine these two problems in his life, and his unwillingness to admit to serious mistakes in those areas, it is logical to think that OJS was a psychopath who was capable of murder.
The following pieces of information are from Petrocelli’s book:
Police description of DM of 1989 New Years incident::
P 446 Police Officer John Edwards said she was wearing only a bra and sweatpants and said: “He’s going to kill me; he’s going to kill me”. Edwards saw a human hand print on her neck. “with the outline of at least three fingers”.
Then OJS yelled: I don’t want this woman in my house anymore, I got two other women. Edwards said ‘His face was in a rage. Two veins on his neck…they were pulsating rapidly, you could see them very clearly;
The police report said OJS went in the house, and the loyal housekeeper, Michelle Abudram opened the back door of the police cruiser, grabbed Nicole’s arm, started pummeling on her, and tried to pull her out. Simpson then came out of the house, and asked Officer Edwards:”what makes you so special? Why to you want to make a big deal out of this?

P187 Faye Resnicks description of OJS anger: it was like watching a man possessed, his jaw would protrude, sweat would come pouring from his head… He would perspire through his Clothing

P 187 :Nicole Simpson’s description: When he gets this crazed look, I get scared… all his veins pop out

P 243: Cora Fischman told Barbara Walters that Simpson had a violent temper

The fact that OJS has never acknowledged either having an anger problem or mistreating Nicole makes his behavior all the more disturbing. I read OJS’s description of his 1989 incident, and he lied about it. He made it seem like there he wasn’t very angry, and there wasn’t much violence.

I feel critical of people like WA, Martin, and GI who feel so much more critical of Mark Fuhrman than they are of Orenthal Simpson. Who are nation’s heroes are is important.

I also feel critical of GI for saying that Nicole was just as much an abuser as OJS. Nicole was wrong to hit Michele, but there two people aren’t comparable.

This brings up another important point. The police could easily have badly damaged the career of OJS if they had wanted to before the murders. It would have been easy to send the information to a scandal sheet. It might not have ended his career as a PR man, but it would have badly damaged it.
One pages 301 to 303 of Pretrocelli’s book, Frank Olson a top executive of Hertz, found out about the real truth of the 1989 incident and said this: “I was stunned.. I was embarrassed. If I had any idea at the time that it was the circumstances that it was, O.J. Simpson would never have worked another day for Hertz”. So there it is, evidence that the LA police including Mark Fuhrman could easily have sabotaged Mr. Simpson’s career and they chose not to. The general public didn't know how bad the 1989 incident was, nor did they know that there were other times when Nicole called the police about domestic violence.

Many people have problems with anger and are not murderers, just as there were statics posted indicating that 60% of spousal abusers do not progress to murder.

The nation has made a hero of a LE member, who was convicted perjurer and admitted evidence planter, who spoke reprehensible, vile, despicable and demonic words, and made a villain of one who was acquitted of double murder, who had been a star athlete, sports commentator, and actor, who was a spousal abuser, and, who went on to avoid paying a damage award and was later convicted of armed robbery, kidnapping, burglary and an sundry of other charges, relating from one incident, which arguably could be tied back to his acquittal.

[GreenIce]

**********************************************

Anyone who believes the defense story about the cuts on the left hand should be able to believe almost anything about either the left hand glove or the socks. The defense story is that OJS, a right handed man, got the cuts and scratches on his left hand picking up glass. There were at least three cuts, and numerous scratches, almost all on the back of the left hand (maybe all). This would be unusual enough if he was left handed, but really unusual for a right handed person.

.

Fgump2,

I am just to respond to certain parts of your post. I don't want the points you have brought up to be lost.

Mr. Simpson for years and years played sports and because of the physical punhishment of the sport plus the weather conditions, can very much dull much of the pain that "every day" cuts can cause. Also, he has huge, huge hands, again, this also generates alot of cuts. Now when you throw in the arthritis, which I believe his knuckles appear to be be swollen 99% of the time, then his giving a list of reasons of how and when he cut his hands makes perfect sense. If I remember correctly, there were many cuts and scrapes and bruises on his hands, so he may very well be telling the truth.

One thing to remember in this case, even if OJ is telling the truth about the cuts on his hands, does that mean he did not committ the murders? That was the downfall of the DA's, they kept on harping on "it had to be at this time", etc., etc., when in realily the could have just as easy cut his hands before going to Bundy.


Think about this, no one saw any cuts on Mr. Simpson's hands right? Two people were actually looking at them. No says a word about them to him. So he gets a telelphone call telling him about Nicole and now he is going to panic because he realized he was bleeding when he left Bundy? That makes no sense.

Also, to believe the DA's theory, then are basically saying that Simpson broke a glass, took a shard of it and "traced" the wound that was caused by the a knife---does that make sense to you? If Simpson was worried about the cut on his hand, he would have punched the piss out the hardest surface he could find and turn his hams into bloody raw ground beef and he will be golden. Remember, no one saw any large cut on the his finger and Kato saw him wipe a drop or two of blood off of a papercut.

Now Dr. H., who examined his hands right a day or so later, did determine that one of the cuts on his hand is consistent with the story he told by the amount of blood in the Bronco. I don't know how they figure that out but apparently they can.

Please note, the DA's never presented an expert regarding the cuts on Simpson's hands. They couldn't.


One other thing, please remember the DA's said the cut was caused by a knife, the defense had an expert witness who testified it was more consistent with it being from broken glass and Dr. Spitz in the civil trial insisted they were fingernail gouges. Apparently it just depends on which expert you believe---however, you can't deny that no cuts were seen on his hands and his hands were looked at, closely.

[William Anthony]

From a previous posting you gave
Since you have suggested that the magnificent one did one of the best jobs of courtroom race pandering ever, then do you believe that there was a basis which allowed the magnificent to pander to race?

************************************************** *****
The point that witnesses said the saw no signs of injuries to his hand is a valid point; but we should remember that criminologists and memory experts agree that people forget details that seem important quite fast. The condition of his left hand wouldn't seem important at the time. Also the cuts and scratches were on the back of his hand. It might have been interesting to see how visible or obvious the bandages were the next day. It would also matter how soon the people realized that the condition of the left hand mattered.

I am way short of being an expert on forensic memory. But I have read that experiments have shown that people's memories are inaccurate a few minutes after seeing something, and get more inaccurate with time. Of course the applies to prosecution witnesses also.

Some of the people may not have seen the back part of his left hand. Two people said they felt they got a good look at his left hand and saw no sign of injuries; but they had quite different memories of the clothing he was wearing. More evidence that memory is fallible.

I apologize for using the term race pandering. That was inflamatory and wrong.

I think it is a commonly accepted principle that people's memories do not improve over time or I would be able to tell you what I ate when I was 2 years old on April 22nd, as opposed to what I ate yesterday. However, I may not be able to do either.:)

[William Anthony]

"Answer: Okay. It may be just a matter of semantics here. When I say the under part, under the fur, under the outer coat, which could have been on the belly, it could have been on the back, but it is just the soft, fine hairs that are closer to the body.”

I agree the killer’s right hand glove started at Bundy and somebody took it to Rockingham. The evidence is that somebody was the dog’s master who had made personal contact with his dog while wearing those gloves. We know who that somebody is from the blood and fiber evidence found on that glove as well as photographs showing that someone previously wearing the same exact kind of gloves. Orenthal James Simpson.

bobaugust

"Answer: It could, yes." So very simply, he's saying that this is hair from the soft under belly of Kato the dog, the kind you would expect to be shed if he were lying on the ground there, not the kind that you get if the dog sort of passed you, all right, or comes up on you as you're--they're going to probably claim fleeing the crime scene or something. It's a soft hair. It's the kind you would find on the ground in the closed-in area."

Could you be right? Could the magnificent one have been right? If the jury thought that the prosecution could have been right as well as the defense, what decision were the obligated to reach in regard to innocence, according to the jury instruction? Does this not mean reasonable doubt?

[William Anthony]

The fact that Furhman said he saw THEM at Bundy gives support to the idea
that someone took the glove from Bundy after le arrived.

Agreed.

[fgump2]

Fgump2,

Now Dr. H., who examined his hands right a day or so later, did determine that one of the cuts on his hand is consistent with the story he told by the amount of blood in the Bronco. I don't know how they figure that out but apparently they can.

Please note, the DA's never presented an expert regarding the cuts on Simpson's hands. They couldn't.


One other thing, please remember the DA's said the cut was caused by a knife, the defense had an expert witness who testified it was more consistent with it being from broken glass and Dr. Spitz in the civil trial insisted they were fingernail gouges. Apparently it just depends on which expert you believe---however, you can't deny that no cuts were seen on his hands and his hands were looked at, closely.
************************************************** ****
First of all I distrust Dr. H (Huizenga). On July 17 of the criminal trial Dr H testified as follows: I took the tact to address his mental status problems and his insomnia and his difficulty handling this incredible, incredible stress that maybe no other human being short of job has endured

He lost creditability with me on the quote about Job. Maybe he took lessons about slanted testimony from Henry Lee and John Gerdes. So I don’t give much weight to his remarks about the cuts being caused by glass. I think Dr. H is the guy who said the cuts were caused by glass. I may look it up.

I wonder where he came up with that line about Job? Had he done any other courtroom testimony? At least one book was written which gave inside information about the Simpson defense.

The civil plaintiff expert, Dr. Spitz, who said some scratches were caused by fingernail gouges was talking about scratches, not cuts. Simpson had both scratches and cuts on the back of his hands. I am sure the scratches were on the back of his hands, I thought the cuts were on the back of his hands and fingers.

[fgump2]

Many people have problems with anger and are not murderers, just as there were statics posted indicating that 60% of spousal abusers do not progress to murder.

The nation has made a hero of a LE member, who was convicted perjurer and admitted evidence planter, who spoke reprehensible, vile, despicable and demonic words, and made a villain of one who was acquitted of double murder, who had been a star athlete, sports commentator, and actor, who was a spousal abuser, and, who went on to avoid paying a damage award and was later convicted of armed robbery, kidnapping, burglary and an sundry of other charges, relating from one incident, which arguably could be tied back to his acquittal.
************************************************** ********
I think Mark Fuhrman got mostly bad press during the trial. It is odd that he was able to make money off it by writing books afterwards. It is also odd that Oprah Winfrey, a black woman, helped him redeem himself. At least that is my memory.

Since the tapes were for fictional purposes, it is going to far to say admitted evidence planter. He also said on the tapes he didn't plant the gloves.

As far as I can tell in the 13 + years since the acuittal nobody has stepped forward and said that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence on them or framed them.

I am pretty sure I read somewhere that when he tried for an early retirement based on mental problems, he talked about his experiences in Viet Nam. He bragged about killing people in Viet Nam. The real truth is that he was never in Viet Nam, and never saw combat duty.

[GreenIce]

************************************************** ****
First of all I distrust Dr. H (Huizenga). On July 17 of the criminal trial Dr H testified as follows: I took the tact to address his mental status problems and his insomnia and his difficulty handling this incredible, incredible stress that maybe no other human being short of job has endured

He lost creditability with me on the quote about Job. Maybe he took lessons about slanted testimony from Henry Lee and John Gerdes. So I don’t give much weight to his remarks about the cuts being caused by glass. I think Dr. H is the guy who said the cuts were caused by glass. I may look it up.

I wonder where he came up with that line about Job? Had he done any other courtroom testimony? At least one book was written which gave inside information about the Simpson defense.

The civil plaintiff expert, Dr. Spitz, who said some scratches were caused by fingernail gouges was talking about scratches, not cuts. Simpson had both scratches and cuts on the back of his hands. I am sure the scratches were on the back of his hands, I thought the cuts were on the back of his hands and fingers.

fgump2,

I can understand your feelings about Dr. H., I did not feel comfortable about that comparison, however, I don't know if Dr. H. is very religious and he often makes these kinds of statements.

