Random Discussions On The Case

[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.

Yes we have previously debated your incorrect claim that Mark Fuhrman said he saw two gloves and a knit hat under the plant leaves at Bundy. He never said that and your claim that he did is as wrong now as it was then. Your reasoning is flawed William. It’s the same as if you were talking to two people and you told one of them there was a plane and a bird in the sky and when the other asked where you were when you saw the plane you told him from where you were standing you could see them in the sky. And I then claimed because you said the word “them” you saw two planes and bird in the sky.

There is absolutely no evidence that there was a second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there. Every witness who was asked about this testified to seeing the same thing Mark Fuhrman testified to seeing; one glove and knit hat. Including witnesses who saw the evidence under the plant leaves over two hours before Mark Fuhrman first arrived there.

Your comment that Uelmen did not ask about the knit hat is meaningless since Uelmen was asking Fuhrman about the same thing he previously testified to when Clark had questioned him.

July 5, 1994 Clark questioning Fuhrman on direct

Q FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT, LOOKING DOWN ON THE VICTIMS, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANY ITEMS OF EVIDENCE?
A YES, LOOKING DOWN, DIRECTLY BELOW THE LANDING, THERE -- I BELIEVE AT THAT POINT THERE WAS A HEEL PRINT WHICH APPEARED TO BE GOING IN A WESTBOUND DIRECTION, AWAY FROM THE BODIES, TOWARDS THE ALLEY. THERE WAS ALSO A KNIT CAP OR WHAT
APPEARED TO BE A KNIT CAP, DARK CAP-TYPE OBJECT, AND WHAT
LOOKED LIKE A GLOVE AT THE FEET OF THE MALE VICTIM IN THE
SHRUBBERY AREA JUST TO THE NORTH OF THE FEMALE VICTIM.
Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE GLOVE ANY BETTER?
A AT THAT TIME, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO SEE IT. THERE WAS ANOTHER LOCATION FROM THE NORTH RESIDENCE THAT I GOT A BETTER VIEW OF IT, A LITTLE LATER. AND THEN I NOTICED THAT IT WAS A DARK BROWN -- OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN EVEN BLACK IN THE LIGHT THAT I WAS LOOKING AT IT -- AND IT DID APPEAR TO BE A STOCKING CAP WHEN I GOT A CLOSER LOOK.
Q SO IT WAS A -- IT LOOKED TO YOU TO BE A DARK BROWN OR EVEN BLACK LEATHER GLOVE, AND A -- DID YOU SAY WHAT COLOR THE HAT WAS?
A IT WAS VERY DARK. MAYBE DARK BLUE OR BLACK.
Q KNIT CAP?
A IT APPEARED TO BE KNIT, YES.


July 5, 1994 Uelmen questioning Fuhrman on cross

Q How far would you say you were from where the bodies were located?
A I was directly above the female victim, which was probably three feet. The male victim would have been ten feet, twelve feet.
Q All right.
And from that vantage point, you first observed the glove that you told us about?
A Not first, no.
Q When did you first observe it?
A We had flashlights. We were looking at the female victim. We looked at the male victim. I noticed the glove when I walked around to the -- after I exited the residence the first time and walked around to the side -- or the north side, north perimeter of 875 Bundy. There's an iron fence and through that iron fence you can get very close to the male victim. And looking there I could see them down at his feet.
Q All right. The glove was located at the feet of the male victim?
A Yes.
Q What --
A At the foot. At one of the feet.
Q Was it obscured by any sort of plant?
A There was a plant that kind of cascaded over the top of one portion of it, yes. That's why it was easier to see from that location to the north.

bobaugust

[martin II]

It would be very easy for someone in the lab to substitute the blood samples without Mazzolza initials for the ones collected by her that she initialed, test them, package and send to the DNA lab and the results would come back naming oj and everything would be looking legitimate.imo

[martin II]

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?"


it seems that this lady tried to help the prosecution and wanted to get her name in the media for her 15 minutes.

[tv]

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?
I believe the person was Tom Lange, correct? I'm sure if he'd heard glass breaking he would say so. I know there was blood on the bed sheets but I don't recall blood on a towel. I'm not saying there wasn't -- I just don't remember. I'm surprised you didn't know there wasn't a knife presented at trial with either the blood of OJ Simpson or his victims on it.

[tv]

It would be very easy for someone in the lab to substitute the blood samples without Mazzolza initials for the ones collected by her that she initialed, test them, package and send to the DNA lab and the results would come back naming oj and everything would be looking legitimate.imo

Don't you think if someone went to all that trouble they would have put initials on the envelopes with the 'fake' evidence? Seriously, martin, no one would have gone to that much trouble to frame OJ Simpson.

[tv]

There were no cuts on his fingers that came from the sharp edge of a knife.

You don't know what cut his fingers. I say a sharp knife. :shrug:

[tv]

HE was talking not listening for a glass break.i would guess that a phone would be in most bathrooms of hotels.
I don't think most hotels have phones in the bathroom. So what if he wasn't listening? He would have heard it anyway.

[William Anthony]

Yes we have previously debated your incorrect claim that Mark Fuhrman said he saw two gloves and a knit hat under the plant leaves at Bundy. He never said that and your claim that he did is as wrong now as it was then. Your reasoning is flawed William. It’s the same as if you were talking to two people and you told one of them there was a plane and a bird in the sky and when the other asked where you were when you saw the plane you told him from where you were standing you could see them in the sky. And I then claimed because you said the word “them” you saw two planes and bird in the sky.

There is absolutely no evidence that there was a second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there. Every witness who was asked about this testified to seeing the same thing Mark Fuhrman testified to seeing; one glove and knit hat. Including witnesses who saw the evidence under the plant leaves over two hours before Mark Fuhrman first arrived there.

Your comment that Uelmen did not ask about the knit hat is meaningless since Uelmen was asking Fuhrman about the same thing he previously testified to when Clark had questioned him.

July 5, 1994 Clark questioning Fuhrman on direct

Q FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT, LOOKING DOWN ON THE VICTIMS, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANY ITEMS OF EVIDENCE?
A YES, LOOKING DOWN, DIRECTLY BELOW THE LANDING, THERE -- I BELIEVE AT THAT POINT THERE WAS A HEEL PRINT WHICH APPEARED TO BE GOING IN A WESTBOUND DIRECTION, AWAY FROM THE BODIES, TOWARDS THE ALLEY. THERE WAS ALSO A KNIT CAP OR WHAT
APPEARED TO BE A KNIT CAP, DARK CAP-TYPE OBJECT, AND WHAT
LOOKED LIKE A GLOVE AT THE FEET OF THE MALE VICTIM IN THE
SHRUBBERY AREA JUST TO THE NORTH OF THE FEMALE VICTIM.
Q CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE GLOVE ANY BETTER?
A AT THAT TIME, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO SEE IT. THERE WAS ANOTHER LOCATION FROM THE NORTH RESIDENCE THAT I GOT A BETTER VIEW OF IT, A LITTLE LATER. AND THEN I NOTICED THAT IT WAS A DARK BROWN -- OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN EVEN BLACK IN THE LIGHT THAT I WAS LOOKING AT IT -- AND IT DID APPEAR TO BE A STOCKING CAP WHEN I GOT A CLOSER LOOK.
Q SO IT WAS A -- IT LOOKED TO YOU TO BE A DARK BROWN OR EVEN BLACK LEATHER GLOVE, AND A -- DID YOU SAY WHAT COLOR THE HAT WAS?
A IT WAS VERY DARK. MAYBE DARK BLUE OR BLACK.
Q KNIT CAP?
A IT APPEARED TO BE KNIT, YES.


July 5, 1994 Uelmen questioning Fuhrman on cross

Q How far would you say you were from where the bodies were located?
A I was directly above the female victim, which was probably three feet. The male victim would have been ten feet, twelve feet.
Q All right.
And from that vantage point, you first observed the glove that you told us about?
A Not first, no.
Q When did you first observe it?
A We had flashlights. We were looking at the female victim. We looked at the male victim. I noticed the glove when I walked around to the -- after I exited the residence the first time and walked around to the side -- or the north side, north perimeter of 875 Bundy. There's an iron fence and through that iron fence you can get very close to the male victim. And looking there I could see them down at his feet.
Q All right. The glove was located at the feet of the male victim?
A Yes.
Q What --
A At the foot. At one of the feet.
Q Was it obscured by any sort of plant?
A There was a plant that kind of cascaded over the top of one portion of it, yes. That's why it was easier to see from that location to the north.

bobaugust

Dean Ulemen was the only person asking the question of MF about a glove when he said "them". He did not ask MF about a glove and a hat, just as the person questioning me did not ask about a bird and a plane. MF testified he was trained how to testify or in his case testilie,as supported by the evidence. People are taught when testifying or testilying, depending on whose testifying, to listen closely and only answer the question being asked of them (pun intended). When we place MF's response in line with the evidence of no one being behind Kato's quarters before MF and the Bundy dog hair being found on the Rockingham glove and no blood behind Kato's quarters and blood on the Rockingham driveway in no proximity to Kato's quarters, then a reasonable inference can be drawn from the totality of the evidence pertaining to the Rockingham glove that MF did see two gloves at Bundy lying (pun intended) on the ground which dog hair got on and MF later transported the glove to the Rockingham residence and deposited in the location where it was allegedly found and nothing in your offensively worded post changes the above evidence.

[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.

I'm right handed and when I talk on the phone and hold a glass in the other I always hold the phone in my left and hold the glass in my right. I think that would be the natural way most people would do it.

[William Anthony]

I believe the person was Tom Lange, correct? I'm sure if he'd heard glass breaking he would say so. I know there was blood on the bed sheets but I don't recall blood on a towel. I'm not saying there wasn't -- I just don't remember. I'm surprised you didn't know there wasn't a knife presented at trial with either the blood of OJ Simpson or his victims on it.

It was your position as I understand it that Simpson was so enraged that while stabbing Ms. NBS or Mr. RG. he decided to cut himself. That is why I asked where the knife was, as I am aware that the prosecution is obligated to produce evidence to support its theories or tailor their arguments to the evidence presented and the jury is not allowed to speculate about evidence that was not presented. Lange could have only testified to hearing glass break, if he had been asked and the prosecution fought valiantly to keep out evidence that Simpson cut his hand on glass in Chicago.

[William Anthony]

I'm righthanded and when I talk on the phone and hold a glass in the other I always hold the phone in my left and hold the glass in my right. I think that would be the natural way most people would do it.

I am also right handed and, if I am holding the phone in my right hand and simultaneously want to pick up something, I use my left hand. That is the way that I believe is natural to most people.

[tv]

It was your position as I understand it that Simpson was so enraged that while stabbing Ms. NBS or Mr. RG. he decided to cut himself. That is why I asked where the knife was, as I am aware that the prosecution is obligated to produce evidence to support its theories or tailor their arguments to the evidence presented and the jury is not allowed to speculate about evidence that was not presented. Lange could have only testified to hearing glass break, if he had been asked and the prosecution fought valiantly to keep out evidence that Simpson cut his hand on glass in Chicago.

William, why didn't the defense ask Lange if he heard glass break?

It's very obvious that OJS was behind Ron Goldman with his left arm around his neck to restrain and control him while stabbing him with the knife he held in his right hand. Ron was fighting back which caused OJS to accidentally cut himself. By the way, William, I'm not so foolish to think that the prosecution is obligated to produce a murder weapon. They presented more than enough evidence to prove their case.

[tv]

I am also right handed and, if I am holding the phone in my right hand and simultaneously want to pick up something, I use my left hand. That is the way that I believe is natural to most people.

Disagree. I change the phone to my left hand.

[William Anthony]

You don't know what cut his fingers. I say a sharp knife. :shrug:

The evidence is that it was a jagged edge cut from glass and there was glass with blood on it found in Simpson's hotel room sink and blood on a towel.:shrug:

[tv]

The evidence is that it was a jagged edge cut from glass and there was glass with blood on it found in Simpson's hotel room sink and blood on a towel.:shrug:
I'm not sure blood was found on the glass. I'll research and get back to you in a minute.:)

[William Anthony]

William, why didn't the defense ask Lange if he heard glass break?

It's very obvious that OJS was behind Ron Goldman with his left arm around his neck to restrain and control him while stabbing him with the knife he held in his right hand. Ron was fighting back which caused OJS to accidentally cut himself. By the way, William, I'm not so foolish to think that the prosecution is obligated to produce a murder weapon. They presented more than enough evidence to prove their case.

The defense did not have to ask the question and, if you will read, you will see where the questioning about how Simpson cut his hand was severely limited. Maybe, most of the world is more or less ambidextrous than you or I?

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure blood was found on the glass. I'll research and get back to you in a minute.:)

I am.:)

[tv]

I am.:)
I find evidence that blood was on a hand towel but not the glass. If you have actual testimony that there was blood on the glass please post it. I wouldn't find it compelling -- just interesting. Too easily faked. :) By the way, I think Ron Phillips is the one that notified him, not Tom Lange.

[tv]

The defense did not have to ask the question and, if you will read, you will see where the questioning about how Simpson cut his hand was severely limited. Maybe, most of the world is more or less ambidextrous than you or I?
It's my feeling that if Johnnie Cochran thought someone heard the glass break he would have found a way to get it in. You could be right about my ambidexterity -- I'm not very. :)

[martin II]

William, why didn't the defense ask Lange if he heard glass break?

It's very obvious that OJS was behind Ron Goldman with his left arm around his neck to restrain and control him while stabbing him with the knife he held in his right hand. Ron was fighting back which caused OJS to accidentally cut himself. By the way, William, I'm not so foolish to think that the prosecution is obligated to produce a murder weapon. They presented more than enough evidence to prove their case.

Not so
If OJ had his left arm around rons neck then ojs left hand would be at rons right ear in a closed fist.Out of range of the cutting knife in ojs right hand cutting at rons feft ear.im Try the position on someone and you may understand.

[tv]

Not so
If OJ had his left arm around rons neck then ojs left hand would be at rons right ear in a closed fist.Out of range of the cutting knife in ojs right hand cutting at rons feft ear.imo

You have no way of knowing that's exactly how he was holding Ron. Ron didn't stand still as was he was being killed. I understand what you're saying about the position but there's no way to know exactly what position the killer was in.

[William Anthony]

I find evidence that blood was on a hand towel but not the glass. If you have actual testimony that there was blood on the glass please post it. I wouldn't find it compelling -- just interesting. Too easily faked. :) By the way, I think Ron Phillips is the one that notified him, not Tom Lange.

The testimony was not allowed without importing LE from Chicago but here's the argument.

MR. COCHRAN: -- AT THE END OF THE DAY YESTERDAY. ALL I ASKED -- THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT -- SHE BRINGS OUT, YOUR HONOR, THIS LAWYER, THIS LAWYER SHOULD NOT BE HEARD. SCREAMING DOESN'T MAKE SHRILLNESS. WHEN COUNSEL STANDS UP HERE AND SAYS SHE'S NEVER HEARD ANY DIFFERENT RULING, THAT'S MORE LIES. I DON'T WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT, BUT -- YOUR HONOR, ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION, SHE BROUGHT IN THE FACT THAT THIS MAN HAD A CUT FINGER. ALL I'M ASKING IS WHETHER OR NOT IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, TALKING TO HIM, DID HE GIVE YOU AN EXPLANATION. THAT IS NOT HEARSAY. HE GAVE YOU AN EXPLANATION, THAT IS NOT HEARSAY. I DIDN'T ASK WHAT HE SAID. IT'S NOT HEARSAY. AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOUR HONOR INDICATED YOU WERE GOING TO CHECK BACK WITH YOUR NOTES AND SEE WHERE SHE OPENS THE DOOR WITH REGARD TO THE CUT FINGER AND THEN HE GIVES AN EXPLANATION HOW HE GOT THE CUT FINGER. AND, JUDGE, FURTHER, AS AN OFFER OF PROOF, THEY INVESTIGATED IN CHICAGO AND THEY FOUND GLASS IN A FACE BASIN OR WHATEVER CONTEXT SHATTERED WITH BLOOD, YOUR HONOR, WITH A TOWEL THEREON. THAT'S TOTALLY UNFAIR. WE HAVE A CUT FINGER IN THIS CASE AND I CAN'T BRING THAT OUT FROM THIS INVESTIGATOR, SIR?

THE COURT: BUT THE QUESTION WAS, "DID YOU EXAMINE HIS HAND?" IT WASN'T THAT HE MAKE A STATEMENT TO YOU. SO TO SAY -- HERE'S THE PROBLEM, JOHNNIE. WHEN YOU ASK, "DID HE GIVE YOU AN EXPLANATION," THE QUESTION ITSELF SAYS THAT HE SAID SOMETHING THAT EXPLAINS THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, THAT'S JUST THE QUESTION. HE NEVER ANSWERED IT. BUT, JUDGE, IF HE SAYS YES, THAT'S ALL I CAN GO INTO. WE'RE ALLOWED TO ASK, "DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION," "YES," AND --

THE COURT: "DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION REGARDING THE FINGER," YES, THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: I DIDN'T ASK HIM FOR THE EXPLANATION. "DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION REGARDING A CUT FINGER?" "YES." BUT, JUDGE, THE OTHER POINT IS THIS. YOU WERE GOING TO CHECK YOUR NOTES WHERE THEY OPEN THIS UP AND BRING OUT THIS INFORMATION ABOUT THE CUT FINGER. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO DO IT. YOU SAID AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU WOULD.

THE COURT: MY RECOLLECTION IS, SHE ASKED, "DID HE SAY SOMETHING BACK TO YOU?"

MR. COCHRAN: HAS THE COURT HAD A CHANCE TO CHECK THAT?

THE COURT: I HAVE NOT.

MR. COCHRAN: I EXPECT TO FINISH WITH HIM SHORTLY.

THE COURT: HE'S AVAILABLE.

MR. COCHRAN: WOULD YOU -- WELL, WHAT'S THE QUESTION I AM PERMITTED TO ASK?

THE COURT: "DID YOU DISCUSS WITH HIM THE CUT ON THE FINGER, YES OR NO."

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: AN EXPLANATION GIVES A CONNOTATION.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

[William Anthony]

It's my feeling that if Johnnie Cochran thought someone heard the glass break he would have found a way to get it in. You could be right about my ambidexterity -- I'm not very. :)

He tried. :)

[tv]

He tried. :)

Deposition testimony of Det. Kenneth Berris, Chicago:


Q. Did you notice any red spots on any of the pieces of glass in the sink?

"A. None at all.

"Q. Was there any glass found anyplace else other than in the sink?

"A. There were small chips of glass found along the vanity on both the right
and left sides of the wash basin, very small chips.

"Q. Did you at some point in time pick up each of the pieces or chips of glass?

"A. I examined them.

"Q. Each of them?

"A. Yes.

"Q. What was your purpose in examining them?

"A. To see if they had any red substance that I might feel could be blood.

"Q. What did you conclude after examining each piece of glass, or chips of
glass?"

(Continued reading as follows)

"A. I found none, nothing that appeared to be blood on any of these chips."

MR. PETROCELLI:. Next.

[tv]

HE was talking not listening for a glass break.i would guess that a phone would be in most bathrooms of hotels.

Deposition testimony of Det. Kenneth Berris:


"Q. Was there a telephone in the bathroom?

"A. No

[weezer]

Deposition testimony of Det. Kenneth Berris:


"Q. Was there a telephone in the bathroom?

"A. No

as interesting as no blood on the glass is the location of the blood on the sheets! :eek:

[tv]

as interesting as no blood on the glass is the location of the blood on the sheets! :eek:

I think so too. Also, if you read the whole testimony there was no blood found in the wastebasket etc. His story of cutting his finger in Chicago just doesn't jibe. Looks like Mr. Johnnie was fibbing to the court. :)

[tv]

as interesting as no blood on the glass is the location of the blood on the sheets! :eek:

The middle of the bed and the pillowcase -- I get the pillowcase but the middle of the bed makes me go hmm...

[weezer]

I think so too. Also, if you read the whole testimony there was no blood found in the wastebasket etc. His story of cutting his finger in Chicago just doesn't jibe. Looks like Mr. Johnnie was fibbing to the court. :)

noooooooooo! you mean like his opening statement where he promised to produce all of these witnesses that was going to prove orenthal's innocence and alibi and couldn't/didn't? :rolleyes:

[tv]

noooooooooo! you mean like his opening statement where he promised to produce all of these witnesses that was going to prove orenthal's innocence and alibi and couldn't/didn't? :rolleyes:

Yep, that's just what I mean. I wonder why he promised to produce witnesses to prove Simpson's innocence? We all know the defense doesn't have to prove anything -- they don't even have to put on a case. Oh wait, they didn't. Just threw some wild theories out there and hoped a few of them would stick.

