Random Discussions On The Case

[William Anthony]

William there is no oj creditors list therefore no Heidstra name on it.

LBA listed their creditors in that forced bankruptcy filing but that list included LBA creditors not oj.

That was just a false claim to change the subject imo

I will admit that I did not follow and do not recall the details of the the bankruptcy filings but I thought that he filed a personal bankruptcy action and later filed LBA filed a bankruptcy petition.

[martin II]

I will admit that I did not follow and do not recall the details of the the bankruptcy filings but I thought that he filed a personal bankruptcy action and later filed LBA filed a bankruptcy petition.

Well i am not aware of oj filing bankruptcy. i will look.

[weezer]

William there is no oj creditors list therefore no Heidstra name on it.

LBA listed their creditors in that forced bankruptcy filing but that list included LBA creditors not oj.

That was just a false claim to change the subject imo

". . .Other creditors include the $24 million judgment for the Brown family; $15,000 for a former Simpson attorney; $20,000 for another attorney; $350,000 for the book's ghostwriter and another $300,000 for a pair of law firms. . ."

[William Anthony]

". . .Other creditors include the $24 million judgment for the Brown family; $15,000 for a former Simpson attorney; $20,000 for another attorney; $350,000 for the book's ghostwriter and another $300,000 for a pair of law firms. . ."

To acknowledge when we are wrong helps us to get it right.

http://www.slate.com/id/2157652

There is no evidence that Simpson owes Robert Hiedstra (sp) anything or that he attempted to pay for his testimony. I think you are re-writing history.

[weezer]

you do understand that Heidstra was the ghostwriter right?

so sorry, so sorry! I'm mixing up heidstra and the other guy.

[William Anthony]

An apology to one's self, that is funny.:) We all make mistakes.

[martin II]

An apology to one's self, that is funny.:) We all make mistakes.

i am sure oj did not pay the ghostwriter to change his testimony.As he never did. he just had the wrong time he said he heard the dog bark.

[martin II]

An apology to one's self, that is funny.:) We all make mistakes.

That is funny. you know what they say about people that talk to themselves.

[William Anthony]

That is funny. you know what they say about people that talk to themselves.

Maybe, Simpson thought the ghost writer was a good story teller after hearing him testify.

[GreenIce]