Another point, it was not up to a defense witness determine what type of cut it was or what could have made it, that was up to the DA's. To the best of my knowledge, VA and Lange asked the Nurse to look at Simpson's cut and to treat it or something like---I think to replace the bandage. Again, it was up the LAPD to have a doctor look at it. They did not do this. They also took pictures of his hands, again, they did not consult a Dr. and his opinons about the cut or cuts.

So Dr. Spitz testified thought that Simpson's hands were injured by a couple of different methods? I do not have much faith in Dr. Spitz because he refused to get involved in the criminal case--so what he says now, IMO, is nothing more then give the civil jury more options. Again, IMO.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

I can understand your feelings about Dr. H., I did not feel comfortable about that comparison, however, I don't know if Dr. H. is very religious and he often makes these kinds of statements.

Another point, it was not up to a defense witness determine what type of cut it was or what could have made it, that was up to the DA's. To the best of my knowledge, VA and Lange asked the Nurse to look at Simpson's cut and to treat it or something like---I think to replace the bandage. Again, it was up the LAPD to have a doctor look at it. They did not do this. They also took pictures of his hands, again, they did not consult a Dr. and his opinons about the cut or cuts.

So Dr. Spitz testified thought that Simpson's hands were injured by a couple of different methods? I do not have much faith in Dr. Spitz because he refused to get involved in the criminal case--so what he says now, IMO, is nothing more then give the civil jury more options. Again, IMO.
************************************************** ******
I don't know anything about Spitz refusing to take part in the criminal trial. Was he asked? If he was asked what did he say? I don't understand why that would affect his credibility, regardless of what excuse he gave. Simpson had some deep cuts, at least one of which left a permanent scar. I thought they were on the back of the left hand, with some of the cuts more or less beween his fingers. I found it very hard to believe that he got those cuts picking up glass. I''ve picked up a lot of broken glass, and I think most of the cuts I got were shallow cuts. The only deep cuts from glass that I recall were situations in which a sliver of glass stuck in the way a needle would.

[GreenIce]

I believe that OJS had a problem with anger and domestic violence, and that if we examine these two problems in his life, and his unwillingness to admit to serious mistakes in those areas, it is logical to think that OJS was a psychopath who was capable of murder.
The following pieces of information are from Petrocelli’s book:
Police description of DM of 1989 New Years incident::
P 446 Police Officer John Edwards said she was wearing only a bra and sweatpants and said: “He’s going to kill me; he’s going to kill me”. Edwards saw a human hand print on her neck. “with the outline of at least three fingers”.
Then OJS yelled: I don’t want this woman in my house anymore, I got two other women. Edwards said ‘His face was in a rage. Two veins on his neck…they were pulsating rapidly, you could see them very clearly;
The police report said OJS went in the house, and the loyal housekeeper, Michelle Abudram opened the back door of the police cruiser, grabbed Nicole’s arm, started pummeling on her, and tried to pull her out. Simpson then came out of the house, and asked Officer Edwards:”what makes you so special? Why to you want to make a big deal out of this?

P187 Faye Resnicks description of OJS anger: it was like watching a man possessed, his jaw would protrude, sweat would come pouring from his head… He would perspire through his Clothing

P 187 :Nicole Simpson’s description: When he gets this crazed look, I get scared… all his veins pop out

P 243: Cora Fischman told Barbara Walters that Simpson had a violent temper

The fact that OJS has never acknowledged either having an anger problem or mistreating Nicole makes his behavior all the more disturbing. I read OJS’s description of his 1989 incident, and he lied about it. He made it seem like there he wasn’t very angry, and there wasn’t much violence.

I feel critical of people like WA, Martin, and GI who feel so much more critical of Mark Fuhrman than they are of Orenthal Simpson. Who are nation’s heroes are is important.

I also feel critical of GI for saying that Nicole was just as much an abuser as OJS. Nicole was wrong to hit Michele, but there two people aren’t comparable.

This brings up another important point. The police could easily have badly damaged the career of OJS if they had wanted to before the murders. It would have been easy to send the information to a scandal sheet. It might not have ended his career as a PR man, but it would have badly damaged it.
One pages 301 to 303 of Pretrocelli’s book, Frank Olson a top executive of Hertz, found out about the real truth of the 1989 incident and said this: “I was stunned.. I was embarrassed. If I had any idea at the time that it was the circumstances that it was, O.J. Simpson would never have worked another day for Hertz”. So there it is, evidence that the LA police including Mark Fuhrman could easily have sabotaged Mr. Simpson’s career and they chose not to. The general public didn't know how bad the 1989 incident was, nor did they know that there were other times when Nicole called the police about domestic violence.

Fgump2,

Have you ever read Nicole's written statement about the 1989 incident? And I am talking about the police statement.

Because Mr. Simpson did plead not contest, that does not mean that the court papers and documents were sealed. IMO, If Mr. Olson didn't know the whole truth about the incident, then he did not want to know. And to be fair, do you think any of these CEO's are going to claim they did know the truth?

Have you ever read Edwards' written report on this incident and was Edwards alone, or did he have a partner that night?

My problem with Fuhrman is that he knew what was coming in regards to what Judge Ito's ruling was. He not only lied but he also said that anyone who said differently, they all were lying. He also knew that he was about to testify in another trial regarding planting evidence and using the N-word.

He disobeyed a direct order not to talk to LHM, he did so any way and this perhaps the most damning evidence against the DA's and the LAPD. Who ever told him not to LHM, knew about the tapes. So again, that means at least one other member of the LAPD knew he was going to commit perjury.

I am not denying that Simpson could look very, very angry and the person who it is directed to can feel real fear---however, he is not the only man that can give those types of looks. I am sure there are some woman who can also looked enraged. To be honest with you, when I am truly angry, I don't ever recognize myself.

No other police officers ever came forward to confirm there were more 911 phone calls. I think Officer John Edwards' testimony about the other times, really hurt the DA's DV evidence and motive----the jury was waiting for these other incidents to come into evidence.

[martin II]

************************************************** ********
I think Mark Fuhrman got mostly bad press during the trial. It is odd that he was able to make money off it by writing books afterwards. It is also odd that Oprah Winfrey, a black woman, helped him redeem himself. At least that is my memory. EXPLAIN IF YOU DON'T MIND.

Since the tapes were for fictional purposes, it is going to far to say admitted evidence planter. He also said on the tapes he didn't plant the gloves.

As far as I can tell in the 13 + years since the acuittal nobody has stepped forward and said that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence on them or framed them.

I am pretty sure I read somewhere that when he tried for an early retirement based on mental problems, he talked about his experiences in Viet Nam. He bragged about killing people in Viet Nam. The real truth is that he was never in Viet Nam, and never saw combat duty.

conviently you left out some issues when he tried for retirement like his hatred of mixed couples and minorities.

[martin II]

************************************************** ******
I don't know anything about Spitz refusing to take part in the criminal trial.You may not know it but he did refuse. Was he asked? He was asked by both sides and he refused both request. Read the testimony and you will have a better understanding.If he was asked what did he say? I don't understand why that would affect his credibility, regardless of what excuse he gave. Simpson had some deep cuts, at least one of which left a permanent scar. I thought they were on the back of the left hand, with some of the cuts more or less beween his fingers. Read the Doctors description of the cut and you will be able to be more accurate in your post.I found it very hard to believe that he got those cuts picking up glass.He broke the glass in his hand. I''ve picked up a lot of broken glass, and I think most of the cuts I got were shallow cuts. The only deep cuts from glass that I recall were situations in which a sliver of glass stuck in the way a needle would.your experience was not his experience.If you read the doctors testimony you would understand what happened.Making claims that are just too far from the facts do not add understanding to the discussion.

OJ when told that Nicole had been killed pounded the sink with the glass in his hand and this caused the jagged cut on his finger.

[William Anthony]

************************************************** ********
I think Mark Fuhrman got mostly bad press during the trial. It is odd that he was able to make money off it by writing books afterwards. It is also odd that Oprah Winfrey, a black woman, helped him redeem himself. At least that is my memory.

Since the tapes were for fictional purposes, it is going to far to say admitted evidence planter. He also said on the tapes he didn't plant the gloves.

As far as I can tell in the 13 + years since the acuittal nobody has stepped forward and said that Mark Fuhrman planted evidence on them or framed them.

I am pretty sure I read somewhere that when he tried for an early retirement based on mental problems, he talked about his experiences in Viet Nam. He bragged about killing people in Viet Nam. The real truth is that he was never in Viet Nam, and never saw combat duty.

Some Blacks and, maybe, including Ms. Winfrey have a history of being forgiving about the ignorant, despicable, reprehensible, vile and demonic words spoken by those that harbor racial animosity and I have noted that many many Americans have embraced MF, to include buying his books.

I would guess that the reason no one stepped forward to say MF planted evidence on them was because he was no longer on the force in the time following the trial and for him to plant evidence after being exposed during the trial as one capable of planting evidence would show a level of stupidity which I do not believe he possessed. MF also spoke of the fact that the statute of limitations had expired, to which the justice department responded, that they weren't saying that MF did nothing wrong, only that the statute of limitations had expired. MF was not stupid enough to admit to a crime in which the statute of limitations had not expired, imho.

You may think that the tapes were for a fictional purpose but the purpose was to show the problems women on the force faced due to the organization, MAW. The tapes took on a life of their own after MF contacted LHM and that life included a narrative on racial hatred and police corruption. Whether of not one believes it was for a screenplay or not, there can be no doubt that MF admitted to evidence planting/fabricating/manipulating and, therefore, my use of the term is well within his admissions.

In regard to MF's claims about Viet Nam, to me, it only shows his willingness to break the rules and play the system even if it means that he became corrupt in the process.

[bobaugust]

"Answer: It could, yes." So very simply, he's saying that this is hair from the soft under belly of Kato the dog, the kind you would expect to be shed if he were lying on the ground there, not the kind that you get if the dog sort of passed you, all right, or comes up on you as you're--they're going to probably claim fleeing the crime scene or something. It's a soft hair. It's the kind you would find on the ground in the closed-in area."

Could you be right? Could the magnificent one have been right? If the jury thought that the prosecution could have been right as well as the defense, what decision were the obligated to reach in regard to innocence, according to the jury instruction? Does this not mean reasonable doubt?

Reasonable doubt? About what? The fact is that the killer’s left hand glove found on the ground under the plant leaves had a different kind of hair on it from the Akita; a “guard hair.” The Akita’s hairs found on the killer’s right hand glove could have been from direct contact with the dog or possibly contact with the ground or even transferred from Ron Goldman’s clothing when that glove was still on the killer’s hand. There is no evidence that the killer left both his gloves under the plant leaves before leaving the murder scene.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Agreed.

Of course you agree with what Martin said since he is only parroting your unreasonable speculation of what you imagine Fuhrman meant. The fact is that Mark Fuhrman never implied, suggested, inferred, or said he saw two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy. When Fuhrman used the word “them” in the preliminary hearing he testified he was referring to the evidence that he could see under the plant leaves at Bundy, a knit hat and one glove. The same evidence that everyone else who testified about this said they saw. There is no evidence that the killer left both his gloves under the plant leaves before leaving the murder scene.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Fgump2,

Have you ever read Nicole's written statement about the 1989 incident? And I am talking about the police statement.

Because Mr. Simpson did plead not contest, that does not mean that the court papers and documents were sealed. IMO, If Mr. Olson didn't know the whole truth about the incident, then he did not want to know. And to be fair, do you think any of these CEO's are going to claim they did know the truth?

Have you ever read Edwards' written report on this incident and was Edwards alone, or did he have a partner that night?
I don't think fgump2 knows who that partner was.