[weezer]

The middle of the bed and the pillowcase -- I get the pillowcase but the middle of the bed makes me go hmm...

I think the testimony is that the sheets would be stained that way if someone had been laying in the bed. Maybe as in -- ASLEEP! ;)

[William Anthony]

Deposition testimony of Det. Kenneth Berris, Chicago:


Q. Did you notice any red spots on any of the pieces of glass in the sink?

"A. None at all.

"Q. Was there any glass found anyplace else other than in the sink?

"A. There were small chips of glass found along the vanity on both the right
and left sides of the wash basin, very small chips.

"Q. Did you at some point in time pick up each of the pieces or chips of glass?

"A. I examined them.

"Q. Each of them?

"A. Yes.

"Q. What was your purpose in examining them?

"A. To see if they had any red substance that I might feel could be blood.

"Q. What did you conclude after examining each piece of glass, or chips of
glass?"

(Continued reading as follows)

"A. I found none, nothing that appeared to be blood on any of these chips."

MR. PETROCELLI:. Next.

I took the liberty of underlining the relevant word and now I will place some more of the testimony.

""Q. What is it?

"A. This is a photograph of a wash cloth that was found underneath the hand
towel. Did I call it a face towel before? But the towel that was to the right
of the wash basin. This wash cloth was found underneath that towel after the photographs had been taken by the Crime Lab Technicians Stella and Naujokas processing the scene.

"It originally couldn't be seen because the towel had been on top of it. And
this being underneath it, we didn't move anything until after it was
photographed to show things in their original condition. After the photographs
were taken with the towel, the towel was picked up by the technicians and they discovered this face -- this wash cloth with a red stain on it, which I
suspected to be blood.

"Also you can see one of the glass chips here."

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Page 68.

Can you read the answer on page 68, line .

MR. CALLAN: 68 line 6.

(Reading:)

"A. Here's one of the chips here.

That chip would have been hidden from view by the towel. That's why you
couldn't see it before."

[tv]

I think the testimony is that the sheets would be stained that way if someone had been laying in the bed. Maybe as in -- ASLEEP! ;)
Can you imagine being able to sleep after doing something like that? Probably the best sleep he'd had in ages. I guess he caught a little nap while he waited for the call. As I recall, he asked that he not be disturbed.

[William Anthony]

Yep, that's just what I mean. I wonder why he promised to produce witnesses to prove Simpson's innocence? We all know the defense doesn't have to prove anything -- they don't even have to put on a case. Oh wait, they didn't. Just threw some wild theories out there and hoped a few of them would stick.

The magnificent one did not need to call all those witnesses as evidenced by the cross, the witnesses he did call and the verdict.:)

[William Anthony]

Can you imagine being able to sleep after doing something like that? Probably the best sleep he'd had in ages. I guess he caught a little nap while he waited for the call. As I recall, he asked that he not be disturbed.

The spots are also consistent with someone sitting on the bed after cutting his finger on a glass after hearing the shock that his former wife was dead.

[William Anthony]

The middle of the bed and the pillowcase -- I get the pillowcase but the middle of the bed makes me go hmm...

I think you are quick to go hmm.

[weezer]

Can you imagine being able to sleep after doing something like that? Probably the best sleep he'd had in ages. I guess he caught a little nap while he waited for the call. As I recall, he asked that he not be disturbed.

maybe that's when the dope got in his system? I hear pot makes you sleepy.

[tv]

maybe that's when the dope got in his system? I hear pot makes you sleepy.
You might be on to something. Maybe he smoked it to chill out after his flight. You know if he had really cut his hand when he said he did they estimated he had about 1/2 hour between the time he was notified and leaving for the airport. Why would he be in bed? The answer: he wouldn't! That means he bled on the bed and pillows the night before.

[tv]

The magnificent one did not need to call all those witnesses as evidenced by the cross, the witnesses he did call and the verdict.:)

Mr. Johnnie shouldn't have made promises he couldn't keep. It didn't seem to bother the jury though. :shrug:

[tv]

I think you are quick to go hmm.

Really? Do you have a plausible explanation?

[weezer]

The magnificent one did not need to call all those witnesses as evidenced by the cross, the witnesses he did call and the verdict.:)

everyone knows the defense didn't 'need' to -- the fact, is, your hero said he was going to and then :eek: he couldn't produce! IIRC, the defense was sanctioned over hiding testimony from one of those witnesses. :punch:

[tv]

The spots are also consistent with someone sitting on the bed after cutting his finger on a glass after hearing the shock that his former wife was dead.Sure...don't wipe the blood on a tissue -- instead, wipe it on the bed and the pillows. Now that you know that Johnnie was fibbing about the blood on the glass -- what's your explanation for why there's no blood on the glass?

[William Anthony]

"Q. You're best recollection today is that these spots were somewhere in the
middle of the bed. Not down at one end and not close to the head board; is that
correct?

"A. Yes, for the most part they're toward the center of the bed and not at the
boot or the head. Although there were some spots on that pillow case or cases
-- excuse me. But for the most part, they were centered toward the center of
the bed more than at the end.

"Q. I think you testified earlier that there were spots on the bottom sheet and
the top sheet?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Okay. Did you make any effort to specifically identify where those spots
were or did you ask anyone else to do that by using any kind of diagram or
anything like that?

"A. No. That was not done.

[William Anthony]

Sure...don't wipe the blood on a tissue -- instead, wipe it on the bed and the pillows. Now that you know that Johnnie was fibbing about the blood on the glass -- what's your explanation for why there's no blood on the glass?

The magnificent one wasn't fibbing as the detective did not see one chip of glass. Therefore, he couldn't have observed whether there was blood on it or not and he was specifically talking about "these" chips.

[William Anthony]

Part of the magnificent one's magnificence was not over trying his case and he took the sanctions and still one, whereas the prosecution took their sanctions and lost.

[martin II]

Can you imagine being able to sleep after doing something like that? Probably the best sleep he'd had in ages. I guess he caught a little nap while he waited for the call. As I recall, he asked that he not be disturbed.

OJ started his day by playing golf. After such a busy day he should have been tired as kato told him after the burgers.So natural that he would need some sleep. A wound made the day before would not still be bleeding. one made a few minutes before would.

[weezer]

The magnificent one wasn't fibbing as the detective did not see one chip of glass. Therefore, he couldn't have observed whether there was blood on it or not and he was specifically talking about "these" chips.

nope -- he was lying! there was no blood on the glass!

[tv]

OJ started his day by playing golf. After such a busy day he should have been tired as kato told him after the burgers.So natural that he would need some sleep. A wound made the day before would not still be bleeding. one made a few minutes before would.

You think he laid down and took a nap after cutting his finger?

[tv]

The magnificent one wasn't fibbing as the detective did not see one chip of glass. Therefore, he couldn't have observed whether there was blood on it or not and he was specifically talking about "these" chips.

Please post the testimony that there was glass with blood on it. Please. :)

[William Anthony]

Mr. Johnnie shouldn't have made promises he couldn't keep. It didn't seem to bother the jury though. :shrug:

The jury understood that the dream team led by the magnificent one had thoroughly destroyed the prosecution's case with cross examination and the witnesses they put on. It seems like the only one who can't accept that are the one's that can't accept the prosecution's failure.

[martin II]

Sure...don't wipe the blood on a tissue -- instead, wipe it on the bed and the pillows. Now that you know that Johnnie was fibbing about the blood on the glass -- what's your explanation for why there's no blood on the glass?

no
wash the blood off in the sink with water and hope that it stops bleeding.
or put some toilet tissue on it and flush it down the toilet.

[William Anthony]

Really? Do you have a plausible explanation?

I am not clairvoyant.

[tv]

Part of the magnificent one's magnificence was not over trying his case and he took the sanctions and still one, whereas the prosecution took their sanctions and lost.

I'm curious -- do you think Johnnie Cochran was magnificent? That's the feeling I'm getting.

[William Anthony]

Please post the testimony that there was glass with blood on it. Please. :)

Please, post the testimony where there was no blood found on the chip of glass that the detective could not see before. Please,:)?

[tv]

Please, post the testimony where there was no blood found on the chip of glass that the detective could not see before. Please,:)?

You're twisting. It is what it is.

[tv]

no
wash the blood off in the sink with water and hope that it stops bleeding.
or put some toilet tissue on it and flush it down the toilet.
The sink was full of glass. He would have washed the glass chips down the drain but they were still in the sink.

[tv]

I am not clairvoyant.

No comment. :)

[weezer]

You're twisting. It is what it is.

aww -- come on tv -- you know that out of all that glass that DIDN'T have blood, william was going to point to the one piece under the towel that HE says could have ALTHOUGH the witnesses testified there was NO blood on any glass or in the sink. ;)

[William Anthony]

You're twisting. It is what it is.

If you call posting twisting testimony, then so be it.:)

[tv]

The jury understood that the dream team led by the magnificent one had thoroughly destroyed the prosecution's case with cross examination and the witnesses they put on. It seems like the only one who can't accept that are the one's that can't accept the prosecution's failure.This is the last time I'm going to tell you that I accept the verdict but I don't agree with it. Just like you accept the verdict in the civil trial, right? Just remember, if you call it a political production that's not acceptance.

[William Anthony]

You're twisting. It is what it is.

I will ask you to note that the prosecution did not object to the magnificent one's representation as to what chip had the blood.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, HOW MANY TIMES DOES THE COURT HAVE TO MAKE A RULING? YOU KNOW, COUNSEL WENT AHEAD AND ASKED THE QUESTION IN FRONT OF THE JURY WITHOUT ASKING TO APPROACH THE BENCH. IF COUNSEL WANTED TO DO SOMETHING TO OVERCOME THE RULING THAT THE COURT MADE YESTERDAY -- WHICH IS BY THE WAY A STANDARD RULING MADE IN EVERY CRIMINAL COURT IN THIS LAND, THAT HIS ATTEMPT TO GET IN THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT IS HEARSAY, IS ABSOLUTELY ACCEPTED BY ALL ATTORNEYS WHERE COUNSEL CAN'T CLAIM HE DID NOT KNOW THAT. THIS IS DESPICABLE. THIS IS REPREHENSIBLE BEHAVIOR. THE COURT MADE ITS RULING THAT IT'S HEARSAY, AND COUNSEL INSISTED ON APPROACHING THE BENCH TO BROACH THE SUBJECT MATTER BEFORE HE RAISED IT AGAIN AND NOW HE'S DELIBERATELY DONE THE EXACT OPPOSITE, RAISED IT IN FRONT OF THE JURY WITHOUT TRYING TO ASK THE COURT FOR SOME RELIEF FROM ITS PRIOR RULING, WHICH BY THE WAY IS A RULING THAT I HAVE NEVER SEEN MADE DIFFERENTLY IN ANY COURT.

MR. COCHRAN: I ASKED TO APPROACH -- COUNSEL KEEPS MAKING THESE MACHINATIONS.

MS. CLARK: AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO CITE COUNSEL FOR MISCONDUCT.

MR. COCHRAN: -- AT THE END OF THE DAY YESTERDAY. ALL I ASKED -- THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT -- SHE BRINGS OUT, YOUR HONOR, THIS LAWYER, THIS LAWYER SHOULD NOT BE HEARD. SCREAMING DOESN'T MAKE SHRILLNESS. WHEN COUNSEL STANDS UP HERE AND SAYS SHE'S NEVER HEARD ANY DIFFERENT RULING, THAT'S MORE LIES. I DON'T WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT, BUT -- YOUR HONOR, ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION, SHE BROUGHT IN THE FACT THAT THIS MAN HAD A CUT FINGER. ALL I'M ASKING IS WHETHER OR NOT IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, TALKING TO HIM, DID HE GIVE YOU AN EXPLANATION. THAT IS NOT HEARSAY. HE GAVE YOU AN EXPLANATION, THAT IS NOT HEARSAY. I DIDN'T ASK WHAT HE SAID. IT'S NOT HEARSAY. AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOUR HONOR INDICATED YOU WERE GOING TO CHECK BACK WITH YOUR NOTES AND SEE WHERE SHE OPENS THE DOOR WITH REGARD TO THE CUT FINGER AND THEN HE GIVES AN EXPLANATION HOW HE GOT THE CUT FINGER. AND, JUDGE, FURTHER, AS AN OFFER OF PROOF, THEY INVESTIGATED IN CHICAGO AND THEY FOUND GLASS IN A FACE BASIN OR WHATEVER CONTEXT SHATTERED WITH BLOOD, YOUR HONOR, WITH A TOWEL THEREON. THAT'S TOTALLY UNFAIR. WE HAVE A CUT FINGER IN THIS CASE AND I CAN'T BRING THAT OUT FROM THIS INVESTIGATOR, SIR?

THE COURT: BUT THE QUESTION WAS, "DID YOU EXAMINE HIS HAND?" IT WASN'T THAT HE MAKE A STATEMENT TO YOU. SO TO SAY -- HERE'S THE PROBLEM, JOHNNIE. WHEN YOU ASK, "DID HE GIVE YOU AN EXPLANATION," THE QUESTION ITSELF SAYS THAT HE SAID SOMETHING THAT EXPLAINS THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, THAT'S JUST THE QUESTION. HE NEVER ANSWERED IT. BUT, JUDGE, IF HE SAYS YES, THAT'S ALL I CAN GO INTO. WE'RE ALLOWED TO ASK, "DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION," "YES," AND --

THE COURT: "DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION REGARDING THE FINGER," YES, THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: I DIDN'T ASK HIM FOR THE EXPLANATION. "DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION REGARDING A CUT FINGER?" "YES." BUT, JUDGE, THE OTHER POINT IS THIS. YOU WERE GOING TO CHECK YOUR NOTES WHERE THEY OPEN THIS UP AND BRING OUT THIS INFORMATION ABOUT THE CUT FINGER. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO DO IT. YOU SAID AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU WOULD.

THE COURT: MY RECOLLECTION IS, SHE ASKED, "DID HE SAY SOMETHING BACK TO YOU?"

MR. COCHRAN: HAS THE COURT HAD A CHANCE TO CHECK THAT?

THE COURT: I HAVE NOT.

MR. COCHRAN: I EXPECT TO FINISH WITH HIM SHORTLY.

THE COURT: HE'S AVAILABLE.

MR. COCHRAN: WOULD YOU -- WELL, WHAT'S THE QUESTION I AM PERMITTED TO ASK?

THE COURT: "DID YOU DISCUSS WITH HIM THE CUT ON THE FINGER, YES OR NO."

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: AN EXPLANATION GIVES A CONNOTATION.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

[William Anthony]

This is the last time I'm going to tell you that I accept the verdict but I don't agree with it. Just like you accept the verdict in the civil trial, right? Just remember, if you call it a political production that's not acceptance.

I called the trial a socio political production and have stated that I accept the civil verdict based on the evidence that jury was permitted to hear. Please, quote me right?:)

[martin II]

The jury understood that the dream team led by the magnificent one had thoroughly destroyed the prosecution's case with cross examination and the witnesses they put on. It seems like the only one who can't accept that are the one's that can't accept the prosecution's failure.

The jury also had to understand;

The blood on the bed had to come from the bathroom glass cut and not from Bundy.
There was no blood in the driveway in froint of the house where oj park and kato were loading the bags.NO blood in the back seat of the limo. no blood on the sidewalk at the airport. no blood on the airplane seat or the airplane.no blood in the hertz limo. no blood at the check in desk at the hotel.

He cuts himself on a glass and there is blood.It is logical for the jury to accept the fact that he cut his finger on a glass.

[William Anthony]

The jury also had to understand;

The blood on the bed had to come from the bathroom glass cut and not from Bundy.
There was no blood in the driveway in froint of the house where oj park and kato were loading the bags.NO blood in the back seat of the limo. no blood on the sidewalk at the airport. no blood on the airplane seat or the airplane.no blood in the hertz limo. no blood at the check in desk at the hotel.

He cuts himself on a glass and there is blood.It is logical for the jury to accept the fact that he cut his finger on a glass.

Agreed.

[tv]

I called the trial a socio political production and have stated that I accept the civil verdict based on the evidence that jury was permitted to hear. Please, quote me right?:)

You mean without all the lies that the defense made up about LE and the lab there was no defense for OJS? I'll have to agree with you there. :)

[tv]

Agreed.

No blood on the glass. Why not? The broken edge of the glass had to come in contact with his finger and cause the cut. No evidence of that except his little staged scene in the bathroom.

[tv]

aww -- come on tv -- you know that out of all that glass that DIDN'T have blood, william was going to point to the one piece under the towel that HE says could have ALTHOUGH the witnesses testified there was NO blood on any glass or in the sink. ;)

Oh, that's right. COULDA is accepted as evidence in this case. I get it now. ;)

[martin II]

The sink was full of glass. He would have washed the glass chips down the drain but they were still in the sink.

The sink was not full of anything.If he turned the water on, some chips may have been washed away but not all and the water would wash off some if not all the blood.

[martin II]

If there were pieces of glass with blood on them and he truned the water on to clean the sink, the glass with the blood would have been washed clean.As it was.

[weezer]

The sink was not full of anything.If he turned the water on, some chips may have been washed away but not all and the water would wash off some if not all the blood.

sure it was -- orenthal says he brushed the broken glass into it -- didn't he?

[weezer]

If there were pieces of glass with blood on them and he truned the water on to clean the sink, the glass with the blood would have been washed clean.As it was.

LOL -- cleaned the sink and left bloody sheets and pillow cases -- LOL -- makes sense -- ;)

[tv]

The sink was not full of anything.If he turned the water on, some chips may have been washed away but not all and the water would wash off some if not all the blood.If the sink and vanity wasn't full of glass then where was all the broken glass? None was found in the other room.

[William Anthony]

You mean without all the lies that the defense made up about LE and the lab there was no defense for OJS? I'll have to agree with you there. :)

Yes, that is what I mean as the judge, who stated, "Basically, this is a civil murder trial", and, who would not allow that evidence in, left the jury with the only verdict that was acceptable. Since when is the defense not allowed to try the evidence? :)

[William Anthony]

Oh, that's right. COULDA is accepted as evidence in this case. I get it now. ;)

How about the glass found under the bloody towel? How about that, Ms. Tvdinner?:):)

[tv]

Yes, that is what I mean as the judge, who stated, "Basically, this is a civil murder trial", and, who would not allow that evidence in, left the jury with the only verdict that was acceptable. Since when is the defense not allowed to try the evidence? :)

According to you they don't have to present any evidence or any proof. The judge would have let in the allegations against LE but he wanted something to back it up. The defense couldn't comply with this so it wasn't allowed.

[tv]

William, I just realized that I sounded a little harsh at the beginning of post #7062. Please accept my apology -- it wasn't intentional. :)

[GreenIce]

The testimony was not allowed without importing LE from Chicago but here's the argument.

MR. COCHRAN: -- AT THE END OF THE DAY YESTERDAY. ALL I ASKED -- THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT -- SHE BRINGS OUT, YOUR HONOR, THIS LAWYER, THIS LAWYER SHOULD NOT BE HEARD. SCREAMING DOESN'T MAKE SHRILLNESS. WHEN COUNSEL STANDS UP HERE AND SAYS SHE'S NEVER HEARD ANY DIFFERENT RULING, THAT'S MORE LIES. I DON'T WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT, BUT -- YOUR HONOR, ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION, SHE BROUGHT IN THE FACT THAT THIS MAN HAD A CUT FINGER. ALL I'M ASKING IS WHETHER OR NOT IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, TALKING TO HIM, DID HE GIVE YOU AN EXPLANATION. THAT IS NOT HEARSAY. HE GAVE YOU AN EXPLANATION, THAT IS NOT HEARSAY. I DIDN'T ASK WHAT HE SAID. IT'S NOT HEARSAY. AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOUR HONOR INDICATED YOU WERE GOING TO CHECK BACK WITH YOUR NOTES AND SEE WHERE SHE OPENS THE DOOR WITH REGARD TO THE CUT FINGER AND THEN HE GIVES AN EXPLANATION HOW HE GOT THE CUT FINGER. AND, JUDGE, FURTHER, AS AN OFFER OF PROOF, THEY INVESTIGATED IN CHICAGO AND THEY FOUND GLASS IN A FACE BASIN OR WHATEVER CONTEXT SHATTERED WITH BLOOD, YOUR HONOR, WITH A TOWEL THEREON. THAT'S TOTALLY UNFAIR. WE HAVE A CUT FINGER IN THIS CASE AND I CAN'T BRING THAT OUT FROM THIS INVESTIGATOR, SIR?