I believe that the 1995 criminal defense demonstrated a lack of integrity, and their supporters have been just as bad, maybe worse. I don’t have enough space here to show all my reasons, but I thought I would mention a few.
Scheck accused D. Fung of processing evidence in a dishonest manner and said that part of the reason for this was that he was afraid of his boss. And yet the defense never showed any evidence that either his boss applied pressure, or that Fung deliberately did anything dishonest. If the defense had any evidence that Fung did falsified evidence because he was afraid of his boss, they should have let the public know about it, after all Fung worked on other cases besides OJ Simpson. Scheck slung mud at two people and never showed any evidence for it. The defense did show that Fung made some mistakes, but this isn’t the same as showing that it was deliberate. To sling mud at the police without backing it up with facts harms us all. People who approve of these tactics should remember the saying “keep telling a man he is no good and pretty soon he will prove you right”. To subject law enforcement or anyone else, to unnecessary and unsubstantiated insults is wrong. It will result in either higher taxes or lower quality police work. The defense has the moral right to criticize the work at the criminologists, but engage in unsupported insults is morally wrong. I think Scheck made these accusations to get Fung rattled.
I find it infuriating that very few people have spoken out against Scheck or the dream team for this. Scheck also misquoted Henry Lee at least twice in a manner that helped the defense.
Supporters of the dream team usually roast A. Mazzola for failing to initial a piece of paper, and D. Fung for not remembering what he did several months earlier. And yet they always praise J. Cochran for his work. In his opening statement Cochran broke the Reciprocal discovery law. He did this by mentioning 14 witnesses that would support the defense, and he hadn’t provided this information to the prosecution. This is on page 300 of V Bugliosi’s book. I think it was probably deliberate, and some of these witnesses were pretty pathetic. I think it is hypocritical to roast Mazzolla or Fung for their lapses, and call Cochran magnificent. It would be interesting to get a bunch of people who don’t have a preconceived opinion of the case (say 12 – 15 year olds from some country where the trial didn’t get much publicity), and ask them which they think is most serious, Cochran’s mistakes, or Mazzola’s, or Fung’s memory problems. Cochran had a bunch of people working under him to check on his work, whereas Mazzola didn’t.
Supporters of the dream team often talk about the junk science of the prosecution. They also often say that ‘if the police criminologists and pathologists had followed procedures these problems wouldn’t have come up’. I think what they mean is that if all the law enforcement people had done their work perfectly there would have been no problems. I think if all the work had been done perfectly, I would assume it was rigged or a miracle. It is also odd that people who are so picky about police errors are so accepting of Cochran errors, and Henry Lee errors. If WA or Martin think that all non forensic science (chemistry, physics or biology) for example has to be done perfectly or it is ignored; then they don’t know much about science. It is also a sign of either foolish thinking or dishonesty to roast Mazzola and Fung for things like not initialing a piece of paper, and then praise the world’s best criminologist (AKA Henry Lee) and ignore his inability to tell the difference between foot prints in blood and trowel marks in cement. I realize that the prosecutions work is held to a higher standard, but if a guy comes through with the billing that Henry Lee (or Mr. Cochran) did, the public should examine his work and hold him to high standards. To use an example I used earlier it would be interesting to get people with an open mind (and who don’t know the skin colors involved or OJ’s celebrity background) to pass judgment on the work of Mazzola, Fung, and Lee, or Cochran.
Would supporters of the dream team (WA and Martin for example) all of a sudden find the mistakes of Cochran and H Lee to be unacceptable if they tried to convict people with their techniques? I know that Johnnie Cochran is dead.

fgump2,

I am not new the boards, my former names was "limakey" but for some reason I had a hard time using the old information.

IMO, I think that you along with many others put your own personal integrity and morals on the work of some of the state's witnesses. I truly believe that each of us would like to believe if we were Dennis Fung or Andrea Mozzola that our mistakes were true ones. Or that if Andrea Mozzola was positive that she did write her initials on the envelopes, she would have stood her ground and would not have said that she made a mistake. However, in all fairness to Mozzola and Dennis Fung, we are not them nor we in the same room when their supervisors interviewed them regarding their work in this case.

I think a perfect example is Mozzola. It is clear that if she did initial the envelopes and she stood her ground, then what are the implications of her testimony? By standing her ground, she is in fact accusing someone on her own team has tampered with evidence. We have all seen or heard about innocent people confessing to crimes that they did not commit because they wanted to please the person who was interviewing them and/or they believed that would be able to go home if they just said what they knew the interviewer wanted them to say. I do not think it takes a lot to convince a person they really don't know what they did.

Also, as we post our beliefs about the evidence in the trial, we are not risking our jobs, career or our ability to provide for our families. If you want to read a great book about this, read Lange and Vanatter's book. In one example, there was someone from the lab who said that Fung and/or Mozzola were told not to collect the blood drops on the back gate because of the standoff between the police and the CSI team. In their book they say that this was investigated but the results of it were not revealed--at least before their book went into print.

In regards to Dr. Lee, three key points:

1. The generation of photos he was given
2. The DA's never asked him or Dr. Baden if they saw the blood drops on the back gate when they went to the crime scene at Bundy.
3. Dr. Lee may be correct about there being a few different set of footprints at the scene, however, his testimony does not prove OJ Simpson's innocence. His testimony, if correct only proves at least one other person was at the crime scene.

Standard Operating Procedures, regardless of the field, are developed to eliminate past mistakes. Example, there is a reason why the coroner should be called to report to the crime scene within so many hours. The past, delaying the coroner's arrival had a major impact on the evidence and not in a good way for the state.