My problem with Fuhrman is that he knew what was coming in regards to what Judge Ito's ruling was. He not only lied but he also said that anyone who said differently, they all were lying. He also knew that he was about to testify in another trial regarding planting evidence and using the N-word.That would be the Bratton sp case that was filed against Furhman. Just before the criminal trial the city of la paid the platiff $100.000 so that that case would not be alive and against Furhman when ojs trial started.This was another plant and abuse case against Furhman

He disobeyed a direct order not to talk to LHM, he did so any way and this perhaps the most damning evidence against the DA's and the LAPD. Who ever told him not to LHM, knew about the tapes. So again, that means at least one other member of the LAPD knew he was going to commit perjury.

I am not denying that Simpson could look very, very angry and the person who it is directed to can feel real fear---however, he is not the only man that can give those types of looks. I am sure there are some woman who can also looked enraged. To be honest with you, when I am truly angry, I don't ever recognize myself.

No other police officers ever came forward to confirm there were more 911 phone calls. I think Officer John Edwards' testimony about the other times, really hurt the DA's DV evidence and motive----the jury was waiting for these other incidents to come into evidence.

Faye is talking about how a angry oj looked.I wonder how she looked when she was freebasing cocain daily at Nicoles house.I bet that was not a pretty face.

[GreenIce]

Some Blacks and, maybe, including Ms. Winfrey have a history of being forgiving about the ignorant, despicable, reprehensible, vile and demonic words spoken by those that harbor racial animosity and I have noted that many many Americans have embraced MF, to include buying his books.

I would guess that the reason no one stepped forward to say MF planted evidence on them was because he was no longer on the force in the time following the trial and for him to plant evidence after being exposed during the trial as one capable of planting evidence would show a level of stupidity which I do not believe he possessed. MF also spoke of the fact that the statute of limitations had expired, to which the justice department responded, that they weren't saying that MF did nothing wrong, only that the statute of limitations had expired. MF was not stupid enough to admit to a crime in which the statute of limitations had not expired, imho.

You may think that the tapes were for a fictional purpose but the purpose was to show the problems women on the force faced due to the organization, MAW. The tapes took on a life of their own after MF contacted LHM and that life included a narrative on racial hatred and police corruption. Whether of not one believes it was for a screenplay or not, there can be no doubt that MF admitted to evidence planting/fabricating/manipulating and, therefore, my use of the term is well within his admissions.

In regard to MF's claims about Viet Nam, to me, it only shows his willingness to break the rules and play the system even if it means that he became corrupt in the process.

William,

I have bought MF's book as well as many others because I did not want to limit myself to just one side of the story. However, what I find very interesting is if you read his book he does make some key points but he also, IMO, confirms that he is everything he said he was on the tapes.

I have not embraced MF but I did buy his book.

As for Oprah, she may very well think MF is racist but that "crime" has nothing to do with the fact how Simpson treated his wife. Or change her belief that Simpson did murder his wife.

[GreenIce]

Faye is talking about how a angry oj looked.I wonder how she looked when she was freebasing cocain daily at Nicoles house.I bet that was not a pretty face.

Martin,

I truly don't know who Edwards' partner was that night. Who was it?

Nicole did describe how Simpson can look when he is very angry and that was on the taped interview that Nicole did not know was being taped--it was the same one where Nicole said that OJ only hit her once.

Have you never noticed that Nicole has told several people that he only hit her once but she never uses the word, "beat"?

[martin II]

Some Blacks and, maybe, including Ms. Winfrey have a history of being forgiving about the ignorant, despicable, reprehensible, vile and demonic words spoken by those that harbor racial animosity and I have noted that many many Americans have embraced MF, to include buying his books.

I would guess that the reason no one stepped forward to say MF planted evidence on them was because he was no longer on the force in the time following the trial and for him to plant evidence after being exposed during the trial as one capable of planting evidence would show a level of stupidity which I do not believe he possessed. MF also spoke of the fact that the statute of limitations had expired, to which the justice department responded, that they weren't saying that MF did nothing wrong, only that the statute of limitations had expired. MF was not stupid enough to admit to a crime in which the statute of limitations had not expired, imho.

You may think that the tapes were for a fictional purpose but the purpose was to show the problems women on the force faced due to the organization, MAW. The tapes took on a life of their own after MF contacted LHM and that life included a narrative on racial hatred and police corruption. Whether of not one believes it was for a screenplay or not, there can be no doubt that MF admitted to evidence planting/fabricating/manipulating and, therefore, my use of the term is well within his admissions.

In regard to MF's claims about Viet Nam, to me, it only shows his willingness to break the rules and play the system even if it means that he became corrupt in the process.

What i see is a cop that lied on the stand and that had many claims of abuse of citizens, and gave the lapd a black eye in a major trial, receiving strong support by some that also claim to be law and order types and that the law should be upheld.How is it that Cochran is bashed for his legal court work and Furhman a corrupt cop that lied on the stand is supported here by some that speak of right and wrong.:shrug:

[martin II]

Martin,

I truly don't know who Edwards' partner was that night. Who was it?

Nicole did describe how Simpson can look when he is very angry and that was on the taped interview that Nicole did not know was being taped--it was the same one where Nicole said that OJ only hit her once.

Have you never noticed that Nicole has told several people that he only hit her once but she never uses the word, "beat"?

What is odd is that Nicole says oj only hit her once when she did not know she was being taped but some posting here continue to ignore her statement
and claim that he hit her on a regular basis.So who should be belived Nicole in her own words or a poster posting here?

I know Furhman was there on a previous call.Was this the time?I am not sure.

[GreenIce]

Of course you agree with what Martin said since he is only parroting your unreasonable speculation of what you imagine Fuhrman meant. The fact is that Mark Fuhrman never implied, suggested, inferred, or said he saw two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy. When Fuhrman used the word “them” in the preliminary hearing he testified he was referring to the evidence that he could see under the plant leaves at Bundy, a knit hat and one glove. The same evidence that everyone else who testified about this said they saw. There is no evidence that the killer left both his gloves under the plant leaves before leaving the murder scene.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

MF's written description was not that of a knit hat, it was a ski mask, huge, huge difference. And a very telling one at that.

MF knew before the night of the murders where the dog was kept. He knew in the prelim hearing that OJ and Nicole had joint custody of the children.

MF reported to the scene wearing a suit jacket and somewhere along the way he had taken it off. Lt. Spangler was told that he was to avoid talking about this---I believe that was from the civil trial.

MF suspected a killer may have been bleeding from a dog bite--why did he write this in his notes?

MF also said he saw a bloody fingerprint on the back gate---where did this go?

MF also saw blood on a light switch at Rockingham, again, where did this go?

In all fairness to you, you may very well be right that MF was not referring to see two gloves underneath the plant, but that does not mean he did not see 2 gloves before he left to go to Rockingham.

The evidence suggests that the killer did leave behind the hat and glove on purpose. I seriously doubt that he would have left both gloves in the same place.

The evidence, IMO, proves the glove was planted, but that does not mean that MF was the only person who had motivation to this.

You are also forgetting, all these witnesses who said they did not see a second glove were not asked if they were looking for a second glove. It appears to me that police officers and detectives are very selective when they decide if, when and where they will look for evidence. IMO.

[William Anthony]

Reasonable doubt? About what? The fact is that the killer’s left hand glove found on the ground under the plant leaves had a different kind of hair on it from the Akita; a “guard hair.” The Akita’s hairs found on the killer’s right hand glove could have been from direct contact with the dog or possibly contact with the ground or even transferred from Ron Goldman’s clothing when that glove was still on the killer’s hand. There is no evidence that the killer left both his gloves under the plant leaves before leaving the murder scene.

bobaugust

Reasonable doubt as to who brought the glove to Rockingham and how in connection with all the evidence, to include MF's slip/non slip of the tongue, as well as no evidence of anyone being behind Kato's quarters where the glove was allegedly found, save MF and the unidentified Caucasian hair found on the glove and the soft dog hairs.

[martin II]

Fgump2,

I am just to respond to certain parts of your post. I don't want the points you have brought up to be lost.

Mr. Simpson for years and years played sports and because of the physical punhishment of the sport plus the weather conditions, can very much dull much of the pain that "every day" cuts can cause. Also, he has huge, huge hands, again, this also generates alot of cuts. Now when you throw in the arthritis, which I believe his knuckles appear to be be swollen 99% of the time, then his giving a list of reasons of how and when he cut his hands makes perfect sense. If I remember correctly, there were many cuts and scrapes and bruises on his hands, so he may very well be telling the truth.

One thing to remember in this case, even if OJ is telling the truth about the cuts on his hands, does that mean he did not committ the murders? That was the downfall of the DA's, they kept on harping on "it had to be at this time", etc., etc., when in realily the could have just as easy cut his hands before going to Bundy.


Think about this, no one saw any cuts on Mr. Simpson's hands right? Two people were actually looking at them. No says a word about them to him. So he gets a telelphone call telling him about Nicole and now he is going to panic because he realized he was bleeding when he left Bundy? That makes no sense.

Also, to believe the DA's theory, then are basically saying that Simpson broke a glass, took a shard of it and "traced" the wound that was caused by the a knife---does that make sense to you? If Simpson was worried about the cut on his hand, he would have punched the piss out the hardest surface he could find and turn his hams into bloody raw ground beef and he will be golden. Remember, no one saw any large cut on the his finger and Kato saw him wipe a drop or two of blood off of a papercut.

Now Dr. H., who examined his hands right a day or so later, did determine that one of the cuts on his hand is consistent with the story he told by the amount of blood in the Bronco. I don't know how they figure that out but apparently they can.

Please note, the DA's never presented an expert regarding the cuts on Simpson's hands. They couldn't.


One other thing, please remember the DA's said the cut was caused by a knife, the defense had an expert witness who testified it was more consistent with it being from broken glass and Dr. Spitz in the civil trial insisted they were fingernail gouges. Apparently it just depends on which expert you believe---however, you can't deny that no cuts were seen on his hands and his hands were looked at, closely.

The problem some create on this issue is that if only one of the three witnesses had said they saw a small cut on ojs hands that would be cause for them to say SEE he cut his hand at Bundy.

Since all three witnesses said they saw no cuts or anything strange about his hands all kinds of excusses are made about those witnesses in an effort to
just ignore their observations/testimony.

[William Anthony]

Of course you agree with what Martin said since he is only parroting your unreasonable speculation of what you imagine Fuhrman meant. The fact is that Mark Fuhrman never implied, suggested, inferred, or said he saw two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy. When Fuhrman used the word “them” in the preliminary hearing he testified he was referring to the evidence that he could see under the plant leaves at Bundy, a knit hat and one glove. The same evidence that everyone else who testified about this said they saw. There is no evidence that the killer left both his gloves under the plant leaves before leaving the murder scene.

bobaugust

We need not rehash the testimony as I posted it previously and we have held that debate and I showed that MF was asked specifically about seeing one glove and had not been asked about a knit hat in tow pages of testimony and we need not become hostile by calling other posters' inferences, not speculations, unreasonable. As far as the evidence is concerned see above post. Thanks in anticipation for you cooperation.

[William Anthony]

William,

I have bought MF's book as well as many others because I did not want to limit myself to just one side of the story. However, what I find very interesting is if you read his book he does make some key points but he also, IMO, confirms that he is everything he said he was on the tapes.

I have not embraced MF but I did buy his book.

As for Oprah, she may very well think MF is racist but that "crime" has nothing to do with the fact how Simpson treated his wife. Or change her belief that Simpson did murder his wife.

I wasn't saying nor meant to imply that all who bought MF's fictional work where embracing him. I just did not want to spend money that would in any way benefit him.