THE COURT: BUT THE QUESTION WAS, "DID YOU EXAMINE HIS HAND?" IT WASN'T THAT HE MAKE A STATEMENT TO YOU. SO TO SAY -- HERE'S THE PROBLEM, JOHNNIE. WHEN YOU ASK, "DID HE GIVE YOU AN EXPLANATION," THE QUESTION ITSELF SAYS THAT HE SAID SOMETHING THAT EXPLAINS THAT.

MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, THAT'S JUST THE QUESTION. HE NEVER ANSWERED IT. BUT, JUDGE, IF HE SAYS YES, THAT'S ALL I CAN GO INTO. WE'RE ALLOWED TO ASK, "DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION," "YES," AND --

THE COURT: "DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION REGARDING THE FINGER," YES, THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION.

MR. COCHRAN: I DIDN'T ASK HIM FOR THE EXPLANATION. "DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION REGARDING A CUT FINGER?" "YES." BUT, JUDGE, THE OTHER POINT IS THIS. YOU WERE GOING TO CHECK YOUR NOTES WHERE THEY OPEN THIS UP AND BRING OUT THIS INFORMATION ABOUT THE CUT FINGER. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO DO IT. YOU SAID AT THE END OF THE DAY YOU WOULD.

THE COURT: MY RECOLLECTION IS, SHE ASKED, "DID HE SAY SOMETHING BACK TO YOU?"

MR. COCHRAN: HAS THE COURT HAD A CHANCE TO CHECK THAT?

THE COURT: I HAVE NOT.

MR. COCHRAN: I EXPECT TO FINISH WITH HIM SHORTLY.

THE COURT: HE'S AVAILABLE.

MR. COCHRAN: WOULD YOU -- WELL, WHAT'S THE QUESTION I AM PERMITTED TO ASK?

THE COURT: "DID YOU DISCUSS WITH HIM THE CUT ON THE FINGER, YES OR NO."

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: AN EXPLANATION GIVES A CONNOTATION.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

William,

IIRC, the witness was the young lady from the airlines. She heard somthings and Simpson explained that the broke a glass and was cleaning it up. Judge Ito did not allow this in because the witness did not hear a glass break, only of it be being cleaned up and what Simpson told her.

[GreenIce]

Dean Ulemen was the only person asking the question of MF about a glove when he said "them". He did not ask MF about a glove and a hat, just as the person questioning me did not ask about a bird and a plane. MF testified he was trained how to testify or in his case testilie,as supported by the evidence. People are taught when testifying or testilying, depending on whose testifying, to listen closely and only answer the question being asked of them (pun intended). When we place MF's response in line with the evidence of no one being behind Kato's quarters before MF and the Bundy dog hair being found on the Rockingham glove and no blood behind Kato's quarters and blood on the Rockingham driveway in no proximity to Kato's quarters, then a reasonable inference can be drawn from the totality of the evidence pertaining to the Rockingham glove that MF did see two gloves at Bundy lying (pun intended) on the ground which dog hair got on and MF later transported the glove to the Rockingham residence and deposited in the location where it was allegedly found and nothing in your offensively worded post changes the above evidence.

William,

I now understand your point about this! When I read that part of the testimony, I thought it was odd, he wasn't being asked about the hat, only one glove, so why did he say them? Did he say the hat was completely blocked from his few? And how did he get so, so, so, so wrong about the hat?

[martin II]

I called the trial a socio political production and have stated that I accept the civil verdict based on the evidence that jury was permitted to hear. Please, quote me right?:)

The biased judge that was on a mission to satisty some cut the legs out from under much of the defence agrument there by cutting the jury out from hearing this argument.They were forced to only hear what petro had to say.

Which is why petro did not have to work very hard to win the set up money case.

[GreenIce]

William and Martin,

In your experience, is it logical to ask the question why weren't the cops and a team of CSI people ready to enter room even before Simpson was told of the murders? Couldn't they have stated that they were there to examine his body, clothes and luggage, just at best rule him out as a suspect? The could have justified it by say the killer was bleeding when he left Bundy. It was thought to have been a dog bite, etc.?

IMO, by having the detective and the CSI team come in later is another nail the "Rush To Judgement" coffin. How many more examples can there be of the 4 lead detectives saying they know who did it, they know it was done, and that is the end of the case?

Here is a question that I don't know if it can be answered but, were the drains checked for blood in the hotel room? And how long was it before the detective and the CSI team entered the hotel room?

Wouldn't be something if the drains were not checked and the CSI team arrived at the hotel room long before the CSI team went to Bundy?

[martin II]

If the sink and vanity wasn't full of glass then where was all the broken glass? None was found in the other room.

If the sink was full of glass then glass would have been up to the rim of the sink. It was not. The broken glass was what was left after the water was turned on and washed it down the drain.All of the glass was on the vanity, in the sink or down the drain.But it seems from the testinmony that there was blood found on some glass and or the sink.

[weezer]

If the sink was full of glass then glass would have been up to the rim of the sink. It was not. The broken glass was what was left after the water was turned on and washed it down the drain.All of the glass was on the vanity, in the sink or down the drain.But it seems from the testinmony that there was blood found on some glass and or the sink.

there was NO blood found in the sink or on any of the glass.

[martin II]

William and Martin,

In your experience, is it logical to ask the question why weren't the cops and a team of CSI people ready to enter room even before Simpson was told of the murders? Couldn't they have stated that they were there to examine his body, clothes and luggage, just at best rule him out as a suspect? The could have justified it by say the killer was bleeding when he left Bundy. It was thought to have been a dog bite, etc.?

IMO, by having the detective and the CSI team come in later is another nail the "Rush To Judgement" coffin. How many more examples can there be of the 4 lead detectives saying they know who did it, they know it was done, and that is the end of the case?

Here is a question that I don't know if it can be answered but, were the drains checked for blood in the hotel room? And how long was it before the detective and the CSI team entered the hotel room?

Wouldn't be something if the drains were not checked and the CSI team arrived at the hotel room long before the CSI team went to Bundy?


When oj got the call from lang.He left the hotel room and headed back to the airport.The detectives came to the hotel room after he had left.
The LA DA could have tested the blood from the chicago hotel glass but it would have proven that oj cut his hand in the hotel room so they did not mention this.

There was no checking of the drains as they knew they would have found ojs blood just like that did on the bed.

The prosecution did not want to talk about the glass cut at all.

[GreenIce]

fgump,

You posted that were critical of me because I posted that Nicole was just as bad as Simpson when it comes to physical abuse and verbal abuse. That is fine by me, to be "critical".

However, shouldn't you also be critical in examining and weighing all of the DV evidence as well as be critical of why much of this alleged evidence was not entered into the trial?

What is significant about Nicole slapping/punching of the maid is that when Nicole was pushed to her limits, regardless of the reason, she would physically strike out. If Nicole was able to strike out at the maid, is that hard to see where Nicole would strike out against Simpson about his other women? Is it impossible to imagine that Nicole would slap or punch Simpson because of his behavior? Doesn't matter who struck out first and why? Isn't it important to know as many details surrounding events before making a judgement?

Another point, keep every thing the same, but only have Nicole in the defendant's chair and Simpson and Paula be dead. Clark would have tore her story apart about other 911 phone calls because she would have asked the defense to produce the cops who responded to these calls. Since the defense could not produce any of these cops, then Clark would have said that Nicole was lying about this.

Another thing Clark would have done was tear her apart for calling the cops when Simpson beat up her car, this was not done out fear for her safety but she was pissed Simpson broke her windshield. She would have tore Nicole apart for the 1993 phone calls because again, these calls started as Nicole being angry at Simpson for kicking in a door and then question why the tone in her voice did turn to fear. She then would have nailed Nicole for telling not only the cops but every other person she told about it only happening once.

Clark would have introduced her statement to the police regarding the 1989 incident, she would have asked her, did Mr. Simpson just look at you, grab you by the neck, toss you out of the bedroom because you were snoring?

Clark would have gone after Nicole's friends, including her sister and prove that they knew about the alleged abuse but still continued to treat the Simpsons as close friends?

Don't forget, Nicole may not have been wealthy in her own right, but her friends had enough money to help her out of this situation.

Nicole and OJ had 17 years together. She was not a trophy wife. In those 17 years together, they solved and/or resolved many issues in their marriage without resorting to violence.

By all means, be critical and keep asking questions and making observations but just remember, there is at least one other point of view. You may not agree with it but it is important to understand that other people have solid ground to base their point of view on.

I do enjoy your posts.

[weezer]

The O. J. Simpson Trial, As It Might Be Described by Dr. Seuss
(an anonymous composition circulated widely over the internet)
.
I did not kill my lovely wife
I did not slash her with a knife
I did not bonk her on the head
I did not know that she was dead.

I stayed at home that fateful night
I took a cab then took a flight
The bag I had was just for me
My bag! My bag! Hey, leave it be.

When I came home I had a gash
My hand was cut from broken glass
I cut my hand on broken glass
A broken glass did cause that gash.

I have nothing, nothing to hide
My friend, he took me for a ride.

Did you take this person's life?
Did you do it with a knife?

I did not do it with a knife
I did not, could not kill my wife
I did not do this awful crime
I could not, would not anytime.

Did you hit her from above?
Did you drop this bloody glove?

I did not hit her from above
I cannot even wear that glove
I did not do it with a knife
I did not, could not kill my wife
I did not do this awful crime
I could not, would not anytime.

And now I'm free, I can return
To my house for which I yearn
And to my family whom I love
Hey now I'm free -- give back my glove!

[martin II]

MR. COCHRAN: -- AT THE END OF THE DAY YESTERDAY. ALL I ASKED -- THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT -- SHE BRINGS OUT, YOUR HONOR, THIS LAWYER, THIS LAWYER SHOULD NOT BE HEARD. SCREAMING DOESN'T MAKE SHRILLNESS. WHEN COUNSEL STANDS UP HERE AND SAYS SHE'S NEVER HEARD ANY DIFFERENT RULING, THAT'S MORE LIES. I DON'T WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT, BUT -- YOUR HONOR, ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION, SHE BROUGHT IN THE FACT THAT THIS MAN HAD A CUT FINGER. ALL I'M ASKING IS WHETHER OR NOT IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, TALKING TO HIM, DID HE GIVE YOU AN EXPLANATION. THAT IS NOT HEARSAY. HE GAVE YOU AN EXPLANATION, THAT IS NOT HEARSAY. I DIDN'T ASK WHAT HE SAID. IT'S NOT HEARSAY. AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOUR HONOR INDICATED YOU WERE GOING TO CHECK BACK WITH YOUR NOTES AND SEE WHERE SHE OPENS THE DOOR WITH REGARD TO THE CUT FINGER AND THEN HE GIVES AN EXPLANATION HOW HE GOT THE CUT FINGER. AND, JUDGE, FURTHER, AS AN OFFER OF PROOF, they investigated in chciago and they found glass in FACE BASIN OR WHATEVER CONTEX SHATTERED WITH BLOOD. YOUR HONOR, WITH A TOWEL THEREON. THAT'S TOTALLY UNFAIR. WE HAVE A CUT FINGER IN THIS CASE AND I CAN'T BRING THAT OUT FROM THIS INVESTIGATOR, SIR?

[weezer]

MR. COCHRAN: -- AT THE END OF THE DAY YESTERDAY. ALL I ASKED -- THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT -- SHE BRINGS OUT, YOUR HONOR, THIS LAWYER, THIS LAWYER SHOULD NOT BE HEARD. SCREAMING DOESN'T MAKE SHRILLNESS. WHEN COUNSEL STANDS UP HERE AND SAYS SHE'S NEVER HEARD ANY DIFFERENT RULING, THAT'S MORE LIES. I DON'T WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT, BUT -- YOUR HONOR, ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION, SHE BROUGHT IN THE FACT THAT THIS MAN HAD A CUT FINGER. ALL I'M ASKING IS WHETHER OR NOT IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, TALKING TO HIM, DID HE GIVE YOU AN EXPLANATION. THAT IS NOT HEARSAY. HE GAVE YOU AN EXPLANATION, THAT IS NOT HEARSAY. I DIDN'T ASK WHAT HE SAID. IT'S NOT HEARSAY. AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOUR HONOR INDICATED YOU WERE GOING TO CHECK BACK WITH YOUR NOTES AND SEE WHERE SHE OPENS THE DOOR WITH REGARD TO THE CUT FINGER AND THEN HE GIVES AN EXPLANATION HOW HE GOT THE CUT FINGER. AND, JUDGE, FURTHER, AS AN OFFER OF PROOF, they investigated in chciago and they found glass in FACE BASIN OR WHATEVER CONTEX SHATTERED WITH BLOOD. YOUR HONOR, WITH A TOWEL THEREON. THAT'S TOTALLY UNFAIR. WE HAVE A CUT FINGER IN THIS CASE AND I CAN'T BRING THAT OUT FROM THIS INVESTIGATOR, SIR?

cochran was making a statement that there was blood on the glass in the hotel room that was not supported by testimony. In fact, it was in direct contradiction to the testimony. surely he wouldn't lie AGAIN to the court and jury! :eek:

[GreenIce]

MR. COCHRAN: -- AT THE END OF THE DAY YESTERDAY. ALL I ASKED -- THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT -- SHE BRINGS OUT, YOUR HONOR, THIS LAWYER, THIS LAWYER SHOULD NOT BE HEARD. SCREAMING DOESN'T MAKE SHRILLNESS. WHEN COUNSEL STANDS UP HERE AND SAYS SHE'S NEVER HEARD ANY DIFFERENT RULING, THAT'S MORE LIES. I DON'T WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT, BUT -- YOUR HONOR, ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION, SHE BROUGHT IN THE FACT THAT THIS MAN HAD A CUT FINGER. ALL I'M ASKING IS WHETHER OR NOT IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, TALKING TO HIM, DID HE GIVE YOU AN EXPLANATION. THAT IS NOT HEARSAY. HE GAVE YOU AN EXPLANATION, THAT IS NOT HEARSAY. I DIDN'T ASK WHAT HE SAID. IT'S NOT HEARSAY. AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOUR HONOR INDICATED YOU WERE GOING TO CHECK BACK WITH YOUR NOTES AND SEE WHERE SHE OPENS THE DOOR WITH REGARD TO THE CUT FINGER AND THEN HE GIVES AN EXPLANATION HOW HE GOT THE CUT FINGER. AND, JUDGE, FURTHER, AS AN OFFER OF PROOF, they investigated in chciago and they found glass in FACE BASIN OR WHATEVER CONTEX SHATTERED WITH BLOOD. YOUR HONOR, WITH A TOWEL THEREON. THAT'S TOTALLY UNFAIR. WE HAVE A CUT FINGER IN THIS CASE AND I CAN'T BRING THAT OUT FROM THIS INVESTIGATOR, SIR?

Martin,

Why is what this witness was going to say about the cut finger vs what Ron Shipp said that OJ told him?

[GreenIce]

When oj got the call from lang.He left the hotel room and headed back to the airport.The detectives came to the hotel room after he had left.
The LA DA could have tested the blood from the chicago hotel glass but it would have proven that oj cut his hand in the hotel room so they did not mention this.

There was no checking of the drains as they knew they would have found ojs blood just like that did on the bed.

The prosecution did not want to talk about the glass cut at all.

Martin,

Another point about the broken glass, wouldn't Simpson's cleaning up the area be perfectly consistent with is normal behavior? As in making sure what ever mess he made was left in a "neat" fashion because he knew someone else was going to finish cleaning up after him?

And was there any testimony about the amount of blood found in Chicago, was it consistent with a cut from a broken glass or was it consistent with more then one cut?

I think the DA's wanted to stay away from that hotel for other reasons as well---where are the bloody clothes, knife and shoes? IMO, they knew Simpson's whereabouts from around 2:00 a.m.

[martin II]

Martin,

Another point about the broken glass, wouldn't Simpson's cleaning up the area be perfectly consistent with is normal behavior? As in making sure what ever mess he made was left in a "neat" fashion because he knew someone else was going to finish cleaning up after him?

And was there any testimony about the amount of blood found in Chicago, was it consistent with a cut from a broken glass or was it consistent with more then one cut?

I think the DA's wanted to stay away from that hotel for other reasons as well---where are the bloody clothes, knife and shoes? IMO, they knew Simpson's whereabouts from around 2:00 a.m.


Yes he cleaned it up knowing it would be finished by the maid.

THere was testimony about the blood pool on the bed but not on the glass.


Chicigo police searched the hotel and the neighborhood dumpsters
where oj could have gone and found zip. or less than zip.

[GreenIce]

Yes he cleaned it up knowing it would be finished by the maid.

THere was testimony about the blood pool on the bed but not on the glass.


Chicigo police searched the hotel and the neighborhood dumpsters
where oj could have gone and found zip. or less than zip.

Martin,

Can you just image the panic of Phillips, Vanatter and Lange when they realized that every single time they thought they had evidence to nail Simpson, it felt apart with their own witnesses?

IMO, even at the time Simpson was being told about the deaths, they already knew he took nothing with him to Chicago.

[martin II]

oj cut his finger on a brokwn glass just as he said.How much glass was found and how much blood on the glass was found depends on how long he let the water run in a effort to clean the sink bowl

He did not bleed when getting into the limo all the way to the hotel room so he was not bleeding until he cut his finger on the glass.

[martin II]

Martin,

Can you just image the panic of Phillips, Vanatter and Lange when they realized that every single time they thought they had evidence to nail Simpson, it felt apart with their own witnesses?

IMO, even at the time Simpson was being told about the deaths, they already knew he took nothing with him to Chicago.

They though they had the right person so they never checked everything to be sure.RUSH TO JUDGEMENT

[GreenIce]

oj cut his finger on a brokwn glass just as he said.How much glass was found and how much blood on the glass was found depends on how long he let the water run in a effort to clean the sink bowl

He did not bleed when getting into the limo all the way to the hotel room so he was not bleeding until he cut his finger on the glass.

Martin,

Doesn't it only make sense that if OJ broke a glass on purpose, to make sure that the cut was noticed, he would have bled all over every single surface and would have never attempted to clean up any of it?

Were there drops of blood on the carpet in the hotel room? Were there any blood trails in the hotel room?

IMO, it makes no sense the DA's would even bring up the trip to Chicago. As far as they were concerned, Simpson got rid off all the evidence before he got on the plane. He controlled his bleeding inside his home. He was able to fly thousands of miles, check into a hotel and not drip on drop of blood, yet they try to say he was bleeding from a wound he gotten hours ago in LA?

IMO, I think they believed him about the glass and that is how he did infact get at least one cut on his hand. They made the mistake of going with the "biggest" cut they though would account for the bleeding. The theory they were floating was really just to silly to even consider that it might be true, IMO.

[GreenIce]

They though they had the right person so they never checked everything to be sure.RUSH TO JUDGEMENT

Martin,

We should really make a list of Rush To Judgement facts.

1. Knew Simpson and Nicole saw each other at Sydney's recitial before arriving at Rockingham.
2. Knew about 3 DV calls in regards to the Simpsons.
3. Reckless disregard for the truth regarding finding the glove, and other key points.
4. Having the CSI people report to Rockingham first and ignoring Bundy.
5. Sending MF on a baseless and reasonable task to compare the gloves.
6. Covering Nicole's body with a blanket.
7. Using the media to their advantage at every turn.
8. Confirm blood test results that were never even performed.
9. Not following procedures on their own "potential" suspects.
10. Not speaking to the minor children.
11. Not focusing on the time of death "clocks" at Bundy.
12. Never even asking Syndey what time she went to bed.
13. Never asking Rachel or her parents what did they speak to Nicole about, did she appear nervous. Did Rachel notice any tension between the Simpsons.

[tv]

The O. J. Simpson Trial, As It Might Be Described by Dr. Seuss
(an anonymous composition circulated widely over the internet)
.
I did not kill my lovely wife
I did not slash her with a knife
I did not bonk her on the head
I did not know that she was dead.

I stayed at home that fateful night
I took a cab then took a flight
The bag I had was just for me
My bag! My bag! Hey, leave it be.

When I came home I had a gash
My hand was cut from broken glass
I cut my hand on broken glass
A broken glass did cause that gash.

I have nothing, nothing to hide
My friend, he took me for a ride.

Did you take this person's life?
Did you do it with a knife?

I did not do it with a knife
I did not, could not kill my wife
I did not do this awful crime
I could not, would not anytime.

Did you hit her from above?
Did you drop this bloody glove?

I did not hit her from above
I cannot even wear that glove
I did not do it with a knife
I did not, could not kill my wife
I did not do this awful crime
I could not, would not anytime.

And now I'm free, I can return
To my house for which I yearn
And to my family whom I love
Hey now I'm free -- give back my glove!

Somebody should write part 2 about the Vegas caper. :D

[tv]

The biased judge that was on a mission to satisty some cut the legs out from under much of the defence agrument there by cutting the jury out from hearing this argument.They were forced to only hear what petro had to say.

Which is why petro did not have to work very hard to win the set up money case.

In the civil trial, the judge would have allowed testitmony about LAPD misconduct if the defense could have backed it up. They couldn't so he didn't allow it in.

"The fact remains that the evidence was collected, examined and the evidence cannot be attacked because of the collection procedures unless that attack establishes some defect, incompetency, or lack of foundation in the chain of evidence..."

All the defense team had to do was provide one shred of evidence that all their theories had some basis in fact and they couldn't do it. If you want to call the civil case a set up money case then I'll call the criminal trial a travesty of justice.

[bobaugust]

Dean Ulemen was the only person asking the question of MF about a glove when he said "them". He did not ask MF about a glove and a hat, just as the person questioning me did not ask about a bird and a plane. MF testified he was trained how to testify or in his case testilie,as supported by the evidence. People are taught when testifying or testilying, depending on whose testifying, to listen closely and only answer the question being asked of them (pun intended). When we place MF's response in line with the evidence of no one being behind Kato's quarters before MF and the Bundy dog hair being found on the Rockingham glove and no blood behind Kato's quarters and blood on the Rockingham driveway in no proximity to Kato's quarters, then a reasonable inference can be drawn from the totality of the evidence pertaining to the Rockingham glove that MF did see two gloves at Bundy lying (pun intended) on the ground which dog hair got on and MF later transported the glove to the Rockingham residence and deposited in the location where it was allegedly found and nothing in your offensively worded post changes the above evidence.

Once again William what you call reasonable doubt is not what I call reasonable doubt. Your so called reasonable doubt is based only on what you have imagined witnesses supposedly meant not what they actually said they meant. You use the excuse that your claims raise reasonable doubt for you yet there is no evidence to support what you imagine. That sure doesn’t sound reasonable to me. I guess what you call offensive is anything that shows you are wrong.

There was no evidence of a second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there.
There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders.
There is no evidence that Park was wrong when he said he first saw Kaelin come from the back of the house on the Ashford side path.

Nothing you have imagined changes the evidence and there is no evidence to support your imagined claims.

bobaugust

[martin II]

in the beginning the defence made the statement


"TOO MUCH BLOOD WHERE THERE SHOULD BE NO BLOOD AND NO BLOOD WHERE THERE SHOULD BE BLOOD"

[tv]

in the beginning the defence made the statement


"TOO MUCH BLOOD WHERE THERE SHOULD BE NO BLOOD AND NO BLOOD WHERE THERE SHOULD BE BLOOD"
They have to back it up. You can't just say that and call it reasonable doubt.

[martin II]

In the civil trial, the judge would have allowed testitmony about LAPD misconduct if the defense could have backed it up. They couldn't so he didn't allow it in.

"The fact remains that the evidence was collected, examined and the evidence cannot be attacked because of the collection procedures unless that attack establishes some defect, incompetency, or lack of foundation in the chain of evidence..."

All the defense team had to do was provide one shred of evidence that all their theories had some basis in fact and they couldn't do it. If you want to call the civil case a set up money case then I'll call the criminal trial a travesty of justice.

everryone knows a civil trial is about money .

[martin II]

They have to back it up. You can't just say that and call it reasonable doubt.

As it truned out that was true.

[tv]

everryone knows a civil trial is about money .


What does that have to do with providing credible evidence? The defense lawyers in the civil trial thought they were going to say something about LAPD misconduct and it was going to be over. This judge actually demanded something to back up their claims and they couldn't provide it. That, combined with OJ Simpson's lying testimony, is what led to the civil trial verdict.

[tv]

As it truned out that was true.

The defense couldn't, and no one on this board has shown any credible evidence that there was any misconduct in this case by the LAPD or the lab. You have a lot of opinion but there's been nothing concrete to back it up. If you think the absence of blood on the broken glass in Chicago points to his telling the truth about the cut then it's just more of the same -- no proof.

[GreenIce]

Once again William what you call reasonable doubt is not what I call reasonable doubt. Your so called reasonable doubt is based only on what you have imagined witnesses supposedly meant not what they actually said they meant. You use the excuse that your claims raise reasonable doubt for you yet there is no evidence to support what you imagine. That sure doesn’t sound reasonable to me. I guess what you call offensive is anything that shows you are wrong.

There was no evidence of a second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there.
There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders.
There is no evidence that Park was wrong when he said he first saw Kaelin come from the back of the house on the Ashford side path.

Nothing you have imagined changes the evidence and there is no evidence to support your imagined claims.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

There is no evidence that the police who first arrived looked for a second glove.

There is evidence to suggest the glove and hat were taken off and left to be found.

There is evidence that the killer wanted the bodies found ASAP.

There is no evidence to say that OJ did not have dandruff that night. The DA's never produced a witness regarding this issue. Doug Deedrick is not an expert on this subject. He assumed and that is all he did. His assumptions did not come with any knowledge nor did he prove it was a change of shampoo that caused the dandruff in jail.

There is undeniable proof that Park was mistaken on several things he claimed to see that night. That does not mean Mr. Park was lying but he was mistaken on several key issues as was Kato Kaelin.

There is proof that a person did take a glove and wiped inside the bronco to ensure that it was seen---there no proof that it was Simpson.

There is no proof of a bloody knife or blood clothes being transported in the Bronco.

Alan Park did not say it appeared that the African American he saw was carrying anything in his hands.

There is no evidence that any of the blood items of the murders was in fact ever on the driveway of Mr. Simpson's home.

There is no evidence that any of the blood items were any of Simpson's bags and in fact, there is plenty of evidence that even the police did not believe Simpson brought any of this evidence back to Rockingham let alone to Chicago.

If Park did not see the Bronco as he pulled up, he should have seen it when he left.

If Park was positive what he saw, then he should not have gotten clearer in his visions after several months of talking to his mother.

It doesn't matter what Park saw because only a person of very limited intellect would believe that Mr. Simpson would ensure the only to enter his home after committing the murders would be his front gates and front door.

There is not shred of proof, as testified by all four lead detectives and DF and AM as to anyone being behind Kato's wall that night.

[GreenIce]

everryone knows a civil trial is about money .

And everyone knows it would be the kiss of death if the plaintiffs' lawyer made it seem like their clients were trying to profit or trying to make a profit of of the dead family member.

The only thing we didn't know about the outcome of the civil trial 20 minutes after the criminal trial was how much money was going to be awarded. IMO.

[GreenIce]

http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~jweiss/laws131/unit3/simpson.htm

[tv]

There isn't the tiniest shred of real evidence that the LAPD or the LAPD lab was involved in any misconduct to include lying, framing or planting in this case. There is no evidence that points to anyone other than OJ Simpson as the murderer of Ron and Nicole. Flawed reasoning, baseless accusations and wishful thinking doesn't make the case for OJ Simpson's innocence. No new evidence has come to light in the 15 years since Ron and Nicole were murdered. No one has come forward to say there was any police conspiracy, framing or planting in this case that they have evidence of or personal knowledge of occurring. Credible proof -- that's all the believers in OJ Simpson's guilt are asking for.

[William Anthony]

According to you they don't have to present any evidence or any proof. The judge would have let in the allegations against LE but he wanted something to back it up. The defense couldn't comply with this so it wasn't allowed.

A few days ago I asked a question about the defense's burden of proof and it was agreed that they had no burden unless they asserted an affirmative defense. The evidence of planting was a question of fact, which should have been decided by the jury not the judge, imho, which, because the judge did not allow, reinforces my opinion that the trial was a socio political production,as evidenced by the judge's statement, "Basically, this is a civil murder trial".

[William Anthony]

William, I just realized that I sounded a little harsh at the beginning of post #7062. Please accept my apology -- it wasn't intentional. :)

Apology accepted and spoken like a true lady. :)

[William Anthony]

William,

IIRC, the witness was the young lady from the airlines. She heard somthings and Simpson explained that the broke a glass and was cleaning it up. Judge Ito did not allow this in because the witness did not hear a glass break, only of it be being cleaned up and what Simpson told her.

I would agree with Ito that her testimony was hearsay and off hand can not think of an exception to allow her testimony.

[William Anthony]

William,

I now understand your point about this! When I read that part of the testimony, I thought it was odd, he wasn't being asked about the hat, only one glove, so why did he say them? Did he say the hat was completely blocked from his few? And how did he get so, so, so, so wrong about the hat?

Thank you as I am only drawing reasonable inferences from the totality of the testimony. :)

[William Anthony]

The biased judge that was on a mission to satisty some cut the legs out from under much of the defence agrument there by cutting the jury out from hearing this argument.They were forced to only hear what petro had to say.

Which is why petro did not have to work very hard to win the set up money case.

Agreed.

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

In your experience, is it logical to ask the question why weren't the cops and a team of CSI people ready to enter room even before Simpson was told of the murders? Couldn't they have stated that they were there to examine his body, clothes and luggage, just at best rule him out as a suspect? The could have justified it by say the killer was bleeding when he left Bundy. It was thought to have been a dog bite, etc.?

IMO, by having the detective and the CSI team come in later is another nail the "Rush To Judgement" coffin. How many more examples can there be of the 4 lead detectives saying they know who did it, they know it was done, and that is the end of the case?

Here is a question that I don't know if it can be answered but, were the drains checked for blood in the hotel room? And how long was it before the detective and the CSI team entered the hotel room?

Wouldn't be something if the drains were not checked and the CSI team arrived at the hotel room long before the CSI team went to Bundy?

You pose some interesting questions in your first paragraph but, according to my understanding, the answer would be, no. I think that Simpson would have to have been arrested at the point that they were allowed in the room or a search warrant gathered to search the hotel room. They definitely would have needed probable cause and they could not have searched Simpson without it.

According to the deposition testimony I read, IIRC, no drains were searched.

[William Anthony]

If the sink was full of glass then glass would have been up to the rim of the sink. It was not. The broken glass was what was left after the water was turned on and washed it down the drain.All of the glass was on the vanity, in the sink or down the drain.But it seems from the testinmony that there was blood found on some glass and or the sink.

Some just don't want to understand the testimony, imho.

[William Anthony]

In the civil trial, the judge would have allowed testitmony about LAPD misconduct if the defense could have backed it up. They couldn't so he didn't allow it in.

"The fact remains that the evidence was collected, examined and the evidence cannot be attacked because of the collection procedures unless that attack establishes some defect, incompetency, or lack of foundation in the chain of evidence..."

All the defense team had to do was provide one shred of evidence that all their theories had some basis in fact and they couldn't do it. If you want to call the civil case a set up money case then I'll call the criminal trial a travesty of justice.

Thank you for this and let me now place it in the context of what the judge did in his ruling that was improper, imho. We begin with the simple fact that the trier of fact, in this case the jury, determined/establish the facts from the evidence but let's look at what the judge said.

"The fact remains that the evidence was collected, examined and the evidence cannot be attacked because of the collection procedures unless that attack establishes some defect, incompetency, or lack of foundation in the chain of evidence..."

The judge played the role of the jury by asking the defense to show him that the evidence "established" some defect. This was not a question of law but by his own admission a question of fact. Therefore, the evidence should have been allowed and left up to the jury to determine what the evidence established, imho.

[William Anthony]

Once again William what you call reasonable doubt is not what I call reasonable doubt. Your so called reasonable doubt is based only on what you have imagined witnesses supposedly meant not what they actually said they meant. You use the excuse that your claims raise reasonable doubt for you yet there is no evidence to support what you imagine. That sure doesn’t sound reasonable to me. I guess what you call offensive is anything that shows you are wrong.

There was no evidence of a second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there.
There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on the night of the murders.
There is no evidence that Park was wrong when he said he first saw Kaelin come from the back of the house on the Ashford side path.

Nothing you have imagined changes the evidence and there is no evidence to support your imagined claims.

bobaugust

No that is not what I find offensive and for fear of being disciplined I will not tell you all that I find offensive. I will say that you are not the reasonable doubt safe keeper, although I wish you were as I have cracked your theories time and time again. :) I will also say that the only thing that possibly stretches the realm of imagination is to think that a veteran detective, having been trained how to testify, and subsequently been convicted of perjury because of his testimony, is telling the truth. :)

[William Anthony]

There isn't the tiniest shred of real evidence that the LAPD or the LAPD lab was involved in any misconduct to include lying, framing or planting in this case. There is no evidence that points to anyone other than OJ Simpson as the murderer of Ron and Nicole. Flawed reasoning, baseless accusations and wishful thinking doesn't make the case for OJ Simpson's innocence. No new evidence has come to light in the 15 years since Ron and Nicole were murdered. No one has come forward to say there was any police conspiracy, framing or planting in this case that they have evidence of or personal knowledge of occurring. Credible proof -- that's all the believers in OJ Simpson's guilt are asking for.

How many innocent people remained in penitentiaries for upwards of 15 years, because no one came forward to say they did it or no one turned up new evidence? If not for the efforts of one of the members of THE DREAM TEAM and the project he started, they might still be incarcerated due to being wrongly convicted.

[tv]

How many innocent people remained in penitentiaries for upwards of 15 years, because no one came forward to say they did it or no one turned up new evidence? If not for the efforts of one of the members of THE DREAM TEAM and the project he started, they might still be incarcerated due to being wrongly convicted.

It's been 15 years. Show where there is any new evidence that would point away from OJ Simpson. It's wonderful that innocent people have been freed. It doesn't apply to this case.

[tv]

Thank you for this and let me now place it in the context of what the judge did in his ruling that was improper, imho. We begin with the simple fact that the trier of fact, in this case the jury, determined/establish the facts from the evidence but let's look at what the judge said.

"The fact remains that the evidence was collected, examined and the evidence cannot be attacked because of the collection procedures unless that attack establishes some defect, incompetency, or lack of foundation in the chain of evidence..."

The judge played the role of the jury by asking the defense to show him that the evidence "established" some defect. This was not a question of law but by his own admission a question of fact. Therefore, the evidence should have been allowed and left up to the jury to determine what the evidence established, imho.

No, he wanted something to substantiate it as a valid claim worthy of consideration. Without some foundation what's the difference between saying there was LAPD misconduct in the evidence collection and saying a little green man from Mars could have committed the murders? Do you think the judge should let in the defense position that an alien did it without some kind of credible evidence?

[GreenIce]

You pose some interesting questions in your first paragraph but, according to my understanding, the answer would be, no. I think that Simpson would have to have been arrested at the point that they were allowed in the room or a search warrant gathered to search the hotel room. They definitely would have needed probable cause and they could not have searched Simpson without it.

According to the deposition testimony I read, IIRC, no drains were searched.

William,

This is what gets me about this case William, the detectives have always claimed they were ordered to go to Simpson's house because he was a famous person and they wanted to tell him the news, in person and help him get himself together to go get his kids.

Well what changes when they have to call him in Chicago? Did they think he would react differently in Chicago? Did that mean he still did not have to make some arrangements for his children?

As far as I can tell they had every reason to go to Rockingham ASAP as well as having the police on standby in Chicago. In fact, I am pretty sure the cops could have provided an "escort" to the airport in Chicago.

IMO, they had ever reason to consider Simpson their prime suspect, the fact that they stories they told not only did not make much sense, their actions totally turned their credibility into mush. Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

I would agree with Ito that her testimony was hearsay and off hand can not think of an exception to allow her testimony.

William,

What I don't understand is that Ron Shipp said that OJ asked him some questions and talked about a dream.

OJ told the person he broke a glass and I think that he was bleeding or was cleaning it up. What is the difference between the two?

It was what Simpson told them correct?

[GreenIce]

Thank you as I am only drawing reasonable inferences from the totality of the testimony. :)

William,

IMO, what Fuhrman wrote in his notes as well as what he testified about "them", it is clear that he got close enough to the evidence to know that it was a ski mask, he got close enough to something that gave him the impression that one of the killers was bleeding and it could have been from a dog bite.

The part about the GSW makes no sense to me. Unless he waiting to see if if any one heard gun shots that night.

The thing with the dog, doesn't it only make sense that Simpson would have slit the dogs throat to keep him quiet?

Nobody seems to want to recognize the obvious, how did one man keep two adults quiet as well as dog while he was stabbing them to death? IMO, impossible.

[GreenIce]

Plaintiff Motion (Goldman) to Bar Claims of Planted Evidence

Defendant Orenthal James Simpson would like to explain away the overwhelming amount of incriminating evidence against him by claiming that the Los Angeles Police Department planted the evidence in a massive conspiracy to frame him for a double murder. Despite two years of extraordinary investigation and discovery by teams of defense lawyers, experts, and investigators, Simpson has produced no evidence to back up his wild, desperate assertion.

Not true. Simpson nor the defense team ever said it was a massive conspiracy involved. My understanding of the terms “frame up” is when actions were taken to make an innocent look guilty for the crimes. I have no doubt that the four detectives did believe Simpson did in fact kill Ron and Nicole.


In the criminal trial, Simpson was given unfettered reign to advance his unsubstantiated claims of police conspiracy and planting of evidence, presumably to afford him the widest possible discretion to raise doubts in the face of a double murder prosecution against him. We are now in a civil case, however, and the rules are different. Evidence that at best creates only a "reasonable doubt" is insufficient.

Petrocelli and Company are acknowledging that the defense did in fact prove reasonable doubts in the criminal trial. Lucky for them they did not have to worry about reasonable, IMO.


Entirely absent from Simpson's interrogatory answers is any concrete evidence of planting of blood or other evidence against him. <i>Simpson does not identify a single person who planted the evidence. He does not state when the evidence was planted. He does not explain how the evidence was planted. He does not say why the evidence was planted.</i> Without such basic foundational facts, all that remains is rank speculation and pure conjecture. The court should not permit this trial to be diverted down such paths. See People v. Kaurish, 52 Cal. 3d 648, 685 (1990) (even in a criminal case where defendant need create only a reasonable doubt of his guilt, court properly granted prosecution's motion in limine to prohibit questioning about a third party's involvement in the crime, because "evidence of mere motive or opportunity" to act by the third party is not sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt; defendant must provide "direct or circumstantial evidence linking the third person to the actual" commission of the act).

Apparently there is a rule that if one does plant evidence, it must done in front of witnesses who are willing risk their jobs, their safety and their families safety to tell the truth.

However, aren’t the state witnesses who suspect that evidence was tampered with, in the same boat as Simpson---if they know the acts were done but do not know who did it? Why they did it or when they did it?

No reasonable jury could find that any item of evidence-was planted - -based on the evidence on which Simpson relies -- nonexistent in some cases, scant in others. Questioning and argument that evidence was planted could serve only to confuse the issues, mislead the jury, consume undue time, and unduly prejudice plaintiffs, and should be excluded. Evid. Code 352.

Does this mean that Petrocelli had to find unreasonable jurors to hear the defense’s case that was used in the criminal trial or did he not think his reasonable jury would be so reasonable after they heard the defense’s case?


BOTTOM LINE---it was not Simpson’s or either of this defense teams to prove who did it, why they did it and when they did it. It seems to me that these rulings are the reason why we have such distrust in our criminal justice system.

[William Anthony]

It's been 15 years. Show where there is any new evidence that would point away from OJ Simpson. It's wonderful that innocent people have been freed. It doesn't apply to this case.

It applies to your inquiry as to why no new evidence was found or why no one has stepped forward in 15 years.

[William Anthony]

No, he wanted something to substantiate it as a valid claim worthy of consideration. Without some foundation what's the difference between saying there was LAPD misconduct in the evidence collection and saying a little green man from Mars could have committed the murders? Do you think the judge should let in the defense position that an alien did it without some kind of credible evidence?

Theoretically, the judge does not and should not determine what evidence is credible. The judge said what he said in the quote you posted, which was unless the evidence "establishes" some defect, not substantiates.

[William Anthony]

William,

This is what gets me about this case William, the detectives have always claimed they were ordered to go to Simpson's house because he was a famous person and they wanted to tell him the news, in person and help him get himself together to go get his kids.

Well what changes when they have to call him in Chicago? Did they think he would react differently in Chicago? Did that mean he still did not have to make some arrangements for his children?

As far as I can tell they had every reason to go to Rockingham ASAP as well as having the police on standby in Chicago. In fact, I am pretty sure the cops could have provided an "escort" to the airport in Chicago.

IMO, they had ever reason to consider Simpson their prime suspect, the fact that they stories they told not only did not make much sense, their actions totally turned their credibility into mush. Again, IMO.

I understand your point and I believe that the would have come up with the story of not wanting the media, seeing the Chicago police go to Simpson's room and they felt it was their place to make notification since they had jurisdiction of the crimes.:) They forgot their desire to make personal notification. :)

[William Anthony]

William,

What I don't understand is that Ron Shipp said that OJ asked him some questions and talked about a dream.