[William Anthony]

Some always ask for evidence of planting. Where is the evidence that Simpson put the glove behind Kato's quarters-Kato heard thumps and Park saw someone that may have or may not have been Simpson enter Simpson's home, while Simpson was preparing for his departure on his scheduled trip to Chicago?

[martin II]

fgump2

So far you have expressed distrust of:
Dr Huizenga
B Scheck
P Neufeld
J Cochran
The Therpist
LHM
Ms Bell
Dr lee
and maby a few others that worked for or testified for the defence.

Is there any defence lawyer or witness that testified that you agree with or do you just distrust all defence type witnesses including the jury?

[William Anthony]

MR. DARDEN: THE BLOOD THAT YOU SAW BACK AT BUNDY JUST PRIOR TO YOUR DEPARTURE A FEW
MINUTES BEFORE 5:00 IN THE MORNING --DID THAT BLOOD APPEAR TO BE DRY?

MR. VANNATTER: NO.

MR. DARDEN: DID THE GLOVE APPEAR SHINY AT ALL?

MR. VANNATTER: IT APPEARED TO BE WET WITH SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT SHINY OR
MOIST. IT APPEARED TO BE A LEATHER MAN'S GLOVE.

MR. DARDEN: WERE YOU THE FIRST DETECTIVE TO BE TAKEN TO VIEW THE GLOVE?

MR. VANNATTER: I DIDN'T KNOW AT THAT TIME, BUT I HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND OUT THAT I WAS
NOT.

MR. DARDEN: NOW, AND WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU SAW THE GLOVE, IF YOU RECALL?

MR. VANNATTER: IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 6:30

The time tells us he was speaking of the Rockingham glove and didn't MF say he told him he had something to show him, or Lange say that there was something he needed to see. Wasn't MF a detective? How did he figure MF could have shown him something that he had not seen before or Lange have told him that there was something he needed to see, if Lange had not seen the item and made the determination? Why did they not make notes on this crucial piece of evidence? Why were they willing to risk cross contamination by sending MF back to Bundy, when they could have called and got a description of the glove left at Bundy or simply have collected the Rockingham glove? Is there anything that is not suspicious about this Rockingham glove?

[martin II]

Of course you agree with what Martin said since he is only parroting your unreasonable speculation of what you imagine Fuhrman meant. The fact is that Mark Fuhrman never implied, suggested, inferred, or said he saw two gloves under the plant leaves at Bundy. When Fuhrman used the word “them” in the preliminary hearing he testified he was referring to the evidence that he could see under the plant leaves at Bundy, a knit hat and one glove. The same evidence that everyone else who testified about this said they saw. There is no evidence that the killer left both his gloves under the plant leaves before leaving the murder scene.

bobaugust

Bob
Please take note that my post express my opinions on the testimony in the trial.

Also please note that i take offense to your claim that i am just parroting
another posters post.

[William Anthony]

"q: Okay. We'll come back to that. What was the conversation you had with detective fuhrman at that time?

A: Detective fuhrman asked me to accompany him to the south side of the residence. he wanted to show me something.

Q: Did he tell you what it was that he wanted to show you at that time?

A: He could have. I don't know -- he could have. I don't remember him saying, but he could have.

Q: Did detective fuhrman tell you whether or not he had already shown that same item to detectives phillips and lange?

A: You know, i don't know whether that occurred on not. That could have occurred also. I don't know. I don't recall that.

Q: Okay. At any event, detective fuhrman did take you somewhere; is that right?

A: That's correct.

Q: And where did you and detective fuhrman go?

A: I followed him out the front door of the residence, walked south in the driveway to the front of the garage and he took me down the south boundary line of the property.

(discussion held off the record between the deputy district attorneys.)

mr. Darden: People's 116, your honor.

The court: People's 116.

Q: By mr. Darden: Detective, if you would --

a: Yes, sir.

Q: -- step down for a moment. Detective, showing you 116-a --

mr. Darden: I could do this on the elmo.

Q: By mr. Darden: Detective, what's shown in people's 116-a?

A: 116-a is the rockingham driveway that -- that would lead in an east-west direction from the rockingham gate into the front of the garage. This is -- and this would be the south property line of the residence at 360.

Q: Okay. So that dark area to the right of the photograph is the entranceway to the south side of the property is it?

A: Well, actually -- actually you can see the whole dark area here, the -- if you went directly west from here, this would be the rockingham gate. This dark area you see here is a cyclone fence, chain link fence that's overgrown with shrubbery and vines (indicating).

Q: Okay. Was the chain link fence locked or enclosed at that time?

A: I'm not sure i understand --

q: Okay. The question was this. Was there a gate across the pathway there?

A: There were two gates once you entered the pathway, yes.

Q: Okay. Were either of those gates locked?

A: No.

Q: All right. And so this is the path in which you walked then as you proceeded south, on the south side of the property?

A: That's correct.

Q: You followed detective fuhrman?

A: Yes.

Q: And did you speak with him as you walked along the pathway?

A: Oh, i'm sure we were talking. I -- i -- i don't know exactly what we were saying, but i'm sure we were talking.

Q: And what is shown in 116-b?

A: 116-b is the -- is the walkway that i've been telling you about that's at the south property line of 360 rockingham. You can see in this portion here (indicating) part of the chain link fence and the foliage that grows between the two residences at 360 and the one directly south of it.

Q: Now, these photographs were taken during daylight hours; is that right?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What time was it that you began your walk along the path depicted in these photographs?

A: I believe it was approximately 6:30 in the morning. Approximately 6:30.

Q: And does 116-b depict the path that you walked?

A: Yes, sir, it does.

Q: Now, in the background, do you see something extending from the wall?

A: Yes, i do.

Q: And what do you see?

A: I would assume you're speaking of this here (indicating), the air conditioning unit that i had first observed the front of in brian kaelin's room.

Q: You did notice the air conditioning unit in brian kaelin's room?

A: Yes, i did.

Q: And did this air conditioner, the portion that you saw appear to be an extension of mr. Kaelin's air conditioner?

A: Yes.

Q: 116-c. You continued to follow detective fuhrman down the path; is that right?

A: Yes, sir. That's correct. Excuse me just a moment, please.

Q: Did you have those glasses on that morning, detective?

A: I -- i -- i need them for real close-up stuff. I can see great at a distance, but up close, i need glasses.

Q: Okay. 116-c is just another photograph of the pathway; is that correct?

A: Yeah. That's -- that's a close-up of an area just -- just -- which would be just west of where the air conditioning unit is, yes.

Q: And do you see something on the ground there in 116-c?

A: Yes, sir, i do.

Q: Need your glasses, detective?

A: Well, no, no. I can see it, but it would be easier. Right here on the ground right there (indicating) is an item that was shown to me by detective fuhrman.

Q: And 116-d.

A: Uh-huh. This is the item that was pointed out to me by detective fuhrman, which is a right-hand brown man's leather glove.

Q: Now, when the glove was shown to you by detective fuhrman, i take it that you walked toward it?

A: Yeah. I walked up within probably three to four feet of it.

Q: Did you pick it up?

A: No.

Q: Did you touch it in any way?

A: No, sir.

Q: Did you turn it over?

A: No, sir. "

a riddle, how could one detective show another detective something the first detective had not seen?

[William Anthony]

Bob
Please take note that my post express my opinions on the testimony in the trial.

Also please note that i take offense to your claim that i am just parroting
another posters post.

Some may be unaware that great minds think alike.:)

[William Anthony]

When the second detective did not consider the first a detective.:)

[tv]

Thank you to the poster that supplied the meaning and then deleted his post. As I suspected, the slang definition is offensive.

[William Anthony]

Thank you to the poster that supplied the meaning and then deleted his post. As I suspected, the slang definition is offensive.

The picture is offensive both to Black men and White women, imho. It portrays a level of servitude that is not based on love and is degrading to all interracial couples, who have sincere feelings based on love, and portrays a sentiment more inclined to the depiction of jungle fever. I think the picture is in poor taste.

[William Anthony]

I am reminded of a Black minister, who made disparaging remarks about President Obama's parentage. I think America has moved beyond the feelings displayed in that picture and I respectfully ask for its deletion.

[tv]

The picture is offensive both to Black men and White women, imho. It portrays a level of servitude that is not based on love and is degrading to all interracial couples, who have sincere feelings based on love, and portrays a sentiment more inclined to the depiction of jungle fever. I think the picture is in poor taste.

Why should posters be allowed to make these kind of comments that leave the rest of us wondering what the heck they're talking about? The picture only illustrates how rude and offensive the original comment was. I think it's time that posters that support the not-guilty verdict stop pointing fingers at others regarding racist comments and clean up their own back yard. :(

[William Anthony]

Why should posters be allowed to make these kind of comments that leave the rest of us wondering what the heck they're talking about? The picture only illustrates how rude and offensive the original comment was. I think it's time that posters that support the not-guilty verdict stop pointing fingers at others regarding racist comments and clean up their own back yard. :(

IMHO, it is quite one thing to make a comment that may or may not be interpreted one way and to make a response, saying that the comment was offensive, and quite another to display a picture that removes all doubt as to the offensive nature of the meaning suggested in the picture, which is, imho, a picture showing that Black men were allowed to be rapped by White women, because of the overt and covert chains of slavery and that White women took advantage of that situation. It is degrading to both Black men and White women, imho, and goes beyond a mere suggestion and graphically display those sentiments that America is trying to move beyond.

[tv]

I am reminded of a Black minister, who made disparaging remarks about President Obama's parentage. I think America has moved beyond the feelings displayed in that picture and I respectfully ask for its deletion.

I'm going to ask DW to delete the picture but the poster that used the term should ask for his post to be deleted as well. A small handful of posters that support the not-guilty verdict in the criminal trial of this case have gotten completely out of control and using the term "mandingo type black man" was a perfect example.

[William Anthony]

I'm going to ask DW to delete the picture but the poster that used the term should ask for his post to be deleted as well. A small handful of posters that support the not-guilty verdict in the criminal trial of this case have gotten completely out of control and using the term "mandingo type black man" was a perfect example.

Thank you. I did not automatically jump to the same conclusion as you did when I read that post. I will admit that it can be taken as you took it but it could mean simply a muscular Black man, who was a warrior type, meaning a football star.

[tv]

Thank you. I did not automatically jump to the same conclusion as you did when I read that post. I will admit that it can be taken as you took it but it could mean simply a muscular Black man, who was a warrior type, meaning a football star.Don't backpeddle now, William. Besides, I asked him what it meant, so what makes you think I took offense at it immediately or jumped to a conclusion? If it's that inflammatory it shouldn't have been posted in the first place.

[William Anthony]

Don't backpeddle now, William. Besides, I asked him what it meant, so what makes you think I took offense at it immediately or jumped to a conclusion? If it's that inflammatory it shouldn't have been posted in the first place.

You have made a very accusatory post about those, who support the not guilty verdict. However, IIRC, you have never spoken against the Gs use of the word boy, and you defended it, or the vile, reprehensible, despicable and demonic words spoken on the tapes by MF, and have to some extent defended them by saying, IIRC, that I was over the line saying they were demonic, nor have you ever spoken about the comments calling the criminal jury ignorant, uneducated and racially biased. I am not back peddling but I am just saying, as you have, that I did not find the post as offensive as you did. Least I forget, you defended the fried chicken remark.

[tv]

IMHO, it is quite one thing to make a comment that may or may not be interpreted one way and to make a response, saying that the comment was offensive, and quite another to display a picture that removes all doubt as to the offensive nature of the meaning suggested in the picture, which is, imho, a picture showing that Black men were allowed to be rapped by White women, because of the overt and covert chains of slavery and that White women took advantage of that situation. It is degrading to both Black men and White women, imho, and goes beyond a mere suggestion and graphically display those sentiments that America is trying to move beyond.

Whatever, William. I get hammered constantly by you, martin and GreenIce for supporting the LAPD which includes Mark Fuhrman but it's okay for one of you to use a derogatory term like that? I'm glad the true meaning of the word has been brought to light. Do you know how offensive it is for a poster to say that's the reason for the interest in the case? It's always just been an interesing case to me but some people would like to believe that white people that are interested in the case only care about it to see a black man punished. I'm sick to death of that attitude.

[weezer]

I wasn't offended by the picture. I did not automatically jump to the same conclusion as some did when I saw that picture. I will admit that it can be taken as some took it but it could mean simply a muscular Black man, who was a warrior type, meaning a football star -- involved with a white woman.

[William Anthony]

Whatever, William. I get hammered constantly by you, martin and GreenIce for supporting the LAPD which includes Mark Fuhrman but it's okay for one of you to use a derogatory term like that? I'm glad the true meaning of the word has been brought to light. Do you know how offensive it is for a poster to say that's the reason for the interest in the case? It's always just been an interesing case to me but some people would like to believe that white people that are interested in the case only care about it to see a black man punished. I'm sick to death of that attitude.

I am not hammering you but trying to understand your feelings in regard to the protection of MF and others, who use racially offensive remarks or words and terms but your protestation over others who you feel use racially offensive remarks and terms. I do not think the picture would have been so offensive and could have portrayed a muscular Black man, such as a football star, being attractive to a White woman, absent the chains. I figured some would not have been offended by such a salacious picture but claimed to have been offended by a joke that did not mention race or had no words of a sexual nature but could have suggested such.

[weezer]

I thought this thread was to discuss orenthal james simpson, double murderer and convicted felon. :shrug:

[tv]

You have made a very accusatory post about those, who support the not guilty verdict. However, IIRC, you have never spoken against the Gs use of the word boy, and you defended it, or the vile, reprehensible, despicable and demonic words spoken on the tapes by MF, and have to some extent defended them by saying, IIRC, that I was over the line saying they were demonic, nor have you ever spoken about the comments calling the criminal jury ignorant, uneducated and racially biased. I am not back peddling but I am just saying, as you have, that I did not find the post as offensive as you did. Least I forget, you defended the fried chicken remark.

I told you I like fried chicken. If I made a list of all the ordinary words that offend you my vocabulary would be very limited. If you allowed fried chicken to offend you then the problem is yours and you've allowed an old stereotype to dictate your reaction to a delicious dish. I don't limit my use of the words fried chicken around whites and I won't do it around blacks. I haven't called you ignorant or uneducated. I'm sorry you feel so protective of the jury. I haven't forgotten that you said I own a sheet and hood among other hateful things you've said to me. Any slight you think I've handed you has been paid back with interest by your friend GreenIce. I hope you're keeping score.

[William Anthony]

I thought this thread was to discuss orenthal james simpson, double murderer and convicted felon. :shrug:

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

[William Anthony]

I told you I like fried chicken. If I made a list of all the ordinary words that offend you my vocabulary would be very limited. If you allowed fried chicken to offend you then the problem is yours and you've allowed an old stereotype to dictate your reaction to a delicious dish. I don't limit my use of the words fried chicken around whites and I won't do it around blacks. I haven't called you ignorant or uneducated. I'm sorry you feel so protective of the jury. I haven't forgotten that you said I own a sheet and hood among other hateful things you've said to me. Any slight you think I've handed you has been paid back with interest by your friend GreenIce. I hope you're keeping score.

I am not saying that you are not justified in your feelings and allow me to be justified in my feeling about not being offended by some remarks. I only question that you defend some feelings and do not allow that they could be offensive to me, whereas, I have validated your feeling in regard to the post by saying that I could understand how you could have taken it that way. Therein lies the difference. We do not need to rehash the hood and sheet remarks or how they were made and what prompted them as it all pertains to your defense of some posts but denunciation of others, imho.

[tv]

I thought this thread was to discuss orenthal james simpson, double murderer and convicted felon. :shrug:

No, it's for them to post whatever junk they want and then get their big man pants all in a bunch when the tables are turned on them.

[weezer]

orenthal's cuts:

12/07/96 - 05:05 PM ET - Click reload often for latest version
Lawyer, witness clash over cuts on Simpson's hand
SANTA MONICA, Calif. - In the nastiest clash of O.J. Simpson's civil trial, a plaintiff lawyer Friday angrily questioned Simpson's longtime friend and business partner Leroy "Skip" Taft over how many cuts Taft saw on Simpson's hand after two murders.

After Taft insisted he saw only one cut - corroborating Simpson's account - plaintiff attorney Daniel Petrocelli confronted Taft with August deposition testimony in which Taft related seeing "for sure" at least two cuts - contradicting Simpson.

"How about that!" Petrocelli shouted, borrowing a line that criminal trial defense attorney Barry Scheck used against criminalist Dennis Fung.

But Taft repeatedly - and angrily - insisted that when he spoke of more than one cut on Simpson's hand he was referring to what he saw in later photographs, not what he saw the day after the murders.

He accused Petrocelli of leading him into that testimony during the deposition. Taft also suggested his recollection could have been clouded by his emotional state of shock the day after the murders.

"Were you in a state of shock at your deposition," Petrocelli asked sarcastically.

"No," Taft said.

The issue of the number of cuts on Simpson's hand is important since the plaintiffs contend that Simpson suffered all the several slices and scrapes while murdering his ex-wife and her friend on June 12, 1994.

But Simpson says he recalls cutting himself once on the left middle-finger knuckle in a Chicago hotel room from a broken drinking glass the morning after the murders, then apparently again on his ring finger later in the week, possibly while wrestling with his son.

Taft was called to contradict that testimony by describing Simpson as having two and perhaps three cuts the day after the murders when Simpson, Taft and another lawyer, Howard Weitzman, were at police headquarters.

In his deposition, Taft, a friend of Simpson for 27 years, testified of the cut on Simpson's ring finger, "I believe I saw that cut at Parker Center."

"Then," Taft said in deposition, "I saw the cut on his knuckle, his left knuckle."

In his deposition, Taft said in court Friday, he actually was describing cuts he later saw in photographs, rather than cuts he actually saw at police headquarters.

"You are now telling the jury that this was wrong, that you saw one cut?" Petrocelli asked.

"I'm sure I saw one cut," said Taft.

[tv]

I am not saying that you are not justified in your feelings and allow me to be justified in my feeling about not being offended by some remarks. I only question that you defend some feelings and do not allow that they could be offensive to me, whereas, I have validated your feeling in regard to the post by saying that I could understand how you could have taken it that way. Therein lies the difference. We do not need to rehash the hood and sheet remarks or how they were made and what prompted them as it all pertains to your defense of some posts but denunciation of others, imho.

Yes, let's let this go -- I wouldn't want have to use the words William and backstabber in the same sentence. :flamemad: Oops, looks like I already did.

[William Anthony]

Yes, let's let this go -- I wouldn't want have to use the words William and backstabber in the same sentence. :flamemad: Oops, looks like I already did.

You may choose to use whatever words you want in the same sentence but that does not make them true.:)

[William Anthony]

No, it's for them to post whatever junk they want and then get their big man pants all in a bunch when the tables are turned on them.

Random Discussions On The Case
I'd like for this thread to be a place where individuals can have discussion regarding random topics involving the case that may be too small for their own thread or don't fall into one of the categories already created.

Kate

This is what started this thread.

[tv]

You may choose to use whatever words you want in the same sentence but that does not make them true.:)

I'll decide what I think is true.

[tv]

This is what started this thread.

Then all of us are off-topic.

[William Anthony]

Then all of us are off-topic.

I think it is not off topic to consider what brought the two of them together and decide to marry as that marriage is considered by some to be the catalyst to the murders.

[William Anthony]

I'll decide what I think is true.

And I know what is not, when it comes to me.:)

[martin II]

Thank you to the poster that supplied the meaning and then deleted his post. As I suspected, the slang definition is offensive.

tv

you have taken offense when none was intended or should have been felt as offensive. Gees.

'I don't know why my post should have been deleted other than someone thought there was some meaning other than what was posted.

One definition is a well developed strong black man of African heritage. I think oj simpson as a long time NFL football player was certainly a well developed physically.

If you find my post offensive can you explain why??

I don't know anything about the meaning of the picture that was posted.
Tell me if you know.

tv

PS
I did not post that picture of a black man being held by what looks like some white hands someone else did. I cannot help it if that is yours or the posters opinion of the word.
I know blacks use the term all the time when kidding each other about strong black men.So you or the poster can post whatever image or opinion you may want the word to mean to you.

I think it is someone attempting to make a issue out of nothing but i have no control over what people post.imo

[William Anthony]

tv

you have taken offense when none was intended or should have been felt as offensive. Gees.

'I don't know why my post should have been deleted other than someone thought there was some meaning other than what was posted.

One definition is a well developed strong black man of African heritage. I think oj simpson as a long time NFL football player was certainly a well developed physically.

If you find my post offensive can you explain why??

I don't know anything about the meaning of the picture that was posted.
Tell me if you know.

See post 6919.

[tv]

And I know what is not, when it comes to me.:)

As do I when it comes to me.

[tv]

tv

you have taken offense when none was intended or should have been felt as offensive. Gees.

'I don't know why my post should have been deleted other than someone thought there was some meaning other than what was posted.

One definition is a well developed strong black man of African heritage. I think oj simpson as a long time NFL football player was certainly a well developed physically.

If you find my post offensive can you explain why??

I don't know anything about the meaning of the picture that was posted.
Tell me if you know.

I didn't take offense until the definition was provided to me.

[weezer]

orenthal's cuts:

"Huizenga also testified that three fresh cuts on the ring and middle fingers of Simpson's left hand . . ."

[William Anthony]

As do I when it comes to me.

Can I be allowed the same privilege as you, "I'll decide what I think is true"?, smile-it is just lighthearted banter and please accept it as such.

[weezer]

orenthal's cuts:

Lange: Well, we'd like to do that. We've got, of course, the cut on your finger that you aren't real clear on. Do you recall having that cut on your finger the last time you were at Nicole's house?

Simpson: A week ago?

Lange: Yeah.

Simpson: No. It was last night.

Lange: OK, so last night you cut it.

Vannatter: Somewhere after the recital?

Simpson: Somewhere when I was rushing to get out of my house.

Vannatter: OK, after the recital.

Simpson: Yeah.

[weezer]

orenthal's cuts:

Lange: Well, there's blood at your house in the driveway, and we've got a search warrant, and we're going to go get the blood. We found some in your house. Is that your blood that's there?

Simpson: If it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave.

Lange: Last night?

Simpson: Yeah, and I wasn't aware that it was...I was aware that I... You know, I was trying to get out of the house. I didn't even pay any attention to it, I saw it when I was in the kitchen, and I grabbed a napkin or something, and that was it. I didn't think about it after that.

Vannatter: That was last night after you got home from the recital, when you were rushing?

[William Anthony]

MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, is it your testimony that you have never, in your emergency room moonlighting over the years you've identified, never been dealing with patients who have the kind of cuts that you saw on Mr. Simpson's left hand at various stages of healing? Is that your testimony, sir?

DR. HUIZENGA: No. I have seen cuts at every different stage of healing, but I have not made a mental note, is this a cut one day old, two days old, three days old, four days old or five days old. That's a very tight call, and short of evaluating a wound for its need or appropriateness of suturing, apart from evaluating a wound for its infectious or noninfectious nature, a part from evaluating a wound for foreign bodies inside, in terms of dating it exactly, I don't think that that's something that I feel comfortable doing. I think that I have seen a lot of people who I thing were answering truthfully say I got cut by a knife slicing the bagel this morning or I got cut by glass washing the dishes in the sink, and I feel I have a general idea, a pretty good idea after all those years of recognizing the difference between glass and knife. And I think it comes down to--and again, this may be oversimplified--if there is a lot of erratic shaggy edges, then it's probably not something perfectly sharp like a surgical blade or a razor blade or a knife. If there's some jagged edge, then it's more likely some other type of irregular, but very sharp material.