OJ told the person he broke a glass and I think that he was bleeding or was cleaning it up. What is the difference between the two?

It was what Simpson told them correct?

The only difference I can see in the two is that Shipp's testimony may have bee offered to explain subsequent conduct. However, I do not believe he was on the force at that time. I do not see the statement as an admission against interest or an excited utterance.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, what Fuhrman wrote in his notes as well as what he testified about "them", it is clear that he got close enough to the evidence to know that it was a ski mask, he got close enough to something that gave him the impression that one of the killers was bleeding and it could have been from a dog bite.

The part about the GSW makes no sense to me. Unless he waiting to see if if any one heard gun shots that night.

The thing with the dog, doesn't it only make sense that Simpson would have slit the dogs throat to keep him quiet?

Nobody seems to want to recognize the obvious, how did one man keep two adults quiet as well as dog while he was stabbing them to death? IMO, impossible.

Well, Simpson was this muscular, athletic type Black man, with arthritis. :)

[GreenIce]

Well, Simpson was this muscular, athletic type Black man, with arthritis. :)

William,

You forgot to mention that he had the ability to control his bleeding and when such blood showed up in certain places and when it showed it up. IMO.

[William Anthony]

Plaintiff Motion (Goldman) to Bar Claims of Planted Evidence

Defendant Orenthal James Simpson would like to explain away the overwhelming amount of incriminating evidence against him by claiming that the Los Angeles Police Department planted the evidence in a massive conspiracy to frame him for a double murder. Despite two years of extraordinary investigation and discovery by teams of defense lawyers, experts, and investigators, Simpson has produced no evidence to back up his wild, desperate assertion.

Not true. Simpson nor the defense team ever said it was a massive conspiracy involved. My understanding of the terms “frame up” is when actions were taken to make an innocent look guilty for the crimes. I have no doubt that the four detectives did believe Simpson did in fact kill Ron and Nicole.


In the criminal trial, Simpson was given unfettered reign to advance his unsubstantiated claims of police conspiracy and planting of evidence, presumably to afford him the widest possible discretion to raise doubts in the face of a double murder prosecution against him. We are now in a civil case, however, and the rules are different. Evidence that at best creates only a "reasonable doubt" is insufficient.

Petrocelli and Company are acknowledging that the defense did in fact prove reasonable doubts in the criminal trial. Lucky for them they did not have to worry about reasonable, IMO.


Entirely absent from Simpson's interrogatory answers is any concrete evidence of planting of blood or other evidence against him. <i>Simpson does not identify a single person who planted the evidence. He does not state when the evidence was planted. He does not explain how the evidence was planted. He does not say why the evidence was planted.</i> Without such basic foundational facts, all that remains is rank speculation and pure conjecture. The court should not permit this trial to be diverted down such paths. See People v. Kaurish, 52 Cal. 3d 648, 685 (1990) (even in a criminal case where defendant need create only a reasonable doubt of his guilt, court properly granted prosecution's motion in limine to prohibit questioning about a third party's involvement in the crime, because "evidence of mere motive or opportunity" to act by the third party is not sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt; defendant must provide "direct or circumstantial evidence linking the third person to the actual" commission of the act).

Apparently there is a rule that if one does plant evidence, it must done in front of witnesses who are willing risk their jobs, their safety and their families safety to tell the truth.

However, aren’t the state witnesses who suspect that evidence was tampered with, in the same boat as Simpson---if they know the acts were done but do not know who did it? Why they did it or when they did it?

No reasonable jury could find that any item of evidence-was planted - -based on the evidence on which Simpson relies -- nonexistent in some cases, scant in others. Questioning and argument that evidence was planted could serve only to confuse the issues, mislead the jury, consume undue time, and unduly prejudice plaintiffs, and should be excluded. Evid. Code 352.

Does this mean that Petrocelli had to find unreasonable jurors to hear the defense’s case that was used in the criminal trial or did he not think his reasonable jury would be so reasonable after they heard the defense’s case?


BOTTOM LINE---it was not Simpson’s or either of this defense teams to prove who did it, why they did it and when they did it. It seems to me that these rulings are the reason why we have such distrust in our criminal justice system.

I agree and the judge or Petrocelli must not have understood the Rules of Evidence and the burden of proof. The standard of reasonable doubt is higher than the standard used in civil trials. To say that the evidence was insufficient to prove reasonable doubt is not to say that if fails to meet the preponderance standard. Petrocelli, then decides what a reasonable juror can decide based on the evidence. If that was the case, why was he arguing so arduously to keep the evidence out? The rulings were what the were and the verdict in that socio-political production was what it was.

[William Anthony]

William,

You forgot to mention that he had the ability to control his bleeding and when such blood showed up in certain places and when it showed it up. IMO.

You are right and how could I forget. He did not bleed anywhere on the plane or on his way to the hotel and waited to bleed in the hotel room. :)

[GreenIce]

William and Martin,

I have just read parts of Denise and Faye's depos. Faye claims that Sydney did not want her parents to get back together again also Nicole was afraid of what Sydney already saw. If this the case, then why didn't this come out in the trial?

Denise claims that Nicole told her about the "stolen" keys, about the IRS letter, etc. So why is she seen kissing Simpson goodbye the video tape?

She also says that she was happy that Simpson and Nicole were getting a divorce. Doesn't this go against Faye's claim that Nicole had no family support during her break up with Simpson?

[GreenIce]

You are right and how could I forget. He did not bleed anywhere on the plane or on his way to the hotel and waited to bleed in the hotel room. :)

William,

Are you sure you are black?!! I would think these powers belong to all black people:)

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

There is no evidence that the police who first arrived looked for a second glove.

There is evidence to suggest the glove and hat were taken off and left to be found.

There is evidence that the killer wanted the bodies found ASAP.

There is no evidence to say that OJ did not have dandruff that night. The DA's never produced a witness regarding this issue. Doug Deedrick is not an expert on this subject. He assumed and that is all he did. His assumptions did not come with any knowledge nor did he prove it was a change of shampoo that caused the dandruff in jail.

There is undeniable proof that Park was mistaken on several things he claimed to see that night. That does not mean Mr. Park was lying but he was mistaken on several key issues as was Kato Kaelin.

There is proof that a person did take a glove and wiped inside the bronco to ensure that it was seen---there no proof that it was Simpson.

There is no proof of a bloody knife or blood clothes being transported in the Bronco.

Alan Park did not say it appeared that the African American he saw was carrying anything in his hands.

There is no evidence that any of the blood items of the murders was in fact ever on the driveway of Mr. Simpson's home.

There is no evidence that any of the blood items were any of Simpson's bags and in fact, there is plenty of evidence that even the police did not believe Simpson brought any of this evidence back to Rockingham let alone to Chicago.

If Park did not see the Bronco as he pulled up, he should have seen it when he left.

If Park was positive what he saw, then he should not have gotten clearer in his visions after several months of talking to his mother.

It doesn't matter what Park saw because only a person of very limited intellect would believe that Mr. Simpson would ensure the only to enter his home after committing the murders would be his front gates and front door.

There is not shred of proof, as testified by all four lead detectives and DF and AM as to anyone being behind Kato's wall that night.


GreenIce, William Anthony has claimed that when Mark Fuhrman said the word “them” he was admitting to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet. Is that what you also believe?

There is no evidence that the glove and hat were purposely left to be found. The evidence is that they were not easily seen under the plant leaves in the dark garden area and Simpson didn’t take the time to search for them before rushing back to Rockingham.

There is no evidence that the killer wanted the bodies found ASAP. The evidence is that the victims were found where they were killed. If Nicole’s dog had not led the two people back to Nicole’s condo the bodies probably would not have been found until the next morning when Nicole’s two small children awoke and went to look for their mom.

You have things backwards. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff the night of the murders. The only evidence that Simpson had dandruff was when his hair samples were taken about a month after the murders.

Yes Park was mistaken about thinking there might have been two cars parked on the Rockingham driveway but that doesn’t change that Park clearly remembered that after waiting for twenty minutes parked at the Ashford gate and ringing the intercom three different times he saw no signs of anyone being on the estate. That’s why he called his boss. And it was during that telephone call that he said he first saw a white male with a flashlight come from the behind the house down the Ashford side path. That person was Kato Kaelin who testified that is what he did after he left his room to investigate the noises he heard and felt on the wall behind his bed.

There is absolutely no evidence that someone wiped the glove inside the Bronco. There is evidence that someone attempted to wipe blood off the Bronco center console leaving only faint blood stains. Blood and fiber evidence found on the killer’s right hand glove points only to Simpson as the person who handled that glove.

I agree there is no evidence that Simpson was carrying anything when Park saw Simpson walk up from the driveway and enter his house.

I agree that the only blood found on Simpson’s driveway and on his foyer floor was Simpson’s blood, not the victim’s blood.

The small dark knapsack that Kaelin testified to seeing on the driveway behind the Bentley that Simpson put in the limo has never been seen again. That knapsack could very well have contained bloody evidence.

What Park remembered seeing when he arrived at Rockingham has absolutely nothing to do with what he remembered seeing when he left. When Park arrived at Rockingham he drove by the exact place, three times, where the Bronco was later found parked. He even stopped next to that exact place and he never saw any vehicle parked there. When Park left Rockingham he said he wasn’t paying attention to any parked cars to his right he was watching the approaching the headlight of approaching traffic and when the car past he turned left and followed it. Park didn’t say the Bronco was not parked there. He said he wasn’t concerned with parked cars to his right and he didn’t remember it.

Park’s testimony was consistent regarding the important facts he remembered.

Any person who bothers to learn the facts in this case regarding how the gates on Simpson’s estate worked as well as where Simpson said he normally parked his Bronco and why will understand that Simpson had no choice that night except to find another way onto his estate after returning from Bundy and then enter his unlocked front door.

The proof someone was behind Kaelin’s room that night is Kato Kaelin’s testimony as to what he heard and the glove that was later found there. The proof that someone was Simpson is the blood and fiber evidence found on that glove as well as the fact that Allan Park saw both Kaelin and Simpson for the first time that night two to three minutes after Kaelin heard someone behind his room.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

No that is not what I find offensive and for fear of being disciplined I will not tell you all that I find offensive. I will say that you are not the reasonable doubt safe keeper, although I wish you were as I have cracked your theories time and time again. :) I will also say that the only thing that possibly stretches the realm of imagination is to think that a veteran detective, having been trained how to testify, and subsequently been convicted of perjury because of his testimony, is telling the truth. :)

No William you haven’t cracked any of my theories since my theories are based on the actual evidence in this case, not the imagined evidence that your claims are based on. Your cries of reasonable doubt are nothing but excuses you use to avoid admitting that your imagined theories are outright wrong and contradicted by what witnesses actually said.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No William you haven’t cracked any of my theories since my theories are based on the actual evidence in this case, not the imagined evidence that your claims are based on. Your cries of reasonable doubt are nothing but excuses you use to avoid admitting that your imagined theories are outright wrong and contradicted by what witnesses actually said.

bobaugust

With all due respect, I have cracked your incorrect interpretations on legal principles, what you claim the evidence showed, and many many many times your accusations against the magnificent one calling him and anyone associated with the defense as liars. I have provided testimony that directly contradicted most of your claims and I must again remind you of something that you seem to have forgotten, which is that testimony is evidence. There is one fact that cannot be refuted no matter how much you cry otherwise and that one fact is that Simpson was tried and REASONABLE DOUBT WAS FOUND, DESPITE ANYONE'S IMAGINATION TO THE CONTRARY. I sense that you are losing the level of civility and resorting to your old ways of insulting those that have the audacity to disagree with your assumed to be superior knowledge. So with that I will say that if it continues, we will have a failure to communicate. :)

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, William Anthony has claimed that when Mark Fuhrman said the word “them” he was admitting to seeing two gloves under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet. Is that what you also believe?

There is no evidence that the glove and hat were purposely left to be found. The evidence is that they were not easily seen under the plant leaves in the dark garden area and Simpson didn’t take the time to search for them before rushing back to Rockingham.

There is no evidence that the killer wanted the bodies found ASAP. The evidence is that the victims were found where they were killed. If Nicole’s dog had not led the two people back to Nicole’s condo the bodies probably would not have been found until the next morning when Nicole’s two small children awoke and went to look for their mom.

You have things backwards. There is no evidence that Simpson had dandruff the night of the murders. The only evidence that Simpson had dandruff was when his hair samples were taken about a month after the murders.

Yes Park was mistaken about thinking there might have been two cars parked on the Rockingham driveway but that doesn’t change that Park clearly remembered that after waiting for twenty minutes parked at the Ashford gate and ringing the intercom three different times he saw no signs of anyone being on the estate. That’s why he called his boss. And it was during that telephone call that he said he first saw a white male with a flashlight come from the behind the house down the Ashford side path. That person was Kato Kaelin who testified that is what he did after he left his room to investigate the noises he heard and felt on the wall behind his bed.

There is absolutely no evidence that someone wiped the glove inside the Bronco. There is evidence that someone attempted to wipe blood off the Bronco center console leaving only faint blood stains. Blood and fiber evidence found on the killer’s right hand glove points only to Simpson as the person who handled that glove.

I agree there is no evidence that Simpson was carrying anything when Park saw Simpson walk up from the driveway and enter his house.

I agree that the only blood found on Simpson’s driveway and on his foyer floor was Simpson’s blood, not the victim’s blood.

The small dark knapsack that Kaelin testified to seeing on the driveway behind the Bentley that Simpson put in the limo has never been seen again. That knapsack could very well have contained bloody evidence.

What Park remembered seeing when he arrived at Rockingham has absolutely nothing to do with what he remembered seeing when he left. When Park arrived at Rockingham he drove by the exact place, three times, where the Bronco was later found parked. He even stopped next to that exact place and he never saw any vehicle parked there. When Park left Rockingham he said he wasn’t paying attention to any parked cars to his right he was watching the approaching the headlight of approaching traffic and when the car past he turned left and followed it. Park didn’t say the Bronco was not parked there. He said he wasn’t concerned with parked cars to his right and he didn’t remember it.

Park’s testimony was consistent regarding the important facts he remembered.

Any person who bothers to learn the facts in this case regarding how the gates on Simpson’s estate worked as well as where Simpson said he normally parked his Bronco and why will understand that Simpson had no choice that night except to find another way onto his estate after returning from Bundy and then enter his unlocked front door.

The proof someone was behind Kaelin’s room that night is Kato Kaelin’s testimony as to what he heard and the glove that was later found there. The proof that someone was Simpson is the blood and fiber evidence found on that glove as well as the fact that Allan Park saw both Kaelin and Simpson for the first time that night two to three minutes after Kaelin heard someone behind his room.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Read the testimony again, Fuhrman was never asked about the hat. He was only asked a glove---he used the word, "them". He never said that he saw the glove and hat---only them.

The fact that there was a smear on the console proves that someone wiped the glove on it. I can't not think of anyway this smear could have happened unless it was done on purpose. Had Simpson thrown the glove in the bronco and hit the console, it would have left a smear. In fact, if he did throw it in the bronco, then there should have been other evidence of where that glove landed, in the bronco. There is no evidence that a bloody knife was ever in the bronco.

At least one killer turned around and walked back into the killing cage. There is no evidence that the killer(s) were in any hurry to leave Rockingham.

There is no logical explaination why Simpson would have left Bundy by using the gates--not when the door to the condo was open as well as the garage.

The police never showed interest in Simpson's luggage. In fact, according to Clark, Simpson got rid of the evidence before he entered Rockingham.

The DA's could not prove that Simpson did not have dandruff that night. Simpson's barber testified under what conditions Simpson normally had dandruff. Those were conditions were in play on the night of the murders.

The glove was only found behind Kato's wall after he told MF about them. In fact, I don't remember Kato ever telling MF that he thought someone was back there, only about a noise.

Park had to pay attention while was backing out Rockingham. He had to have been able to see it. Was he suppose to just pull out of Rockingham and not look for any cars, either going by or parked?

However, again, Park should have heard the Bronco pull up, he didn't.

Kaelin never said he heard "someone", he heard a noise, three thumps.

The phone call at 10:30, Nicole's body being left where it could be seen from the street. An outside light left on, a garage door left open and the jeep door being left open--all point to wanting the bodies found before Simpson left for Chicago.

However, it might also have been made to make sure the bodies were found before Sydney and Justin did. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Mr. August,

Using your logic, because of the conditions, the hat and glove was not easily seen. Does that mean the second glove would have easily been seen and therefore that eliminates the possiblity that a second glove was left at the condo?

Using your logic again, does it mean that if a second glove was left behind it had to left in the same area as the hat and glove?

[William Anthony]

The proof someone was behind Kaelin’s room that night is Kato Kaelin’s testimony as to what he heard and the glove that was later found there. The proof that someone was Simpson is the blood and fiber evidence found on that glove as well as the fact that Allan Park saw both Kaelin and Simpson for the first time that night two to three minutes after Kaelin heard someone behind his room.

bobaugust

The actual evidence is that Kato testified to hearing three thumps. Who or what caused those thumps has never been determined. I would assume by the criminal verdict that the criminal jury decided there was reasonable doubt as to who or what caused the thumps.

The evidence is that MF claimed to have found the glove there. There is evidence of MF's motive, opportunity and means to have planted the glove there and there is MF's admission that he investigated and saw no evidence on anyone being there before him. The evidence is that there was no blood of Simpson being back there and the prosecution's theory is that Simpson was bleeding when he left Bundy and in the Bronco and there is blood evidence indicating that Simpson bled on his driveway from the Bronco into his residence. Given all that "actual evidence", the criminal jury concluded there was reasonable doubt as to Simpson's guilt.

There is no evidence that says Park saw Kato and Simpson two to three minutes after hearing the thumps. The evidence is that Kato waited to to three minutes after hearing the thumps to leave his room. The evidence is that Kato finished his first cursory search before going to let the limo in and that Park saw Kato standing and still standing near the Ashford walkway prior to going to let the limo in. Therefore, the evidence is that there was a time greater than two to three minutes before Park saw someone he later learned was Kato and a 200 pound, six foot figure, dressed in black, which may have been a robe, enter Simpson's house and there is no evidence that Park saw where that figure came from.

[William Anthony]

"q: Okay. "question: How far would you say you were from where the bodies were located? "answer: I was directly above the female victim which was probably three feet. The male victim would have been ten feet, twelve feet. "question: All right. And from that vantage point you first observed the glove that you told us about? "answer: Not first, no. "question: When did you first observe it? "answer: We had flashlights. We were looking at the female victim. We looked at the male victim. I noticed the glove when i walked around to the -- after i exited the residence the first time and walked around to the side or the north side, north perimeter of bundy of 875 bundy, there is an iron fence and through that iron fence you can get very close to the male victim, and looking there i could see them at his feet." did you use the word "them" in your answer on july 5th?

a: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

q: And was the last item to which "them" could have applied in your narrative the word "glove"?

a: Singular, yes.

q: I'm simply asking whether glove, line 14, was the item you were talking about just prior to saying "i saw them at his feet"?

A: "them," i was referring to the knit cap, the glove.

q: Show me anywhere on that page where the knit cap is mentioned? Can you?

A: That page, no.

Q: All right. All right. Do you see anything on the prior page, detective fuhrman, about the knit cap?

A: Do you want me to look at that prior page?

Q: Sure. I don't know how you can answer the question without looking at it. 63.

A: (witness complies.) i do not.

q: Page 65, detective fuhrman.

The court: Excuse me, mr. Bailey.

Mr. Bailey: I'm sorry.

The court: The court reporter needs to change her paper.

Mr. Bailey: Okay.

(brief pause.)

the court: Mr. Bailey.

Q: By mr. Bailey: Page 65, detective fuhrman, line 8: "does that photo," referring to a photo "accurately depict the glove at the location where you saw it? "to the best of my recollection, yes. "question: All right. And you didn't actually pick up the glove to examine it, did you? "answer: Not at that time, no." did you give that answer?

a: Yes.

q: At what time did you pick up the glove?

A: I didn't. I turned the glove over with a pen when i returned to the bundy scene after being at rockingham.

Q: And that is what you meant when you said, "didn't pick up the glove at that time"? You had in mind turning it over with a pen?

A: I believe that was mr. Uelmen's words and the question. I didn't use the word "pick up."

q: But the question was put to you, detective fuhrman. He said: "and you didn't actually pick the glove up to examine it, did you?" and your answer was: "not at that time, no." do you see anything in that answer that refers to turning it over with a pen at any time.

ms. Clark: Objection. This is argumentative.

The court: Overruled.

The witness: not on that page, no.

Q: By mr. Bailey: Did you see another page where you indicated that that is what you meant by later picking up the glove?