THE COURT: All right. Let's move on.

MR. KELBERG: If I could, one last question in this area.

THE COURT: I think we've covered this quite a bit now.

MR. KELBERG: All right. One last question. Then if the Court feels it's in the same vein--

THE COURT: No. Wind it up but, let's move on.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if Mr. Simpson's hand was moving at an angle to the instrument inflicting the injury, that could account for the roughness or shagginess of the edge; isn't that correct, sir?

DR. HUIZENGA: It could account for--

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, your Honor. It's beyond his expertise.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

DR. HUIZENGA: If you are slicing with a knife and you move suddenly, you'd have to--in order to get a beveled edge, of course, you have to move smoothly, but you could get one or two large movements theoretically.

MR. KELBERG: Which would give a shaggy appearance, correct?

DR. HUIZENGA: Not a shaggy appearance. Maybe--maybe a change in direction of the laceration.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, I want you to assume hypothetically the following, and you tell me whether any of your findings would be inconsistent with this. In fact, let me withdraw this. Did you ask Mr. Simpson when he got any of these injuries, when as in time he got any of these injuries?

DR. HUIZENGA: Again, I think that this is maybe going to come as a shock to you, but I was asked to see him because of acute anxiety, situational problems and to evaluate to make sure that medically, he was okay. I took careful pictures of the hands. I asked him how he got the lacerations, which he said he got cut by glass. I did not ask him the time. I didn't ask him whether or not he committed this crime. I didn't go into those items. That was for different people. He had a whole different set of people evaluating those things. This was not something where I saw myself as somebody that was going to be sitting here defending him in court. I was really seeing him as a doctor, taking pictures of anything abnormal that I saw and not really evaluating him so that at some later date, I would sit here to protect him or do anything else in a legal vein along the lines you're asking me currently.

[William Anthony]

It is consistent with Simpson's statements and inconsistent with someone being behind Kato's quarters and I am sure that the detectives were not foolish enough to tell Simpson were the drippings were found or should not have been, imho.

[tv]

Can I be allowed the same privilege as you, "I'll decide what I think is true"?, smile-it is just lighthearted banter and please accept it as such.

Okay.

[tv]

tv

you have taken offense when none was intended or should have been felt as offensive. Gees.

'I don't know why my post should have been deleted other than someone thought there was some meaning other than what was posted.

One definition is a well developed strong black man of African heritage. I think oj simpson as a long time NFL football player was certainly a well developed physically.

If you find my post offensive can you explain why??

I don't know anything about the meaning of the picture that was posted.
Tell me if you know.

tv

PS
I did not post that picture of a black man being held by what looks like some white hands someone else did. I cannot help it if that is yours or the posters opinion of the word.
I know blacks use the term all the time when kidding each other about strong black men.So you or the poster can post whatever image or opinion you may want the word to mean to you.

I think it is someone attempting to make a issue out of nothing but i have no control over what people post.imo
I posted it. It's a DVD cover for the movie Mandingo. I asked you what 'mandingo type black man' meant and someone else was kind enough to send me a link to the definition. That's when I found out it has an offensive meaning. If you meant it as a strong black man of African heritage why didn't you just say that instead of using a term that could be taken as offensive? I don't want to think you were trying to slide that offensive word past some of us but I have to wonder.

[tv]

orenthal's cuts:

"Huizenga also testified that three fresh cuts on the ring and middle fingers of Simpson's left hand . . ."

Wow, that was a sharp cell phone or was it cell phone accessories...whatever it was it must have been some kinda sharp! Wasn't it at the civil trial that Dr. Wecht said there were fingernail gouges on Simpson's hand? It makes sense to me that they could have been inflicted during the struggle with Ron.

[William Anthony]

Wow, that was a sharp cell phone or was it cell phone accessories...whatever it was it must have been some kinda sharp! Wasn't it at the civil trial that Dr. Wecht said there were fingernail gouges on Simpson's hand? It makes sense to me that they could have been inflicted during the struggle with Ron.

When did Dr. Wecht testify in any Simpson trial?

[William Anthony]

Wow, that was a sharp cell phone or was it cell phone accessories...whatever it was it must have been some kinda sharp! Wasn't it at the civil trial that Dr. Wecht said there were fingernail gouges on Simpson's hand? It makes sense to me that they could have been inflicted during the struggle with Ron.

Please, post the testimony of Dr. H. saying that there were three fresh cuts on Simpson's ring finger, if you agree with that claim?

[weezer]

Wow, that was a sharp cell phone or was it cell phone accessories...whatever it was it must have been some kinda sharp! Wasn't it at the civil trial that Dr. Wecht said there were fingernail gouges on Simpson's hand? It makes sense to me that they could have been inflicted during the struggle with Ron.

was it Wecht? I thought it was Spitz. Did you see the pictures of orenthal's hands? certainly look like fingernail gouges to me.

[tv]

was it Wecht? I thought it was Spitz. Did you see the pictures of orenthal's hands? certainly look like fingernail gouges to me.

I'm sorry. I meant Spitz. My bad. :)

[tv]

Please, post the testimony of Dr. H. saying that there were three fresh cuts on Simpson's ring finger, if you agree with that claim?
You'll have to ask the poster that posted it. :)

[William Anthony]

You'll have to ask the poster that posted it. :)

Then, I can take it that you don't agree with the claim. :)

[tv]

Then, I can take it that you don't agree with the claim. :)
I agree with it. :)

[weezer]

orenthal's cuts:

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want you to assume that there's been testimony received in this case that blood that was genetically tested and found to match Mr. Simpson's was found in the foyer and driveway areas of Mr. Simpson's home-- Doctor, in your opinion, would the kind of cuts that you observed in Mr.
Simpson's hand, left hand, be the kind of cuts that can leave blood drops?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, they can.

[William Anthony]

I agree with it. :)

Even though Dr. H. never testified that the cuts on Simpson's fingers were fresh?:) on what criteria are you basing your agreement?

[William Anthony]

Now, in terms of your opinions relative to these fingernail marks, there was
absolutely nothing found under Mr. Goldman's fingernails that matched anything
having to do with Mr. Simpson, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the only thing that was found under any fingernail in this case, was
found under the fingernail of Nicole Brown Simpson; and that genetic marker
matched neither Mr. Simpson nor Mr. Goldman nor anyone that was knowledgeable
to be at the crime scene, true?

A. Yes.

[martin II]

tv

I just don't feel proper leaving you so uninformed although it does
not seem to bother you at all.

As you can see a great many African Americans you see in your daily life are decendants of the great Mandingo people.


A significant part of the African-Americans in the United States are descended from the Mandinka people.

The Mandinka live primarily in West Africa, particulaly in the the Gambia, Guinea, Mali, Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Liberia, Guinea Bissau, Niger, Mauritania and even small communities in the central African nation of Chad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandinka_people
I would be willing to bet that OJ Simpson is a mandingo.

With your approval i am accepting apologies.

[weezer]

maybe the poster can take his history lesson to the board it belongs on. :shrug:

". . .Huizenga told me three years ago: "My take, and what I say now, is that Simpson was innocent in the trial," Huizenga told me, referring to the criminal trial in which a jury acquitted Simpson. A civil jury later held him responsible for the murders.

"That doesn't mean he did or didn't do it. Let's face it, the evidence is completely suspicious. Some guilty people are set free," Huizenga said.

Huizenga told me he was shocked about how prosecutors treated him. His direct questioning by the state was from Deputy District Attorney Brian Kelberg, who worked for Marcia Clark.

"I told them that Simpson appeared to be limping when he came into my office. Instead of asking me about that, they said, 'He wasn't limping, you're lying, we have tape of him from two months before.'”

Clark's team never asked why Simpson had been limping, or what would have brought him to that point.

On the stand, Huizenga told Kelberg that Simpson walked into his office three days after the murders "like Tarzan's grandfather." Instead of exploring how Simpson could have come to be in that condition, Kelberg replied: "...perhaps Mr. Simpson was faking a limp in your office?"

"They assumed I was lying," Huizenga said to me. "They didn't ask me if it was possible that he'd been in the greatest fight of his life just a few days before."

[weezer]

DR. ROBERT HUIZENGA, former Los Angeles Raiders physician: Examined Simpson twice the week after killings, noted three cuts and seven abrasions on left hand; estimated wounds were five to seven days old, which would include date of killings; Simpson had arthritis and other football-related problems.

[fgump2]

What is odd is that Nicole says oj only hit her once when she did not know she was being taped but some posting here continue to ignore her statement
and claim that he hit her on a regular basis.So who should be belived Nicole in her own words or a poster posting here?

I know Furhman was there on a previous call.Was this the time?I am not sure.
************************************************** *****
No, the time Fuhrman was there in or 1984 or 1985.. That was when OJS broke a car windshield with a base ball bat.

Nicole told others that she liied to the press and possibly to the police, probably because she was worried about OJS loosing his earning ability, or getting more angry at her. I think she was motivated by money.

Nicole wrote in her diaries that the 1989 incident was only part of a pattern of physcial abuse. She also complained to friends about it. Her psychotherapist, Susan Forward thoght Nicole had justifiable fears of OJS.
There were other friends of Nicole who said she told them that he beat her repeatidly,Cynthia 'Cici' Shahian for example. Kris Jenner was another woman who knew that Nicole was badly frightened by OJS.

In Petrocelli's book he quoted Wayne Hughes, a friend of Orenthal, as saying that Nicole complained to him (Wayne H) that Orenthal had beaten her and that she was afraid of him in the early l980's. She wanted Wayne to calm him down. She showed Wayne a welt near her breast.

[fgump2]

Now, in terms of your opinions relative to these fingernail marks, there was
absolutely nothing found under Mr. Goldman's fingernails that matched anything
having to do with Mr. Simpson, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the only thing that was found under any fingernail in this case, was
found under the fingernail of Nicole Brown Simpson; and that genetic marker
matched neither Mr. Simpson nor Mr. Goldman nor anyone that was knowledgeable
to be at the crime scene, true?

A. Yes.
************************************************** ********

I think the scratches were barely noticeable, not very close to drawing blood. I would guess that only a very sensitive test would find any Simpson DNA.

I wrote a remark about 3 cuts being on Mr. Simpson's fingers. That was misleading. There was at least one, and disagreement when the second or third go there. I would guess all three got there at the same time. I haven't looked at a photo of it lately, but I thought there were in an odd place accidentally cut a person. The story of OJS getting cut again while wrestling with one of his sons seems unlikely. Ordinarily if we see a person with 3 similar cuts on the same part of their body, we assume that the 3 cuts got there at the same time. Also if a person has a serious cut on a certain part of their body, they usually try to protect that part. I never heard of someone getting a deep cut from a wrestling match

In a picture taken at the police station on the Monday afterwards, OJS is holding two fingers together is a manner that seems unnatural. Some people thought it was an attempt to hide second or third cuts.

I don't think that there has been much study of detecting whether a cut was from glass or a knife. I doubt that there have been any scientific papers written on it. Most doctors probably don't think about that. There also probably hasn’t been much study about whether or not the jerking caused by two people wrestling might make the cuts ragged. In any case, Dr. H's quote in which he compared OJS to the biblical character Job reduces his credibility with me

I suppose it would be possible to reproduce some of this stuff. Have someone scratch a second person to get the small scratches OJS got, and see how hard it is to detect the scratched person's DNA under the fingernails of the scratcher.

[martin II]

I posted it. It's a DVD cover for the movie Mandingo. I asked you what 'mandingo type black man' meant and someone else was kind enough to send me a link to the definition. That's when I found out it has an offensive meaning. If you meant it as a strong black man of African heritage why didn't you just say that instead of using a term that could be taken as offensive? I don't want to think you were trying to slide that offensive word past some of us but I have to wonder.

TV
Again
I made a post with the word mandingo in it. You, because of your lack of understanding that the word repsresents the name of a great African people decided to latch on to some ignorant picture and definition given to you by someone.That is your doing not mine.I cannot be responsible for your ignorance of what the word means.

Since 1/3 of Mandingo people were brought to Ameruica as slaves my bet is oj simpson as a black man is a decendant of the Great Mandingo people of Africa.

It is you that decided to accept what looks like some grade B sex movie to define what the word means to you. If you had been interested in a higher level of thought you could just googled the name Mandingo and been more informed on the name.

Now if you need any more historical educational materials on the subject so as to prevent you from making silly attacks on me just let me know.I have plenty.


What i think is that you should have your attack post on me deleted.
martin ii

[weezer]

************************************************** ********

I think the scratches were barely noticeable, not very close to drawing blood. I would guess that only a very sensitive test would find any Simpson DNA.

I wrote a remark about 3 cuts being on Mr. Simpson's fingers. That was misleading. There was at least one, and disagreement when the second or third go there. I would guess all three got there at the same time. I haven't looked at a photo of it lately, but I thought there were in an odd place accidentally cut a person. The story of OJS getting cut again while wrestling with one of his sons seems unlikely. Ordinarily if we see a person with 3 similar cuts on the same part of their body, we assume that the 3 cuts got there at the same time. Also if a person has a serious cut on a certain part of their body, they usually try to protect that part. I never heard of someone getting a deep cut from a wrestling match

In a picture taken at the police station on the Monday afterwards, OJS is holding two fingers together is a manner that seems unnatural. Some people thought it was an attempt to hide second or third cuts.

I don't think that there has been much study of detecting whether a cut was from glass or a knife. I doubt that there have been any scientific papers written on it. Most doctors probably don't think about that. There also probably hasn’t been much study about whether or not the jerking caused by two people wrestling might make the cuts ragged. In any case, Dr. H's quote in which he compared OJS to the biblical character Job reduces his credibility with me

I suppose it would be possible to reproduce some of this stuff. Have someone scratch a second person to get the small scratches OJS got, and see how hard it is to detect the scratched person's DNA under the fingernails of the scratcher.

I think Huisenga's testimony was that there were 7 abrasions on orenthal's left hand and 3 (?) cuts on the right.

It was Dr. Spitz in the civil trial that said the marks on orenthal's one hand (I assume he was talking about the 7 abrasions) were consistent with coming from fingernails -- someone trying to force orenthal's hand away.

[martin II]

************************************************** ********

I think the scratches were barely noticeable, not very close to drawing blood. I would guess that only a very sensitive test would find any Simpson DNA.

I wrote a remark about 3 cuts being on Mr. Simpson's fingers. That was misleading. There was at least one, and disagreement when the second or third go there. I would guess all three got there at the same time. I haven't looked at a photo of it lately, but I thought there were in an odd place accidentally cut a person. The story of OJS getting cut again while wrestling with one of his sons seems unlikely. Ordinarily if we see a person with 3 similar cuts on the same part of their body, we assume that the 3 cuts got there at the same time. Also if a person has a serious cut on a certain part of their body, they usually try to protect that part. I never heard of someone getting a deep cut from a wrestling match

In a picture taken at the police station on the Monday afterwards, OJS is holding two fingers together is a manner that seems unnatural. Some people thought it was an attempt to hide second or third cuts.

I don't think that there has been much study of detecting whether a cut was from glass or a knife. I doubt that there have been any scientific papers written on it. Most doctors probably don't think about that. There also probably hasn’t been much study about whether or not the jerking caused by two people wrestling might make the cuts ragged. In any case, Dr. H's quote in which he compared OJS to the biblical character Job reduces his credibility with me

I suppose it would be possible to reproduce some of this stuff. Have someone scratch a second person to get the small scratches OJS got, and see how hard it is to detect the scratched person's DNA under the fingernails of the scratcher.

:shrug::shrug::shrug:

[weezer]

TV
Again
I made a post with the word mandingo in it. You, because of your lack of understanding that the word repsresents the name of a great African people decided to latch on to some ignorant picture and definition given to you by someone.That is your doing not mine.I cannot be responsible for your ignorance of what the word means.

Since 1/3 of Mandingo people were brought to Ameruica as slaves my bet is oj simpson as a black man is a decendant of the Great Mandingo people of Africa.

It is you that decided to accept what looks like some grade B sex movie to define what the word means to you. If you had been interested in a higher level of thought you could just googled the name Mandingo and been more informed on the name.

Now if you need any more historical educational materials on the subject so as to prevent you from making silly attacks on me just let me know.I have plenty.


What i think is that you should have your attack post on me deleted.
martin ii

martin, tv has obviously moved on -- as should you. Your insistence on arguing about this is only causing disruption to the board. Get over it.

[martin II]

oj holding a knife in his right hand cut himself on his right hand

[weezer]

my apologies -- looks like the abrasions and cuts were to the same hand:

"MR. KELBERG: Doctor, during the recess, did you count the number of abrasions that you identified on the left hand or wrist area of Mr. Simpson?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.

MR. KELBERG: How many separate abrasions did you identify?

DR. HUIZENGA: Seven.

MR. KELBERG: And did you also count the number of cuts to his left hand?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.

MR. KELBERG: How many did you identify?

DR. HUIZENGA: Three cuts, one of which, on the fourth finger, had both an a and B portion."

I assume we all agree that orenthal was right handed. Odd that he would 'grab a glass with his left hand'. :shrug:

[tv]

my apologies -- looks like the abrasions and cuts were to the same hand:

"MR. KELBERG: Doctor, during the recess, did you count the number of abrasions that you identified on the left hand or wrist area of Mr. Simpson?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.

MR. KELBERG: How many separate abrasions did you identify?

DR. HUIZENGA: Seven.

MR. KELBERG: And did you also count the number of cuts to his left hand?

DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.

MR. KELBERG: How many did you identify?

DR. HUIZENGA: Three cuts, one of which, on the fourth finger, had both an a and B portion."

I assume we all agree that orenthal was right handed. Odd that he would 'grab a glass with his left hand'. :shrug:

The implications are obvious. In his struggle with Ron and in his uncontrolled rage he cut himself several times.

[William Anthony]

DR. HUIZENGA: Well, to look at him, you know, he really has the physique certainly, when I saw him, of Tarzan. I mean, he's extremely well muscular. He has by vision and also by, you know, feeling, you can feel a level at the waist and the thigh, your flank, your triceps there. You can estimate a man's and a woman's body fat, and he has a very, very low body fat and he really does appear to be Tarzan. Curiously, some people have these phenomenal builds and really aren't in all that great aerobic shape, and I think that based on my history, he hadn't really been doing much exercise if any. And there are some very lucky people that looks can be deceiving, and certainly in his case, although he looked like Tarzan, you know, he was walking more like Tarzan's grandfather.

I think he answered his own question.

[William Anthony]

************************************************** ********

I think the scratches were barely noticeable, not very close to drawing blood. I would guess that only a very sensitive test would find any Simpson DNA.

I wrote a remark about 3 cuts being on Mr. Simpson's fingers. That was misleading. There was at least one, and disagreement when the second or third go there. I would guess all three got there at the same time. I haven't looked at a photo of it lately, but I thought there were in an odd place accidentally cut a person. The story of OJS getting cut again while wrestling with one of his sons seems unlikely. Ordinarily if we see a person with 3 similar cuts on the same part of their body, we assume that the 3 cuts got there at the same time. Also if a person has a serious cut on a certain part of their body, they usually try to protect that part. I never heard of someone getting a deep cut from a wrestling match

In a picture taken at the police station on the Monday afterwards, OJS is holding two fingers together is a manner that seems unnatural. Some people thought it was an attempt to hide second or third cuts.

I don't think that there has been much study of detecting whether a cut was from glass or a knife. I doubt that there have been any scientific papers written on it. Most doctors probably don't think about that. There also probably hasn’t been much study about whether or not the jerking caused by two people wrestling might make the cuts ragged. In any case, Dr. H's quote in which he compared OJS to the biblical character Job reduces his credibility with me

I suppose it would be possible to reproduce some of this stuff. Have someone scratch a second person to get the small scratches OJS got, and see how hard it is to detect the scratched person's DNA under the fingernails of the scratcher.

Did you forget this portion of the question and answer,

"Q. And the only thing that was found under any fingernail in this case, was
found under the fingernail of Nicole Brown Simpson; and that genetic marker
matched neither Mr. Simpson nor Mr. Goldman nor anyone that was knowledgeable to be at the crime scene, true?

A. Yes."

? The jury was called upon to draw inference from the evidence that was presented not from anything that wasn't presented.

[William Anthony]

:shrug::shrug::shrug:

Agreed.

[William Anthony]

The implications are obvious. In his struggle with Ron and in his uncontrolled rage he cut himself several times.

The implications are obvious that Simpson was talking on the phone, holding it in his right hand and preparing to drink from a glass, when they told him Ms. NBS was dead.

[weezer]

anyone know if orenthal was called on his cell or through the hotel room? Odd response at any rate.

[William Anthony]

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1071110

[fgump2]

Did you forget this portion of the question and answer,

"Q. And the only thing that was found under any fingernail in this case, was
found under the fingernail of Nicole Brown Simpson; and that genetic marker
matched neither Mr. Simpson nor Mr. Goldman nor anyone that was knowledgeable to be at the crime scene, true?

A. Yes."

? The jury was called upon to draw inference from the evidence that was presented not from anything that wasn't presented.

************************************************** **
I think you (WA) may be confusing two sets of fingernails. Ron’s and Nicole’s.
First I will give my opinion of Nicole's fingernails which you referred to.
I think that the type B blood indicators were from Nicole's which decayed from BA to B. The reason I give is that if there had been a fourth person, that person's DNA should have showed up in the blood under Nicole’s fingernails. I may be wrong, I am not a biochemist. The only DNA under her fingernails was her own. The only blood type indicator was type B. If the blood was from a forth person, that person’s DNA should have shown up in the tests. Especially since this was true on both hands. The defense argued that there were no scientific papers saying that this was possible; but they were unable or unwilling to cite scientific papers saying it wasn’t possible. In any case if we assume that there was a fourth person, why didn’t their DNA show up under Nicole’s fingernails? There was visible blood under the fingernails of both hands.

On the gate there was also a blood stain that had only OJS DNA, and only type B blood indicator. OJS had type BA blood. Do you have an explanation for why this should be? If the only DNA was from OJS, then why is the only blood indicator type B? If a large part of the blood came from someone else, where is the DNA?
The part I was referring to was Ron’s fingernails.

[William Anthony]

************************************************** **
I think you (WA) may be confusing two sets of fingernails. Ron’s and Nicole’s.
First I will give my opinion of Nicole's fingernails which you referred to.
I think that the type B blood indicators were from Nicole's which decayed from BA to B. The reason I give is that if there had been a fourth person, that person's DNA should have showed up in the blood under Nicole’s fingernails. I may be wrong, I am not a biochemist. The only DNA under her fingernails was her own. The only blood type indicator was type B. If the blood was from a forth person, that person’s DNA should have shown up in the tests. Especially since this was true on both hands. The defense argued that there were no scientific papers saying that this was possible; but they were unable or unwilling to cite scientific papers saying it wasn’t possible. In any case if we assume that there was a fourth person, why didn’t their DNA show up under Nicole’s fingernails? There was visible blood under the fingernails of both hands.