A: No, sir.

ms. Clark: Your honor, he wasn't asked. This is argumentative.

The court: Overruled. Speaking objection, counsel.

ms. Clark: Sorry.

[martin II]

No, he wanted something to substantiate it as a valid claim worthy of consideration. Without some foundation what's the difference between saying there was LAPD misconduct in the evidence collection and saying a little green man from Mars could have committed the murders? Do you think the judge should let in the defense position that an alien did it without some kind of credible evidence?

tv

in a trial who is the tryer of fact the judge or the jury.Both sides give arguments, the prosecution gives evidence. the jury decides what it true.

[martin II]

tv

If the blood found in the hotel room was from a cut at Bundy.
Why is it that

OJ did not bleed in front of his house when the bags were loaded into the limo.
OJ did not bleed in the limo
Oj did not bleed at the airport sidewalk talking to the sky caps
Oj did not bleed on the plane talking to the captain and others
Oj did not bleed in the hertz limo to the hotel.
Oj did not bleed at the hotel check in desk.
OJ did not bleed in hotel hallway to the room.

Only after he cut his hand on the glass did he bleed.

How is this possible.

[martin II]

It applies to your inquiry as to why no new evidence was found or why no one has stepped forward in 15 years.


tv
Oj was found not guilty why would a guilty party, a murderer, come forward and take responsibility now?????

[martin II]

There isn't the tiniest shred of real evidence that the LAPD or the LAPD lab was involved in any misconduct to include lying, framing or planting in this case. There is no evidence that points to anyone other than OJ Simpson as the murderer of Ron and Nicole. Flawed reasoning, baseless accusations and wishful thinking doesn't make the case for OJ Simpson's innocence. No new evidence has come to light in the 15 years since Ron and Nicole were murdered. No one has come forward to say there was any police conspiracy, framing or planting in this case that they have evidence of or personal knowledge of occurring. Credible proof -- that's all the believers in OJ Simpson's guilt are asking for.

tv

The DA made it clear that they were not interested in any investigation about another killer.The only killer was found as far as they were concerned.
Any investigator with info of another killer was turned away.

Now i am a mob contract killer or someone that killed them for other reasons.
i have been free for 15 years and no one knows about what i did, Why would i go to the DA and confess???

[tv]

It applies to your inquiry as to why no new evidence was found or why no one has stepped forward in 15 years.

My point is that it's just not believable that not one person that would have knowledge of or participated in a huge conspiracy to frame OJ Simpson or knew of evidence leading to another killer hasn't come forward. It defies human nature. If what conspiracy theorists allege is true there were many, many people in on the evil plot against Simpson yet not one new piece of evidence has been uncovered that points to anyone but him as being the killer. The only people that have stepped forward with new information have pointed the finger at him not away from him.

[tv]

Theoretically, the judge does not and should not determine what evidence is credible. The judge said what he said in the quote you posted, which was unless the evidence "establishes" some defect, not substantiates.

So anything the defense wants to present without any foundation is okay and should be considered reasonable doubt? No defect was even established let along substantiated.

[tv]

I agree and the judge or Petrocelli must not have understood the Rules of Evidence and the burden of proof. The standard of reasonable doubt is higher than the standard used in civil trials. To say that the evidence was insufficient to prove reasonable doubt is not to say that if fails to meet the preponderance standard. Petrocelli, then decides what a reasonable juror can decide based on the evidence. If that was the case, why was he arguing so arduously to keep the evidence out? The rulings were what the were and the verdict in that socio-political production was what it was.

Petrocelli did argue to keep some thngs out of the civil trial but as you know he would have been derelict in his duty if he hadn't. The defense argued to keep much more out than the plantiff's lawyers. The difference between the two trials is that the first one was presided over by a judge that allowed too much lattitude from the defense to hold trials within trials that distracted from the reason the trial was even being held and who invited attorneys to his chambers to watch the dancing Itos because he was obsessed with celebrity. This same judge allowed his wife to lie about the extent of her relationship with a witness so he wouldn't have to step down from the case. Lance Ito lobbied to be the judge in the criminal trial. In the civil trial, Judge Fujisaki was assigned to the case and took it reluctantly.

[tv]

tv

The DA made it clear that they were not interested in any investigation about another killer.The only killer was found as far as they were concerned.
Any investigator with info of another killer was turned away.

Now i am a mob contract killer or someone that killed them for other reasons.
i have been free for 15 years and no one knows about what i did, Why would i go to the DA and confess???
They weren't actively looking for another killer because they felt they had their killer. If credible evidence had surfaced to point to another killer LE would have had to investigate. I didn't say the killer would confess.

[tv]

tv
Oj was found not guilty why would a guilty party, a murderer, come forward and take responsibility now?????

That's not what I said.

[tv]

tv

If the blood found in the hotel room was from a cut at Bundy.
Why is it that

OJ did not bleed in front of his house when the bags were loaded into the limo.
OJ did not bleed in the limo
Oj did not bleed at the airport sidewalk talking to the sky caps
Oj did not bleed on the plane talking to the captain and others
Oj did not bleed in the hertz limo to the hotel.
Oj did not bleed at the hotel check in desk.
OJ did not bleed in hotel hallway to the room.

Only after he cut his hand on the glass did he bleed.

How is this possible.

He didn't bleed when he broke the glass. It was a staged event.

[tv]

tv

in a trial who is the tryer of fact the judge or the jury.Both sides give arguments, the prosecution gives evidence. the jury decides what it true.

A judge has to decide what will or will not come into the trial. Judge Fujisaki would have allowed in evidence of LAPD misconduct if the defense could have given some kind of foundation for it. They couldn't so he didn't. Bob Baker could have refused to have Judge F. but he'd already rejected another judge to try the case so he'd used up that option.

[tv]

tv

in a trial who is the tryer of fact the judge or the jury.Both sides give arguments, the prosecution gives evidence. the jury decides what it true.That's the key word.

[tv]

Well, Simpson was this muscular, athletic type Black man, with arthritis. :)
Do you want to go there today, William? Just say the word and I'll be your huckleberry. :)

[martin II]

He didn't bleed when he broke the glass. It was a staged event.

I am sure you know what my question was.

why did he not bleed at all those times?

[tv]

I am sure you know what my question was.

why did he not bleed at all those times?He admitted he was cut before leaving for Chicago. I don't understand the question.

[martin II]

A judge has to decide what will or will not come into the trial. Judge Fujisaki would have allowed in evidence of LAPD misconduct if the defense could have given some kind of foundation for it. They couldn't so he didn't. Bob Baker could have refused to have Judge F. but he'd already rejected another judge to try the case so he'd used up that option.

That is a set up trial. The judge sets up the trial for his chosen winner to win.

[martin II]

He admitted he was cut before leaving for Chicago. I don't understand the question.

why did he not bleed at all those times

[tv]

That is a set up trial. The judge sets up the trial for his chosen winner to win.

I'm not surprised you would make this statement. Everyone is at fault except OJ Simpson. Please post something from the Judge's background that shows he was prejudiced against Simpson. Petrocelli was worried he would be too pro-defense because of his time in the public defender's office and had been about to reject him when Bob Baker called him and asked him to -- so Petrocelli decided to keep him.

From Petrocelli's book:

"Judge Fujisaki was sixty years old and a veteran trial judge. During World War II, he and his family had been forced to live in an internment camp. His first job as a lawyer was for the Los Angeles public defender's office. Eight years later he entered private practice and four years after that he became a judge."

[martin II]

I'm not surprised you would make this statement. Everyone is at fault except OJ Simpson. Please post something from the Judge's background that shows he was prejudiced against Simpson. Petrocelli was worried he would be too pro-defense because of his time in the public defender's office and had been about to reject him when Bob Baker called him and asked him to -- so Petrocelli decided to keep him.

From Petrocelli's book:

"Judge Fujisaki was sixty years old and a veteran trial judge. During World War II, he and his family had been forced to live in an internment camp. His first job as a lawyer was for the Los Angeles public defender's office. Eight years later he entered private practice and four years after that he became a judge."


And that judge promply trashed bakers case.

[tv]

And that judge promply trashed bakers case.

Baker had no defense against the evidence implicating OJ Simpson. The only thing he could do was accuse the LAPD of misconduct. He had no foundation so Judge Fujisaki wouldn't let it in. Here is one of the things that Alan Dershowitz said about Ito:

"It was, in my view, a mistake to assign the case to a young judge with further electoral ambitions. This was a perfect case for a wise old judge with no political ambitions."

Judge Fujisaki fits perfectly Dershowitz's description of a wish old judge. He was nearing retirement so had no political ambitions and was very fair to both sides.

[weezer]

why did he not bleed at all those times

martin, orenthal said he bled in his kitchen but no blood was found there either. :shrug:

[GreenIce]

And that judge promply trashed bakers case.

Martin,

As I have posted before, every single bit of evidence could have been planted and that does not mean that Simpson did not commit the crimes. That is why I think the timeline is so important. IMO, that is the only neutral evidence there is.

[William Anthony]

My point is that it's just not believable that not one person that would have knowledge of or participated in a huge conspiracy to frame OJ Simpson or knew of evidence leading to another killer hasn't come forward. It defies human nature. If what conspiracy theorists allege is true there were many, many people in on the evil plot against Simpson yet not one new piece of evidence has been uncovered that points to anyone but him as being the killer. The only people that have stepped forward with new information have pointed the finger at him not away from him.

I don't know what the sources of you reading are or how you determine human nature.

[William Anthony]

So anything the defense wants to present without any foundation is okay and should be considered reasonable doubt? No defect was even established let along substantiated.

I think you misunderstood the evidence substantiates the possible inferences and from that what the evidence proofs is established. The defense did not have to establish a defect but provide some evidence to substantiate that a defect had occurred, which would have allowed the jury to establish whether a defect had occurred but the judge usurped the jury's duty.

[William Anthony]

Petrocelli did argue to keep some thngs out of the civil trial but as you know he would have been derelict in his duty if he hadn't. The defense argued to keep much more out than the plantiff's lawyers. The difference between the two trials is that the first one was presided over by a judge that allowed too much lattitude from the defense to hold trials within trials that distracted from the reason the trial was even being held and who invited attorneys to his chambers to watch the dancing Itos because he was obsessed with celebrity. This same judge allowed his wife to lie about the extent of her relationship with a witness so he wouldn't have to step down from the case. Lance Ito lobbied to be the judge in the criminal trial. In the civil trial, Judge Fujisaki was assigned to the case and took it reluctantly.

Judge F obviously overcame his initial reluctance and his rulings represented that they were in the F range, imho.

[William Anthony]

A judge has to decide what will or will not come into the trial. Judge Fujisaki would have allowed in evidence of LAPD misconduct if the defense could have given some kind of foundation for it. They couldn't so he didn't. Bob Baker could have refused to have Judge F. but he'd already rejected another judge to try the case so he'd used up that option.

That is not what judge F. said. He said unless the defense can establish some defect.

[William Anthony]

Do you want to go there today, William? Just say the word and I'll be your huckleberry. :)

Just where would you like to for me to go?:) Don't answer.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

As I have posted before, every single bit of evidence could have been planted and that does not mean that Simpson did not commit the crimes. That is why I think the timeline is so important. IMO, that is the only neutral evidence there is.

Ah, but if there is evidence that one item was planted, which I believe there was, then the jury correctly decided there was reasonable doubt, imho.

[tv]

That is not what judge F. said. He said unless the defense can establish some defect.

None was established.

[tv]

Just where would you like to for me to go?:) Don't answer.

Good advice. :)

[tv]

Judge F obviously overcame his initial reluctance and his rulings represented that they were in the F range, imho.

Judge Fujisaki had no reason to be biased against the defense. That is something that has been alleged by those that can't accept the civil verdict.

[tv]

I think you misunderstood the evidence substantiates the possible inferences and from that what the evidence proofs is established. The defense did not have to establish a defect but provide some evidence to substantiate that a defect had occurred, which would have allowed the jury to establish whether a defect had occurred but the judge usurped the jury's duty.
The defense was unable to do any of that which substantially establishes that the defense case was quite defective. The judge is in charge in the courtroom and it's up to him to decide what stays in the trial. Certainly, you've heard of pre-trial motions and rulings? Preclusions and inclusions? Why have them if the jury gets to decide what is allowed at trial?

[tv]

I don't know what the sources of you reading are or how you determine human nature.

No sources. This is my own take on it. Am I not allowed the same musings as other members of this forum?

[William Anthony]

None was established.

According to the judge, which means he usurped the jury's role.

[William Anthony]

Judge Fujisaki had no reason to be biased against the defense. That is something that has been alleged by those that can't accept the civil verdict.

Then why did the judge make the statement, "Basically, this is a civil murder trial"?

[William Anthony]

The defense was unable to do any of that which substantially establishes that the defense case was quite defective. The judge is in charge in the courtroom and it's up to him to decide what stays in the trial. Certainly, you've heard of pre-trial motions and rulings? Preclusions and inclusions? Why have them if the jury gets to decide what is allowed at trial?

I will not bore you with the appeal that Simpson took from the rulings, since the appellate court upheld judge F. However, if you wish to read it, you will find that wrongful death or the circumstances surrounding it was not mentioned until consideration of whether the damage award was excessive. However, murder was repeatedly mentioned throughout the appeal and the appellate court did not rely on the sufficiency of the evidence in regard to MF but rather on the fact that the defense wanted MF's testimony read for the purposes of impeachment.

[William Anthony]

No sources. This is my own take on it. Am I not allowed the same musings as other members of this forum?

Muse away. :)

[GreenIce]

Ah, but if there is evidence that one item was planted, which I believe there was, then the jury correctly decided there was reasonable doubt, imho.

William,

IMO, it is beyond obvious that evidence was planted in this case. Simple and careless "mistakes" do not even come close to describing the problems of evidence in this case.

I am amazed that seemingly intelligent people can't grasp the basic elements in this case.

Just the timing alone is enough to question the evidence.

MF finds a glove behind Kato's wall---justifies search warrant.

How did said glove get back there---don't know---need something found in the house that appeared out of place and Simpson in a hurry, the socks.

No blood on the socks---blood found on the back gate. EDTA issues, etc. blood found in the Bronco----LAPD knows one of their own did not see blood in the bronco.

I'll never forget Dominick Dunne's remarks about the MF tapes--"Manna From Heaven" for the defense. And I remember thinking, well what do you call the DA's evidence, "Black Magic" or "Evidence Created In Seven Months"?

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

Have either one of you read Kato's depo? He was never asked to pinpoint where he heard the noise. Also, he describes it as a noise only. He doesn't remember saying it was 3 thumps.

He doesn't remember if he fix the picture or not. Well wasn't the picture above his bed or very close by it? Wouldn't you be afraid if a picture moved 5 to 10 inches it might totally come down?

Also, why wasn't Kato questioned after the LAPD determined there was no other evidence that backed up his "noise"? In other words, "Kato you told us about a noise, but we have found no evidence that confirms your story.

Another point, VA and Lange knew not only that Simpson was out of town, but they knew why he was out town and what airline he took--before VA lied on the search warrant.

Simpson takes an unexpected trip--but he tells Kato about it? The more you read, the more you realize just how bad the LAPD wanted Simpson for this crime. IMO.

[martin II]

Judge Fujisaki had no reason to be biased against the defense. That is something that has been alleged by those that can't accept the civil verdict.

That judge knew the demands of the community and he did know why he was appointed to the case.To make sure it was different in the civil trial.

[martin II]

Baker had no defense against the evidence implicating OJ Simpson. The only thing he could do was accuse the LAPD of misconduct. He had no foundation so Judge Fujisaki wouldn't let it in. Here is one of the things that Alan Dershowitz said about Ito:

"It was, in my view, a mistake to assign the case to a young judge with further electoral ambitions. This was a perfect case for a wise old judge with no political ambitions."

Judge Fujisaki fits perfectly Dershowitz's description of a wish old judge. He was nearing retirement so had no political ambitions and was very fair to both sides.

The judge gave the community what they demanded and left in their good graces.He will be repsected in his community for helping out.

[martin II]

Martin and William,

Have either one of you read Kato's depo? He was never asked to pinpoint where he heard the noise. Also, he describes it as a noise only. He doesn't remember saying it was 3 thumps.

He doesn't remember if he fix the picture or not. Well wasn't the picture above his bed or very close by it? Wouldn't you be afraid if a picture moved 5 to 10 inches it might totally come down?

Also, why wasn't Kato questioned after the LAPD determined there was no other evidence that backed up his "noise"? In other words, "Kato you told us about a noise, but we have found no evidence that confirms your story.

Another point, VA and Lange knew not only that Simpson was out of town, but they knew why he was out town and what airline he took--before VA lied on the search warrant.

Simpson takes an unexpected trip--but he tells Kato about it? The more you read, the more you realize just how bad the LAPD wanted Simpson for this crime. IMO.


What is the possibility that furhman told kato to say what he said he heard.

[tv]

That judge knew the demands of the community and he did know why he was appointed to the case.To make sure it was different in the civil trial.

That's not true, martin. Bob Baker turned down the first judge appointed to the case. If you want to continue to make false statements against Judge Fujisaki then I feel free to say that I think Judge Ito knew he was appointed (after begging for the job) to the criminal trial to to make sure that the community got the verdict they wanted in the wake of the Rodney King verdict. Let's just forget the facts in the case and blame it on the judges. :shrug:

[tv]

According to the judge, which means he usurped the jury's role.Wrong.

[tv]

Then why did the judge make the statement, "Basically, this is a civil murder trial"? He cut through the legal mumbo jumbo and called it what it really was.

[tv]

What is the possibility that furhman told kato to say what he said he heard.

Now Kato is part of the vast conspiracy? :biggrin:

[tv]

Could someone please tell me who VA is? I can't find anyone involved in the case with those initials. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, it is beyond obvious that evidence was planted in this case. Simple and careless "mistakes" do not even come close to describing the problems of evidence in this case.

I am amazed that seemingly intelligent people can't grasp the basic elements in this case.

Just the timing alone is enough to question the evidence.

MF finds a glove behind Kato's wall---justifies search warrant.

How did said glove get back there---don't know---need something found in the house that appeared out of place and Simpson in a hurry, the socks.

No blood on the socks---blood found on the back gate. EDTA issues, etc. blood found in the Bronco----LAPD knows one of their own did not see blood in the bronco.

I'll never forget Dominick Dunne's remarks about the MF tapes--"Manna From Heaven" for the defense. And I remember thinking, well what do you call the DA's evidence, "Black Magic" or "Evidence Created In Seven Months"?

That squares with my take on the evidence or lack thereof. :)

[William Anthony]

Martin and William,

Have either one of you read Kato's depo? He was never asked to pinpoint where he heard the noise. Also, he describes it as a noise only. He doesn't remember saying it was 3 thumps.

He doesn't remember if he fix the picture or not. Well wasn't the picture above his bed or very close by it? Wouldn't you be afraid if a picture moved 5 to 10 inches it might totally come down?

Also, why wasn't Kato questioned after the LAPD determined there was no other evidence that backed up his "noise"? In other words, "Kato you told us about a noise, but we have found no evidence that confirms your story.

Another point, VA and Lange knew not only that Simpson was out of town, but they knew why he was out town and what airline he took--before VA lied on the search warrant.

Simpson takes an unexpected trip--but he tells Kato about it? The more you read, the more you realize just how bad the LAPD wanted Simpson for this crime. IMO.

MF made sure that Kato would not be questioned any further in regard to the noise when he allegedly found the glove.

[William Anthony]

Wrong.

Smile, where have I heard that before?

[William Anthony]

He cut through the legal mumbo jumbo and called it what it really was.

The legal mumbo jumbo is what determines whether a case is civil or criminal. :)

[weezer]

I assume we've all agreed that orenthal had to have been wearing the lingerie under the sweatsuit he wore when he butchered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown?

[William Anthony]

Could someone please tell me who VA is? I can't find anyone involved in the case with those initials. :shrug:

Victor Anthony-:).

[tv]

Smile, where have I heard that before?

I've no doubt you hear it quite often.

[tv]

Victor Anthony-:).
Thank you, William. I didn't realize there was someone involved in the case by the name of Victor Anthony. I've googled it and I'm not finding anything. Could you tell me more about him?

[tv]

I assume we've all agreed that orenthal had to have been wearing the lingerie under the sweatsuit he wore when he butchered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown?I don't see anyone disagreeing so I guess that would be the general consensus. :)

[William Anthony]

Thank you, William. I didn't realize there was someone involved in the case by the name of Victor Anthony. I've googled it and I'm not finding anything. Could you tell me more about him?

Yes, they tell me he is kind to a fault. I heard he is considered to be handsome, charming and quite a gentleman. They say he is passionate about somethings and provides logical arguments to support his passion. He is said to have connections but does not brag about them and PO and the Supreme Court Justices and the AG all seek and listen to his opinions on legal issues. I also heard he can be quite the foe, if he is rubbed the wrong way. His most remarkable achievements have been in the are of civil rights.

[William Anthony]

I've no doubt you hear it quite often.

I would say I have heard it more since 2006 than I have ever heard it in my life.

[tv]

Yes, they tell me he is kind to a fault. I heard he is considered to be handsome, charming and quite a gentleman. They say he is passionate about somethings and provides logical arguments to support his passion. He is said to have connections but does not brag about them and PO and the Supreme Court Justices and the AG all seek and listen to his opinions on legal issues. I also heard he can be quite the foe, if he is rubbed the wrong way. His most remarkable achievements have been in the are of civil rights.

He sounds like a wonderful person but what was his role in the Simpson case? I like to keep up on all the players but I'm at a loss here. I know my attention wanders sometimes but this was a big oversight on my part.

[tv]

I would say I have heard it more since 2006 than I have ever heard it in my life.
My goodness, what happened in 2006? :)

[William Anthony]

He sounds like a wonderful person but what was his role in the Simpson case? I like to keep up on all the players but I'm at a loss here. I know my attention wanders sometimes but this was a big oversight on my part.

He is not one to take credit for his work but suffice it to say that rumor has it he was instrumental in bringing out evidence in regard to the criminal charges which led to reasonable doubt and those that realize what he has done have caused him some anguish over it.

[William Anthony]

My goodness, what happened in 2006? :)

I joined this message board and said I believed there was reasonable doubt and that the criminal jury may have had a level of sophistication, for which they were not given credit. :)

[tv]

I joined this message board and said I believed there was reasonable doubt and that the criminal jury may have had a level of sophistication, for which they were not given credit. :)

Now I completely understand. :)

[William Anthony]

Now I completely understand. :)

I did a search for Victor Anthony and it turned up someone with a my space page but that it not the Victor Anthony I heard of.:) Let me try something else.

[tv]

He is not one to take credit for his work but suffice it to say that rumor has it he was instrumental in bringing out evidence in regard to the criminal charges which led to reasonable doubt and those that realize what he has done have caused him some anguish over it.

Can you be more specific? I like to be well informed. Also, why do some posters on this board seem to be aware of Victor Anthony and others don't? :)

[tv]

I did a search for Victor Anthony and it turned up someone with a my space page but that it not the Victor Anthony I heard of.:) Let me try something else.Okay. :)

[William Anthony]

Can you be more specific? I like to be well informed. Also, why do some posters on this board seem to be aware of Victor Anthony and others don't? :)

They may know him by his AKA as he is often victorious and to some extent shuns the notoriety. In my communications with him, I have found him to be admirable and not a glory seeker and dislikes people who are less than civil with others and sometimes that provokes the worst side of him. However, he seems to be able to grab a hold of his temper quite quickly and remain professional, which is why he is sought out by the aforementioned people. I will ask him if he wants to share his true identity with you.

[tv]

They may know him by his AKA as he is often victorious and to some extent shuns the notoriety. In my communications with him, I have found him to be admirable and not a glory seeker and dislikes people who are less than civil with others and sometimes that provokes the worst side of him. However, he seems to be able to grab a hold of his temper quite quickly and remain professional, which is why he is sought out by the aforementioned people. I will ask him if he wants to share his true identity with you.
Please do. It's not often that I get to make the acquaintance of such a paragon of virtue. :)

[William Anthony]

Please do. It's not often that I get to make the acquaintance of such a paragon of virtue. :)

Sorry, he has expressed to me his desire to remain incognito but thanks you for the recognition and words of kindness.

[tv]

Sorry, he has expressed to me his desire to remain incognito but thanks you for the recognition and words of kindness.

How convenient for you. I would suggest that you advise the poster that persists in using his initials, even though he wishes to remain incognito, to stop. :)

[William Anthony]

How convenient for you. I would suggest that you advise the poster that persists in using his initials, even though he wishes to remain incognito, to stop. :)

It ain't no thing. It ain't nothing but a turkey wing.:)

[tv]

It ain't no thing. It ain't nothing but a turkey wing.:)

Are you sure that's not a chicken wing? :chicken:

[William Anthony]

Are you sure that's not a chicken wing? :chicken:

You know how I feel about chicken. :)

[William Anthony]

Q: Why didn't you tell him the subject matter about which he ought to be concerned, if he was going to interrogate a witness?

A: No reason. I wanted to go investigate the noise to see if we could even get to that south wall.

Q: Why did you not tell him that you were going to go investigate a noise and he should finish the interrogation?

A: No reason.

Q: No reason? Okay. On that same page. Right after you said on line 18: "and i continued out the front of the residence," miss clark said: "why?" and your response was: "well, i was -- from the statement he made, the crashing sound and the time that he heard it, combined with the blood in the bronco, the way i was feeling is there is a possibility there could be another victim, a suspect that had collapsed or escaped via that route in the southern border of the house." do you read the answer in front of you?

A: I do, sir.

Q: Do you agree that i have cited it correctly as it appears in the transcript?

A: Yes.

Q: how did you know at that juncture, detective fuhrman, that there was or would be blood in the bronco?


a: I didn't.

q: Why did you use the word "in"?

A: I'm not sure i did.

Q: Is this the first time it has been brought to your attention that you used the word "in"?

A: It is the first time you have read it, but i never used the word "in" as far as saying there was blood in the bronco.

Q: You didn't use the word "in"?

A: I'm not sure, sir, but i did not see any blood in the bronco.

Q: You used the word "in" the bronco and it was unintentional, might that be, sir, a slip of the tongue?

a: No, it might not.

q: It might not. Unless it was a slip of the tongue and if you in fact said it, you have no explanation whatsoever for that mistake? Is that the way you wish to leave it?

A: No. I wish to leave it to say that there was no blood that i observed inside the bronco prior to going into the residence that morning.

Q: My question was, detective fuhrman, if you did in fact say that one of the things that had you disturbed at that point was blood in the bronco and it wasn't a slip of the tongue, why would you have used that word?

A: I didn't see any blood in the bronco, sir.

Q: Why would you have used the word "in," detective fuhrman, please?

A: I told you i'm not sure i did.

Q: Well, there is a videotape of your testimony. Have you reviewed that recently?

A: No, never have.

Q: do you think that would help to determine whether or not the court reporter made this mistake or you did?

A: Yes, sir.



q: Okay. Once more then, detective fuhrman, we asked you to look at page 49 this morning because of a word that appears on line 23 of that page relating to "blood in the bronco."

a: Yes.

Q: And you agree that that's what the page says?

A: I agree, sir.

Q: All right. But your feeling was that the reporter made a mistake?


A: I didn't say that. I just did not mean "in the bronco."

q: Pardon me? What was your answer?

A: Could you ask -- ask the question again, sir?

Q: You said the reporter didn't make a mistake, but the word is there somehow?

A: I don't know. I just know what i meant when i testified.

q: All right. So that if you in fact used the word "in," you misspoke yourself?

A: Yes.

mr. Bailey: All right. Can we play that portion of the tape, your honor?

The court: Yes. Mr. Harris.

(at 1:58 p.m., a videotape was played.)

(at 1:58 p.m., the playing of the videotape ended.)

q: By mr. Bailey: Does that refresh your memory in any way as to what you said on july 3rd?

Ms. Clark: Can we have the rest of the answer?

Mr. Bailey: Go ahead and place the rest of it, mr. Harris.

(at 1:59 p.m., a videotape was played.)

(at 1:59 p.m., the playing of the videotape ended.)

q: By mr. Bailey: Does that refresh your recollection?

A: Absolutely, sir.

Q: Okay. And what do you now say you said?

A: "in."

q: "in."


q: Well, look, detective fuhrman. There is a problem with that testimony, isn't there, the testimony about the view through the fence?

A: No, there isn't.

Q: There is a problem that has been brought to your attention, isn't there, detective fuhrman?

A: No.

q: When discussing this event in the preliminary hearing and talking about the glove, your tongue slipped and you said "them," didn't you?

a: Yes.

q: And you have examined that in the transcript, haven't you?

A: Yes.

Q: And you know it has been played on video to the jury? The word "them" is clear?

A: Yes.

q: That is a slip of the tongue?

A: No.

[GreenIce]

What is the possibility that furhman told kato to say what he said he heard.

Martin,

I think Fuhrman was responsible for the leaks very early on in the case. IMO, I think it was Fuhrman who really dictated how Kato would be handled by Clark.

She turns him into a hostile witness, which IMO, she had no grounds to do so, she was just pissed because Kato wouldn't use the words she wanted him to use but she does not shred him about the book he denied having anything to do with.

[GreenIce]

Q: Why didn't you tell him the subject matter about which he ought to be concerned, if he was going to interrogate a witness?

A: No reason. I wanted to go investigate the noise to see if we could even get to that south wall.

Q: Why did you not tell him that you were going to go investigate a noise and he should finish the interrogation?

A: No reason.

Q: No reason? Okay. On that same page. Right after you said on line 18: "and i continued out the front of the residence," miss clark said: "why?" and your response was: "well, i was -- from the statement he made, the crashing sound and the time that he heard it, combined with the blood in the bronco, the way i was feeling is there is a possibility there could be another victim, a suspect that had collapsed or escaped via that route in the southern border of the house." do you read the answer in front of you?

A: I do, sir.

Q: Do you agree that i have cited it correctly as it appears in the transcript?

A: Yes.

Q: how did you know at that juncture, detective fuhrman, that there was or would be blood in the bronco?


a: I didn't.

q: Why did you use the word "in"?

A: I'm not sure i did.

Q: Is this the first time it has been brought to your attention that you used the word "in"?

A: It is the first time you have read it, but i never used the word "in" as far as saying there was blood in the bronco.

Q: You didn't use the word "in"?

A: I'm not sure, sir, but i did not see any blood in the bronco.

Q: You used the word "in" the bronco and it was unintentional, might that be, sir, a slip of the tongue?

a: No, it might not.

q: It might not. Unless it was a slip of the tongue and if you in fact said it, you have no explanation whatsoever for that mistake? Is that the way you wish to leave it?

A: No. I wish to leave it to say that there was no blood that i observed inside the bronco prior to going into the residence that morning.

Q: My question was, detective fuhrman, if you did in fact say that one of the things that had you disturbed at that point was blood in the bronco and it wasn't a slip of the tongue, why would you have used that word?

A: I didn't see any blood in the bronco, sir.

Q: Why would you have used the word "in," detective fuhrman, please?

A: I told you i'm not sure i did.

Q: Well, there is a videotape of your testimony. Have you reviewed that recently?

A: No, never have.

Q: do you think that would help to determine whether or not the court reporter made this mistake or you did?

A: Yes, sir.



q: Okay. Once more then, detective fuhrman, we asked you to look at page 49 this morning because of a word that appears on line 23 of that page relating to "blood in the bronco."

a: Yes.

Q: And you agree that that's what the page says?

A: I agree, sir.

Q: All right. But your feeling was that the reporter made a mistake?


A: I didn't say that. I just did not mean "in the bronco."

q: Pardon me? What was your answer?

A: Could you ask -- ask the question again, sir?

Q: You said the reporter didn't make a mistake, but the word is there somehow?

A: I don't know. I just know what i meant when i testified.

q: All right. So that if you in fact used the word "in," you misspoke yourself?

A: Yes.

mr. Bailey: All right. Can we play that portion of the tape, your honor?

The court: Yes. Mr. Harris.

(at 1:58 p.m., a videotape was played.)

(at 1:58 p.m., the playing of the videotape ended.)

q: By mr. Bailey: Does that refresh your memory in any way as to what you said on july 3rd?

Ms. Clark: Can we have the rest of the answer?

Mr. Bailey: Go ahead and place the rest of it, mr. Harris.

(at 1:59 p.m., a videotape was played.)

(at 1:59 p.m., the playing of the videotape ended.)

q: By mr. Bailey: Does that refresh your recollection?

A: Absolutely, sir.

Q: Okay. And what do you now say you said?

A: "in."

q: "in."


q: Well, look, detective fuhrman. There is a problem with that testimony, isn't there, the testimony about the view through the fence?

A: No, there isn't.

Q: There is a problem that has been brought to your attention, isn't there, detective fuhrman?

A: No.

q: When discussing this event in the preliminary hearing and talking about the glove, your tongue slipped and you said "them," didn't you?

a: Yes.

q: And you have examined that in the transcript, haven't you?

A: Yes.

Q: And you know it has been played on video to the jury? The word "them" is clear?

A: Yes.

q: That is a slip of the tongue?

A: No.

William,


You are having way too much fun with Victor Anthony!

[William Anthony]

Q: All right. Now, detective fuhrman, when you first saw the glove, did you associate it with the noise that kato had heard or said that he heard at 10:45 p.m.?

A: I believe with the location of the air conditioner, i thought yes.

Q: Did you think that that noise might somehow have been tied in with the event that caused that glove to be there?

A: I thought it could have been, yes.

Q: Perhaps someone was back there unfamiliar with the area and bumped into the wall and dropped the glove?

A: That would be one conclusion, yes.

Q: Well, did you think about that?

A: I believe that someone obviously had left it there.

Q: Did you think that that might be a person bumping the wall who dropped the glove?

A: Yes.

Q: All right. So that you then had a possible time pin of the event itself? If the noise and the deposit of the glove occurred together, then this had been there since quarter of 11:00, hadn't it?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You were there at 6:15, weren't you?

A: Approximately, yes.

Q: That is seven and a half hours, isn't it?

A: Yes.

Q: That is enough for blood to dry, isn't it?

A: Under certain conditions, yes, i'm sure it would be.

q: Unless it is encased in plastic or rubber and evaporation is stopped, wouldn't you agree?

A: No.

q: Didn't it seem strange to you that after seven and a half hours that glove still showed moist sticky blood, detective fuhrman?

A: No. I knew nothing at that time when it was deposited or left there.

Q: You didn't?

A: No.

q: Is this the first time today that anyone has brought to your attention that apparent anomaly?

ms. Clark: Objection. That assumes facts not in evidence and calls for speculation.

The court: Sustained.

Q: By mr. Bailey: All right. Is it the first time today that you have thought about the wet blood on the glove when you saw it at 6:15?

The court: That assumes facts not in evidence. That is not the testimony.

Mr. Bailey: I'm sorry?

The court: That wasn't the testimony.

Q: By mr. Bailey: When did you find the glove?

A: The glove on rockingham?

Q: Yes.

A: At approximately sometime between 6:05, 6:10, 6:15.

q: All right. Now, is today the first time that anyone has brought to your attention possible significance of the presence of moist or sticky blood on the glove at that time on that day?

A: Yes.

[William Anthony]

William,


You are having way too much fun with Victor Anthony!

He is my mentor. :)

[bobaugust]

With all due respect, I have cracked your incorrect interpretations on legal principles, what you claim the evidence showed, and many many many times your accusations against the magnificent one calling him and anyone associated with the defense as liars. I have provided testimony that directly contradicted most of your claims and I must again remind you of something that you seem to have forgotten, which is that testimony is evidence. There is one fact that cannot be refuted no matter how much you cry otherwise and that one fact is that Simpson was tried and REASONABLE DOUBT WAS FOUND, DESPITE ANYONE'S IMAGINATION TO THE CONTRARY. I sense that you are losing the level of civility and resorting to your old ways of insulting those that have the audacity to disagree with your assumed to be superior knowledge. So with that I will say that if it continues, we will have a failure to communicate. :)

With all due respect you have never cracked any of my theories since my theories are based on the actual evidence in this case. I have proven your theories false since your theories are based on false information, illogical inferences, imagined evidence, and your limited knowledge of the layout of the Rockingham estate.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Read the testimony again, Fuhrman was never asked about the hat. He was only asked a glove---he used the word, "them". He never said that he saw the glove and hat---only them.

The fact that there was a smear on the console proves that someone wiped the glove on it. I can't not think of anyway this smear could have happened unless it was done on purpose. Had Simpson thrown the glove in the bronco and hit the console, it would have left a smear. In fact, if he did throw it in the bronco, then there should have been other evidence of where that glove landed, in the bronco. There is no evidence that a bloody knife was ever in the bronco.

At least one killer turned around and walked back into the killing cage. There is no evidence that the killer(s) were in any hurry to leave Rockingham.

There is no logical explaination why Simpson would have left Bundy by using the gates--not when the door to the condo was open as well as the garage.

The police never showed interest in Simpson's luggage. In fact, according to Clark, Simpson got rid of the evidence before he entered Rockingham.

The DA's could not prove that Simpson did not have dandruff that night. Simpson's barber testified under what conditions Simpson normally had dandruff. Those were conditions were in play on the night of the murders.

The glove was only found behind Kato's wall after he told MF about them. In fact, I don't remember Kato ever telling MF that he thought someone was back there, only about a noise.

Park had to pay attention while was backing out Rockingham. He had to have been able to see it. Was he suppose to just pull out of Rockingham and not look for any cars, either going by or parked?

However, again, Park should have heard the Bronco pull up, he didn't.

Kaelin never said he heard "someone", he heard a noise, three thumps.

The phone call at 10:30, Nicole's body being left where it could be seen from the street. An outside light left on, a garage door left open and the jeep door being left open--all point to wanting the bodies found before Simpson left for Chicago.

However, it might also have been made to make sure the bodies were found before Sydney and Justin did. IMO.

In the preliminary hearing Gerald Uelmen questioned Fuhrman about the same thing Fuhrman had previously testified to when Clark questioned him. Fuhrman answered Uelmen’s question referring to the glove using the words “I noticed the glove.” He then went on to explain what he could see through the iron fence using the word “them” to refer to the evidence at the feet of Ron Goldman. The same evidence every witness testified to seeing, a glove and a knit hat including witnesses who were at Bundy two hours before Fuhrman ever arrived there.

There were only faint blood stains visible on the Bronco center console; stains left there after someone attempted to wipe the center console clean.

There is no evidence of killer’s; there is only evidence of one killer. One set of bloody shoe prints and blood from only three people; the two victims and the killer.

The evidence is that the killer walked back down the long walkway to the rear gate to leave the Bundy condo. The evidence is that was where he had parked his car.

The last time Simpson’s barber saw him was on May 23, 1994 and she never said Simpson had dandruff then. On Friday June 17, 1994 before Simpson was arrested he was examined by his doctors. American Tragedy, “Skin samples, urine samples, hair and blood samples.” were taken. Simpson’s defense never claimed that Simpson had dandruff then. It wasn’t until a month after the murders on July 13 while Simpson was in jail when his hair samples were taken and given to the prosecution that dandruff was seen. Not only is there no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 but Simpson’s attorneys never claimed he did. Only William Anthony has made that false claim.

Kaelin testified that he believed someone was behind his room.

Park did not back out of Rockingham. Kaelin opened the Rockingham gate for him. Park drove through the gate and stopped to check traffic. Park testified he watched the headlights of an oncoming car to his right. When it past by him he turned left and followed it. Park never said the Bronco was not parked to his right he said he wasn’t concerned with parked vehicles to his right and did not remember seeing any.

Park was sitting in his limo parked at the Ashford gate for twenty minutes, with his radio on and making telephone calls before he first saw Kaelin and Simpson. Park didn’t say he heard any cars around the block on Rockingham.

The phone call at 10:30 was not made in Brentwood. Nicole’s body could not be easily seen from the street. When the patrol officers arrived at Bundy the garage door was not open and the passenger door on the jeep was slightly ajar.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Using your logic, because of the conditions, the hat and glove was not easily seen. Does that mean the second glove would have easily been seen and therefore that eliminates the possiblity that a second glove was left at the condo?

Using your logic again, does it mean that if a second glove was left behind it had to left in the same area as the hat and glove?

The glove and knit hat under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet were not easily seen in the dark garden area. The police saw “them” using flashlights.

No one saw a second glove anywhere on or near Nicole’s condo. Everyone saw only one glove and a knit hat under the plant leaves. Mark Fuhrman testified that when he said the word “them” he was referring to one glove and a knit hat. It is absolutely not logical or reasonable to believe Fuhrman was saying he saw two gloves and a knit hat under the plant leaves.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

I will not bore you with the appeal that Simpson took from the rulings, since the appellate court upheld judge F. However, if you wish to read it, you will find that wrongful death or the circumstances surrounding it was not mentioned until consideration of whether the damage award was excessive. However, murder was repeatedly mentioned throughout the appeal and the appellate court did not rely on the sufficiency of the evidence in regard to MF but rather on the fact that the defense wanted MF's testimony read for the purposes of impeachment.