On the gate there was also a blood stain that had only OJS DNA, and only type B blood indicator. OJS had type BA blood. Do you have an explanation for why this should be? If the only DNA was from OJS, then why is the only blood indicator type B? If a large part of the blood came from someone else, where is the DNA?
The part I was referring to was Ron’s fingernails.

"Q. And the only thing that was found under any fingernail in this case, was found under the fingernail of Nicole Brown Simpson;

There was nothing found under Mr. RG's fingernails.

The defense did mention the article's upon which Matheson relied and which did not support his method of degradation.

I know of no stain on the back gate that had a B indicator. Please, post that testimony?

[William Anthony]

http://www.journeyofhearts.org/grief/accident2.html

[GreenIce]

************************************************** ********

I think the scratches were barely noticeable, not very close to drawing blood. I would guess that only a very sensitive test would find any Simpson DNA.

I wrote a remark about 3 cuts being on Mr. Simpson's fingers. That was misleading. There was at least one, and disagreement when the second or third go there. I would guess all three got there at the same time. I haven't looked at a photo of it lately, but I thought there were in an odd place accidentally cut a person. The story of OJS getting cut again while wrestling with one of his sons seems unlikely. Ordinarily if we see a person with 3 similar cuts on the same part of their body, we assume that the 3 cuts got there at the same time. Also if a person has a serious cut on a certain part of their body, they usually try to protect that part. I never heard of someone getting a deep cut from a wrestling match

In a picture taken at the police station on the Monday afterwards, OJS is holding two fingers together is a manner that seems unnatural. Some people thought it was an attempt to hide second or third cuts.

I don't think that there has been much study of detecting whether a cut was from glass or a knife. I doubt that there have been any scientific papers written on it. Most doctors probably don't think about that. There also probably hasn’t been much study about whether or not the jerking caused by two people wrestling might make the cuts ragged. In any case, Dr. H's quote in which he compared OJS to the biblical character Job reduces his credibility with me

I suppose it would be possible to reproduce some of this stuff. Have someone scratch a second person to get the small scratches OJS got, and see how hard it is to detect the scratched person's DNA under the fingernails of the scratcher.

fgump2,

There is one constant theme you are forgetting in your posts, the police had Simpson down at the police station, they had pictures taken of his hands, they molded or shaped on how they wanted his hands. If there was an attempt to hide other injuries on Simpson's hand, then it was the police who were trying to hide them, not Simpson.

All types of wounds to the body have been studied for years and years. How many different types of guns are there? How many different types of bullets are there? How many types of knives, etc., etc.

VA and Lange went to the guy who sold Simpson the knife and asked him to pick out the same type of knife that OJ bought. The guy couldn't remember so VA took a couple of them brought them to Dr. Golden and asked him, "well could this knife have caused this", etc. So any wounds to the skin, are examined and studied to narrow down the weapon. Now when the defense produced the knife that Simpson did buy, the knife he actually did buy did not match the knife that the DA's said it was. It was too small.

Both Dr. Baden and Dr. H did give their opinons on what they think made the cuts, the word of the day being "consistent". However, the best of my knowledge the DA's never asked their own experts what he thought caused the injuries to Simpson's hands.

However, to be honest, don't you really think that Simpson would try to "hide" his injury by breaking a glass and taking a shard of it and "tracing the wound so deeply and moved in such a way to insure the flesh surrounding the actual just was jagged edged--constant with a cut from a glass?

Doesn't common sense scream out that as soon as the cops called Simpson he "knew" he had to "hide" the cut on his hand? There is nothing that will change my mind that if Simpson is the killer, he would have made sure he turned his hand into bloody, raw, ground beef and no one would have been able to even see any cuts.

Another point, and this is another very critical one. Simpson was the prime suspect in the murdres. No question, he was and he should have been, I have no problems with that.

However, the cops already know he is bleeding, both at Bundy and at Rockingham. So they call Simpson, believing he is the killer, believing that he may have taken some evidence with him, knowing his exact whereabouts since about 2:00 a.m. that morning, they make no arrangments with the Chicago cops to have someone posted outside his door while they tell him his ex is dead? What about having them enter the room, then he gets the phone call?

At the very least, their actions even this early is another example of their rush to judgement.

VA flat out lied about the "unexpected trip" and please if someone says, like I am pretty sure he is going to, that he got this from Arnelle, that does not hold up. Who did Arnelle call to find out where her father was staying? His assistant, Cathy Randa. VA using Arnelle is another pitiful excuse that seem to be endless in this case.

Just like Lange covering Nicole's body with the blanket, at the very least, this one of the final nails in the "Rush To Judgement". He showed no interest in completing the walk through at Bundy, he showed no interest in giving orders that were even heard, let alone followed. The moment he delayed the ME coming to the get the bodies for over two hours and the moment he showed no interest as to when Fung and AM were going to come to Bundy. The moment he covered the body, again, at the very least, he was telling the media, IMO, we got our man, you had your chance for pictures boys, the show is now over."

[martin II]

************************************************** *****
No, the time Fuhrman was there in or 1984 or 1985.. That was when OJS broke a car windshield with a base ball bat.

Nicole told others that she liied to the press and possibly to the police, probably because she was worried about OJS loosing his earning ability, or getting more angry at her. I think she was motivated by money.

Nicole wrote in her diaries that the 1989 incident was only part of a pattern of physcial abuse. She also complained to friends about it. Her psychotherapist, Susan Forward thoght Nicole had justifiable fears of OJS.
There were other friends of Nicole who said she told them that he beat her repeatidly,Cynthia 'Cici' Shahian for example. Kris Jenner was another woman who knew that Nicole was badly frightened by OJS.

In Petrocelli's book he quoted Wayne Hughes, a friend of Orenthal, as saying that Nicole complained to him (Wayne H) that Orenthal had beaten her and that she was afraid of him in the early l980's. She wanted Wayne to calm him down. She showed Wayne a welt near her breast.

Nicole said it happened once so i would ignore all of the above.

[William Anthony]

************************************************** **

If the blood was from a forth person, that person’s DNA should have shown up in the tests. Especially since this was true on both hands.



I think the scratches were barely noticeable, not very close to drawing blood. I would guess that only a very sensitive test would find any Simpson DNA.

You seem to be inconsistent on the issue of whether DNA should show up, depending on the inferences to be drawn from the lack of DNA. :shrug:

[weezer]

". . .Abused women frequently deny being victims of wife assault and that a pattern of abused has been established. A false sense of responsibility for the violence and embarrassment prevent her from telling others about it. . ."

[William Anthony]

The prosecution tried unsuccessfully to turn a murder case into a domestic abuse case but the defense successfully tried the case on the trustworthiness of the evidence presented by the prosecution and the lack of evidence to meet its burden.

[martin II]

************************************************** **
I think you (WA) may be confusing two sets of fingernails. Ron’s and Nicole’s.
First I will give my opinion of Nicole's fingernails which you referred to.
I think that the type B blood indicators were from Nicole's which decayed from BA to B. The reason I give is that if there had been a fourth person, that person's DNA should have showed up in the blood under Nicole’s fingernails. I may be wrong, I am not a biochemist. The only DNA under her fingernails was her own. The only blood type indicator was type B. If the blood was from a forth person, that person’s DNA should have shown up in the tests. Especially since this was true on both hands. The defense argued that there were no scientific papers saying that this was possible; but they were unable or unwilling to cite scientific papers saying it wasn’t possible. In any case if we assume that there was a fourth person, why didn’t their DNA show up under Nicole’s fingernails? There was visible blood under the fingernails of both hands.

On the gate there was also a blood stain that had only OJS DNA, and only type B blood indicator. OJS had type BA blood. Do you have an explanation for why this should be? If the only DNA was from OJS, then why is the only blood indicator type B? If a large part of the blood came from someone else, where is the DNA?
The part I was referring to was Ron’s fingernails.

i think you remain confused. based on your post

[William Anthony]

". . .Huizenga told me three years ago: "My take, and what I say now, is that Simpson was innocent in the trial," Huizenga told me, referring to the criminal trial in which a jury acquitted Simpson. A civil jury later held him responsible for the murders. Dr. Huizenga should have stuck to his area of expertise, since Simpson was not proven innocent in the criminal trial and the civil jury did not find Simpson responsible for murder.


Clark's team never asked why Simpson had been limping, or what would have brought him to that point. The Dr. must never have heard of objection, speculation, lack of foundation.

On the stand, Huizenga told Kelberg that Simpson walked into his office three days after the murders "like Tarzan's grandfather." Instead of exploring how Simpson could have come to be in that condition, Kelberg replied: "...perhaps Mr. Simpson was faking a limp in your office?" The Dr. must never have heard of objection, speculation, lack of foundation.

"They assumed I was lying," Huizenga said to me. "They didn't ask me if it was possible that he'd been in the greatest fight of his life just a few days before." The Dr. must never have heard of objection, speculation, lack of foundation and assuming facts not in evidence.

[martin II]

The implications are obvious. In his struggle with Ron and in his uncontrolled rage he cut himself several times.


tv

this is for you

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/history-of-mandingo-tribe.html

[William Anthony]

The implications are obvious. In his struggle with Ron and in his uncontrolled rage he cut himself several times.

Now, I am glad to see that you have lightened up and returned to your jovial mood. I must admit that I thought you were serious when I first read this post.

[weezer]

tv

this is for you

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/history-of-mandingo-tribe.html

psst -- move on. tv has.

[tv]

The implications are obvious that Simpson was talking on the phone, holding it in his right hand and preparing to drink from a glass, when they told him Ms. NBS was dead.
Did the person on the other end report hearing glass break? Was there a phone in the bathroom?

[GreenIce]

ROAN (6/16/94): Encino social worker Susan Forward may face professional disciplinary action for violating the privacy of her former client Nicole Brown Simpson when Forward revealed comments Simpson made during therapy.
Forward, a licensed clinical social worker, said during numerous media interviews Tuesday that she had counseled Nicole Simpson on two occasions and that Simpson told her she had been battered and threatened by O.J. Simpson.

Nicole Simpson, divorced from O.J. Simpson in 1992, was slain outside her Brentwood condominium late Sunday night.

An official of the state Board of Behavioral Science Examiners, which governs licensed clinical social workers, said Wednesday that Forward appears to have violated Nicole Simpson’s privacy—even in her death.

O.J. Simpson's bizarre saga in ex-wife's murder ends in not guilty plea
Jet , July 4, 1994

He was particularly incensed with therapist Susan Forward who detailed for the media private and confidential conversations her client Nicole Brown Simpson had with her. Other therapists have criticized Forward for violating confidentiality. There has been a call for her license to be suspended or revoked.
"What she did was outrageous and unconscionable," Cochran said. "The privilege doesn't die when the patient does. Even if Nicole said she was beaten and frigtened, what if it's not true? How does O.J. defend against that since Susan Forward went public?"

[William Anthony]

Did the person on the other end report hearing glass break? Was there a phone in the bathroom?

Was the person on the other end asked that question or did the prosecution try to keep out all statements about the broken glass and the finger being cut by glass in Chicago? Was there evidence brought back from Chicago in the form of broken glass with blood and a towel with blood on them? Was there a knife produced with either the victims' blood or Simpson's on it?

[martin II]

Did the person on the other end report hearing glass break? Was there a phone in the bathroom?

HE was talking not listening for a glass break.i would guess that a phone would be in most bathrooms of hotels.

[martin II]

The implications are obvious. In his struggle with Ron and in his uncontrolled rage he cut himself several times.

There were no cuts on his fingers that came from the sharp edge of a knife.