William,

Have you ever wondered the Browns dropped their pursuit of Sydney and Justin for total custody? Weren't the rules of that trial were going to be different the civil trial rules and therefore other evidence that was left out the previous trials could be allowed in?

[GreenIce]

The glove and knit hat under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet were not easily seen in the dark garden area. The police saw “them” using flashlights.

No one saw a second glove anywhere on or near Nicole’s condo. Everyone saw only one glove and a knit hat under the plant leaves. Mark Fuhrman testified that when he said the word “them” he was referring to one glove and a knit hat. It is absolutely not logical or reasonable to believe Fuhrman was saying he saw two gloves and a knit hat under the plant leaves.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

You can't have MF having excellent vision and supreme detective skills one minute and then have him make idiot errors in his notes.

You can't have the killer walking back into the killing cage just to take in the view of his work. However, you can have another killer going back into the killer cage to admire his collegues work. Either way, the area was small enough and the killers had time enough to collect the glove.

The is no evidence that Simpson wore that hat, ever let alone during the commission of the murders.

It was a child's hat and another one was found exactly like it inside the condo.

Fuhrman wrote it was a ski mask, Fuhrman wrote the killer was bleeding and it was from a dog bite, Fuhrman wrote that he knew where the dog was kept.

What is interesting is that MF wrote about Pizza menu, was the pizza menu the same piece of paper found by Nicole's body that also had the footprint on it that did not match a Bruno Magli? Wasn't collected, how about that?

What about the cigarette butts found at Bundy and at Rockingham? Explain them.

Please, in the testimony, name the police officers who were asked if they were looking for a second glove?

Please prove that anyone who saw a second glove would have come forward to say that two gloves were found in the Bundy area?

Please prove how these very same policeman and detectives who swear there was no second glove missed bloody fingerprints in the most obvious place of all? In both locations?

[William Anthony]

With all due respect you have never cracked any of my theories since my theories are based on the actual evidence in this case. I have proven your theories false since your theories are based on false information, illogical inferences, imagined evidence, and your limited knowledge of the layout of the Rockingham estate.

bobaugust

Did you see my post on actual evidence? I believe you did. We will communicate in the future when you have acquired the skills to communicate civilly. The reason that I have not heretofore bothered to respond to your non germane references to the layout of the Rockingham estate is because your references are irrelevant, immaterial, superfluous and a waste of time consumption to the issue, which we were discussing in that Park testified to where he saw Kato "standing and still standing before Kato proceeded to go to the gate box to let him in." I thought you would have garnered from Kato's testimony that he walked up the driveway after he finished his first cursory search that Kato had not crossed the driveway but walked back to the Ashford pathway where he observed that no one had buzzed the limo in and, thus Kato proceeded to so do, which squares with Park's observation of him.. I reiterate that I do not have to be right and do not have to use negative adjectives to depict your inferences, because I have provided the actual testimony/evidence to support my inferences and based upon the jury instructions the sophisticated jury was left with only one choice. I do not apologize for seeing things differently then you do and actually rejoice in my capabilities, so it is with that in mind that I will decline to respond to your posts until you return to the degree of civility that is required by the rules of this forum. Thanks.

[William Anthony]

Q: OKAY. BUT YOU DID SPEND, BY YOUR OWN ESTIMATE, FIFTEEN MINUTES LOOKING AROUND BEFORE NOTIFYING YOUR SUPERIORS OF WHAT COULD BE A VERY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, TRUE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IT IS APPARENT, FROM THE WAY YOU HAVE DESCRIBED YOUR ACTIONS BACK THERE, THAT YOU HAD NOT THE SLIGHTEST CONCERN FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY; IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, YOU DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO PROTECT IT, DID YOU?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT?

A: I'M CAPABLE OF PROTECTING MYSELF. ONCE I WAS COMMITTED I REALLY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO GO FORWARD.

Q: YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE OPTION, HAVING DISCOVERED WHAT COULD WELL HAVE BEEN THE DEPOSIT, WITTINGLY OR OTHERWISE, OF A DANGEROUS KILLER, TO GO BACK AND GET SOME HELP? THAT OPTION WASN'T THERE?

A: THE OPTION WAS THERE.

:shrug:. I do not understand why it is so hard for some to see Bailey's brilliance.

[William Anthony]

William,

Have you ever wondered the Browns dropped their pursuit of Sydney and Justin for total custody? Weren't the rules of that trial were going to be different the civil trial rules and therefore other evidence that was left out the previous trials could be allowed in?

There are Rules of Evidence which may very slightly. However, it is my understanding the the rules in regard to the evidence is that the civil rules of civil procedure would be less stringent, because of the burden of proof. I am somewhat familiar with the fact that the court requires certain higher standards on some evidence. The civil court based its decision to not allow the reading of MF's testimony on the presumption that LE had done nothing wrong and required a higher standard to allow the evidence. However, the court used the words "unless some defect is established", which means that it did more than test the sufficiency of the evidence, imho, and held the defense to a standard that took away the jury's ability to weigh and give credibility to the evidence. Interestingly, the appellate court did not address the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence but relied on the fact that MF's testimony was for impeachment purposes and, IIRC, the fact that all the parties did not have the opportunity to cross examine MF when he gave that testimony. I think the Browns showed the proper concern for the children as they were family.

[William Anthony]

GreenIce,

I am sure you understand the signifcance of circumstantial evidence. However, a poster you refer to as Mr. August has made a comment about me in a response to you, which was

Not only is there no evidence that Simpson had dandruff on June 12 but Simpson’s attorneys never claimed he did. Only William Anthony has made that false claim.

Therefore, I feel compelled to again correct an inaccurate statement. VA has told me not to allow that misrepresentation to stand. :) Here is what the magnificent one stated,

"You heard Mr. Simpson's barber say in the off season, in the summer, spring, he gets dandruff. Right after he's arrested, they removed known hair samples. His hair has dandruff. There's no dandruff in the hair in that hat."

The fact that the magnificent one's argument and inferences to be drawn therefrom may have been overlooked or not understood does not mean that he did not set forth such an argument. The magnificent one understood that his argument must have been confined to the evidence in the case. The evidence was "Mr. Simpson's barber say in the off season, in the summer, spring, he gets dandruff" and "There's no dandruff in the hair in that hat."
I am sure you understand the magnificent one's argument.

[martin II]

William,

Have you ever wondered the Browns dropped their pursuit of Sydney and Justin for total custody? Weren't the rules of that trial were going to be different the civil trial rules and therefore other evidence that was left out the previous trials could be allowed in?

In the custody trial the children told the judge that they wanted to live with their father. The social workers report agreeded that was in their best interest and so did the judge.

[William Anthony]

Q: What were you told was the purpose of this exercise?

A: To prepare me for cross-examination.

Q: Okay. And what were you to guard against in cross-examination that this preparation would facilitate?

A: I don't think i was told --

ms. Clark: Objection. That assumes facts not in evidence, your honor.

The court: Sustained.

Q: By mr. Bailey: Were the questions that were being put to you as simulated cross-examination in your mind an attempt to assist in preparing you to withstand a real cross-examination?

A: No. I think there are areas and questions that have probably never been asked most detectives or policemen.

Q: Can you give me an example?

A: No, i can't.

Q: Can you think of any language that was used in those questions that some might find offensive, detective fuhrman?

A: No.

Q: None?

A: No.

Q: Can you remember even one of the questions that these three lawyers put to you?

A: No, i do not, sir.

Q: Not a single one?

A: No.

Q: May we then assume that you did not profit by the experience of preparation for cross-examination?

A: I don't think it was very productive, no.

Q: Was there any effort on your part to reach certain goals as a result of this training session?

A: I don't understand that question, sir.

Q: Did you start up before the lawyers started in on you with their questions with an objective in mind, something you wanted to achieve that would make you a better witness?

A: No.

Q: Did not?

A: No.

Q: Did they describe for you any objective that they had in mind that you should reach in order to be a better witness?

A: I don't recall they did, no.

Q: When did this take place?

A: A few weeks ago.

Q: What day of the week?

A: I want to say it was a saturday or a sunday.

Q: The weekend was it?

A: Yes. I'd probably go on sunday.

Q: And who were the people there that you have not named, if you know?

A: I don't know a lot of the people by name.

Q: Can you classify them?

A: Well, i know -- the ones i do know by name was mr. Yochelson, mr. Darden, miss lewis, mr. White, mr. Yochelson.

Q: You named him.

A: Yes. I'm just going through all -- i'm going through all of them.

Q: Okay.

A: Mr. Runyon. And i don't know the names of a lot of the other people that were there or the rest of the people.

Q: So were they detectives or lawyers, if you know?

A: I -- i'm not sure. I didn't know the status of some of the people.

Q: Were they participating in discussion?

A: I don't believe they were, no.

Q: Were they suggesting questions, if you remember?

A: No. They appeared to be observers.

Q: All right. Now, detective fuhrman, this is a one and only in your experience as a witness, isn't it?

A: Excuse me, sir?

Q: This grand jury adventure where you were given trial cross-examination by three different lawyers, that's the only time in your career that's ever happened, isn't it?

A: Yes.

Q: Did they tell you there was something that they were tr

[weezer]

"Barry Scheck, too, showed how easy it is to make a mistake with terminology, even when his whole point was to differentiate between two particular things and show that the prosecution experts didn't know how to make this important distinction. He asked Dr. John Gerdes a long series of questions about two kinds of hoods used by scientists. A hood controls the air flow around a scientist and the samples. Different kinds of hoods channel the air differently. His line of questioning ended like this:
Q: Are laminar flow hoods used in forensic labs?
A: Yes
Q: This - knowing that you have a laminar flow hood, as opposed to a chemical hood, is this a fundamental piece of information in terms of DNA laboratory practices? . . .is it a fundamental fact, be it in terms of DNA laboratory procedures, to know if a hood is a laminar flow hood as opposed to a chemical hood?. . .
A: No. . .
Mr. Scheck: We also have a printout with the laminar flow hood that I would mark 1303-a.
The Court: Chemical hood. You see, it is an easy mistake."

O.J. Unmasked by M.L. Rantala; page 16

[weezer]

"Dershowitz Needs a Do-Over

Fuhrman's contention that 'them' referred to the glove and the hat is by no means fantastic. But just suppost that Fuhrman had made a verbal slip. What would this show?

If all slips of the tongue are proof of some underlying fact, then Alan Dershowtiz let the cat out of the bag as to who owned the gloves in evidence. Speaking before the judge the day after Simpson tried on the murderer's gloves in front of the jury, Dershowtiz said:

If the prosecution had a second opportunity, if they could do what we when were (sic) kids we called a do-over, obviously they would try this case rather differently. I doubt that we would see O.J. Simpson being asked to try on his gloves. I doubt that we would see Dennis Fung being called as a witness.

Dershowtiz refers here to 'his gloves'. So Dershowtiz agrees that the murder gloves are indeed Simpson's?. . ."

O.J. Unmasked by M.L. Rantala

[tv]

You know how I feel about chicken. :)Just like you know how I feel about it. :)

[tv]

"Dershowitz Needs a Do-Over

Fuhrman's contention that 'them' referred to the glove and the hat is by no means fantastic. But just suppost that Fuhrman had made a verbal slip. What would this show?

If all slips of the tongue are proof of some underlying fact, then Alan Dershowtiz let the cat out of the bag as to who owned the gloves in evidence. Speaking before the judge the day after Simpson tried on the murderer's gloves in front of the jury, Dershowtiz said:

If the prosecution had a second opportunity, if they could do what we when were (sic) kids we called a do-over, obviously they would try this case rather differently. I doubt that we would see O.J. Simpson being asked to try on his gloves. I doubt that we would see Dennis Fung being called as a witness.

Dershowtiz refers here to 'his gloves'. So Dershowtiz agrees that the murder gloves are indeed Simpson's?. . ."

O.J. Unmasked by M.L. Rantala

I always felt that Dershowitz thinks OJ Simpson is the killer. I'm glad he cleared that up. :D

[tv]

"Barry Scheck, too, showed how easy it is to make a mistake with terminology, even when his whole point was to differentiate between two particular things and show that the prosecution experts didn't know how to make this important distinction. He asked Dr. John Gerdes a long series of questions about two kinds of hoods used by scientists. A hood controls the air flow around a scientist and the samples. Different kinds of hoods channel the air differently. His line of questioning ended like this:
Q: Are laminar flow hoods used in forensic labs?
A: Yes
Q: This - knowing that you have a laminar flow hood, as opposed to a chemical hood, is this a fundamental piece of information in terms of DNA laboratory practices? . . .is it a fundamental fact, be it in terms of DNA laboratory procedures, to know if a hood is a laminar flow hood as opposed to a chemical hood?. . .
A: No. . .
Mr. Scheck: We also have a printout with the laminar flow hood that I would mark 1303-a.
The Court: Chemical hood. You see, it is an easy mistake."

O.J. Unmasked by M.L. Rantala; page 16

Thanks, weezer. :)

[tv]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9186784]Q: What were you told was the purpose of this exercise?

A: To prepare me for cross-examination. *snipped*


William, what's your point? Everyone should be prepped for trial. I'm beginning to think you're obsessed with Det. Fuhrman. :shrug:

[tv]

In the custody trial the children told the judge that they wanted to live with their father. The social workers report agreeded that was in their best interest and so did the judge.

Exactly. :)

[tv]

Q: Why didn't you tell him the subject matter about which he ought to be concerned, if he was going to interrogate a witness?

A: No reason. I wanted to go investigate the noise to see if we could even get to that south wall.

Q: Why did you not tell him that you were going to go investigate a noise and he should finish the interrogation?

A: No reason.

Q: No reason? Okay. On that same page. Right after you said on line 18: "and i continued out the front of the residence," miss clark said: "why?" and your response was: "well, i was -- from the statement he made, the crashing sound and the time that he heard it, combined with the blood in the bronco, the way i was feeling is there is a possibility there could be another victim, a suspect that had collapsed or escaped via that route in the southern border of the house." do you read the answer in front of you?

A: I do, sir.

Q: Do you agree that i have cited it correctly as it appears in the transcript?

A: Yes.

Q: how did you know at that juncture, detective fuhrman, that there was or would be blood in the bronco?


a: I didn't.

q: Why did you use the word "in"?

A: I'm not sure i did.

Q: Is this the first time it has been brought to your attention that you used the word "in"?

A: It is the first time you have read it, but i never used the word "in" as far as saying there was blood in the bronco.

Q: You didn't use the word "in"?

A: I'm not sure, sir, but i did not see any blood in the bronco.

Q: You used the word "in" the bronco and it was unintentional, might that be, sir, a slip of the tongue?

a: No, it might not.

q: It might not. Unless it was a slip of the tongue and if you in fact said it, you have no explanation whatsoever for that mistake? Is that the way you wish to leave it?

A: No. I wish to leave it to say that there was no blood that i observed inside the bronco prior to going into the residence that morning.

Q: My question was, detective fuhrman, if you did in fact say that one of the things that had you disturbed at that point was blood in the bronco and it wasn't a slip of the tongue, why would you have used that word?

A: I didn't see any blood in the bronco, sir.

Q: Why would you have used the word "in," detective fuhrman, please?

A: I told you i'm not sure i did.

Q: Well, there is a videotape of your testimony. Have you reviewed that recently?

A: No, never have.

Q: do you think that would help to determine whether or not the court reporter made this mistake or you did?

A: Yes, sir.



q: Okay. Once more then, detective fuhrman, we asked you to look at page 49 this morning because of a word that appears on line 23 of that page relating to "blood in the bronco."

a: Yes.

Q: And you agree that that's what the page says?

A: I agree, sir.

Q: All right. But your feeling was that the reporter made a mistake?


A: I didn't say that. I just did not mean "in the bronco."

q: Pardon me? What was your answer?

A: Could you ask -- ask the question again, sir?

Q: You said the reporter didn't make a mistake, but the word is there somehow?

A: I don't know. I just know what i meant when i testified.

q: All right. So that if you in fact used the word "in," you misspoke yourself?

A: Yes.

mr. Bailey: All right. Can we play that portion of the tape, your honor?

The court: Yes. Mr. Harris.

(at 1:58 p.m., a videotape was played.)

(at 1:58 p.m., the playing of the videotape ended.)

q: By mr. Bailey: Does that refresh your memory in any way as to what you said on july 3rd?

Ms. Clark: Can we have the rest of the answer?

Mr. Bailey: Go ahead and place the rest of it, mr. Harris.

(at 1:59 p.m., a videotape was played.)

(at 1:59 p.m., the playing of the videotape ended.)

q: By mr. Bailey: Does that refresh your recollection?

A: Absolutely, sir.

Q: Okay. And what do you now say you said?

A: "in."

q: "in."


q: Well, look, detective fuhrman. There is a problem with that testimony, isn't there, the testimony about the view through the fence?

A: No, there isn't.

Q: There is a problem that has been brought to your attention, isn't there, detective fuhrman?

A: No.

q: When discussing this event in the preliminary hearing and talking about the glove, your tongue slipped and you said "them," didn't you?

a: Yes.

q: And you have examined that in the transcript, haven't you?

A: Yes.

Q: And you know it has been played on video to the jury? The word "them" is clear?

A: Yes.

q: That is a slip of the tongue?

A: No.

William, we've been over this a million times. He was being asked a compound question. (big sigh)

[Jayme K]

Can you be more specific? I like to be well informed. Also, why do some posters on this board seem to be aware of Victor Anthony and others don't? :)

I think Victor Anthony lives in the same house as Doc Holiday, Truly Speaking, Isontknow, Chi and all of the other people using that same computer:tongue:

[Jayme K]

Martin,

I think Fuhrman was responsible for the leaks very early on in the case. IMO, I think it was Fuhrman who really dictated how Kato would be handled by Clark.

She turns him into a hostile witness, which IMO, she had no grounds to do so, she was just pissed because Kato wouldn't use the words she wanted him to use but she does not shred him about the book he denied having anything to do with.

Because he wouldn't answer any questions and he had no cause not to answer them if I remember right.

[William Anthony]

I think Victor Anthony lives in the same house as Doc Holiday, Truly Speaking, Isontknow, Chi and all of the other people using that same computer:tongue:

The great Cab Calloway once said that an old woman saw him coming from a bar and asked him didn't he know that when he went in those places the devil went with him to which he responded, if he does he pays for his own drinks. That is how I feel about all those others you have named. :)

[Jayme K]

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.

So if two dudes get in a brawl at a bar and toss a few punches they are labeled batterers? Gosh I didn't even know I'm a batterer - that one time back in college when I smacked the chick I hated really did me in I guess.:eek:

[tv]

I think Victor Anthony lives in the same house as Doc Holiday, Truly Speaking, Isontknow, Chi and all of the other people using that same computer:tongue:
:beer:

[William Anthony]

I always felt that Dershowitz thinks OJ Simpson is the killer. I'm glad he cleared that up. :D

The difference is that AD's opinion matters no more than anyone's who was not on the jury and AD was not testifying or in MF's case, imho, testilying.

[William Anthony]

So if two dudes get in a brawl at a bar and toss a few punches they are labeled batterers? Gosh I didn't even know I'm a batterer - that one time back in college when I smacked the chick I hated really did me in I guess.:eek:

I think in your case it would be assault and battery. :)

[tv]

The difference is that AD's opinion matters no more than anyone's who was not on the jury and AD was not testifying or in MF's case, imho, testilying.
You think people only tell the truth went they're under oath? Okay. :rolleyes: I figured you'd find a way to slide out of explaining Alan Dershowitz's tell tale slip.

[William Anthony]

William, we've been over this a million times. He was being asked a compound question. (big sigh)

Thank you. He was prepared to answer compound questions. MF could not make up his mind if his tongue slipped or not or if he said certain things or not and there was no objection to the question. I am reminded that the truth is easier to remember than a lie.

[William Anthony]

You think people only tell the truth went they're under oath? Okay. I figured you'd find a way to slide out of explaining Alan Dershowitz's tell tale slip.

Of course, I don't think that people tell the truth under oath. Look at MF. The difference is that AD was not under oath and asked were those Simpson's gloves. Thanks for recognizing that I understand the difference between opinion and testimony.

[tv]

Thank you. He was prepared to answer compound questions. MF could not make up his mind if his tongue slipped or not or if he said certain things or not and there was no objection to the question. I am reminded that the truth is easier to remember than a lie. The only word that comes to mind is desperation. Without being able to blame the LAPD and Mark Fuhrman the defense had no case.

[tv]

Of course, I don't think that people tell the truth under oath. Look at MF. The difference is that AD was not under oath and asked were those Simpson's gloves. Thanks for recognizing that I understand the difference between opinion and testimony.The difference between opinion and testimony may be clear to you but I'm not so sure you have as good an understanding of the difference between fantasy and reality.