I don't think any person who believes Simpson is innocent or that the jury did give the correct verdict expects perfection. What is expected is at the very least expecting competence from them. For example, not using the right equipment in regards to the socks. There is no acceptable reason for this.
There is no logical reason how Fung first took blood samples from the Bronco and managed to get a sample not only of Simpson's blood but also an unidentifed doaner but never managed swipe a sample of Ron's blood until months later. I don't think is unreasonable for any person to doubt the work of the CSI team when they used a truck with broken AC unit and not knowing that the evidence inside that truck was baking.

[GreenIce]

William, I totally agree with you and I wish those questions had been asked. I don't think any more information would have been elicited but the questions would have been more appropriate. I never said the prosecution was more than competent.

TV Dinner,

Limakey here. I have disagree with about the DA's being competent on this issue. They never called Heistra for their witness and I think there was another reason besides the timeline. There was no way the the DA's could have proved that it was Ron's voice that he heard. He only described it as a younger man's voice. I don't know if he was ever asked if had an opinion on the race of the younger voice.

For years, it has been assumed that the "Hey, Hey, Hey" had to have come from Ron Goldman, yet there is no proof that it was him.

[GreenIce]

fgump2,

One more thing on Dennis Fung. Barry Scheck asked point blank hard ball questions, he prepared his cross of Fung for days. However, there is no way he could have prepared himself for Fung's answers. He did not know if Fung had watched the video of his work and he had no idea how the DA's prepared him to testify.

I have always gotten the impression that Fung was walking a very fine line. He would exactly what the DA's wanted him to say nor did he go out of his way to say what the defense wanted him to say.

Last thing, if Dennis Fung was called by the defense, like Roger Martz, the DA's would have done the same thing to him. They would have had to. They would have taken the same approach they did with Dr. Golden.

[GreenIce]

The prosecutions table was all white until the jury was selected and G Garcetti decided he needed to show the jury that the prosecution was not racist so Darden as added to their table. There were other prosectors available with more trial experience than Darden.imo

Martin,

I have to disagree with about why Darden was added to the case. I think it was a wise move, just as it was for Simpson to add a black lawyer to his team. Again, IMO, this issue goes both way. I see nothing sinister with Darden or any other black DA who the DA's added to their team.

[GreenIce]

William, it's sometimes possible to tell the race of a person by the timbre of their voice. Black men often have deeper, richer voices than their white or asian counterparts. These differences are subtle and not infallible. Trying to establish the quality of the voice is just a step in determining the perpetrator. You don't seem to take issue with the fact that Mr. Darden asked Mr. Heidstra if the other voice sounded young.

William, you don't sound like Steve Urkel do you? :D

TV Dinner and William,

Interesting point. OJ Simpson spent many years in broadcasting, he has done several commericals and movies---what are the chances that somewhere in his past, Simpson received voice lessons? Didn't he make the comment that he worked with Marcus Allen on this issue because he wanted to go into broadcasting as well?

[GreenIce]

William Anthony what fgump is saying, I think and I agree with. The truth is the truth. And that may not always be what the courts say it is. JMO.

Parker,

IMO, there is only one true truth in a murder case--that is the victim(s) are dead. From there, that is when different interpetations of the evidence comes into play.

However, it has been said many times, the truth is not the goal of the DA's or the defense team. They will only delve into issues that and ask certain questions that should be benefit their side.

And as you know, it is never a good idea to ask a question that you don't know the answer to. It is even worse letting a team member ask a questions or do demonstration when in fact, they already know the answer to the question. Perfect example, the glove demonstration, there is no doubt in my mind that Clark knew the gloves were not going to fit. Clark was in the position to stop Darden. She was first chair, she could have forbidden Darden from doing the demonstration yet she only put up a token resistence to it.

I think all of us would be stunned to know that each side had other witness that had vital information to this case, yet for what ever reason, they were not called. As far as I know, while these witnesses could have been ordered to testify, both sides realized that it is a huge risk to put these witnesses on the stand.

I believe this is the case with some of the evidence. Both sides, at times appeared to be afraid of the evidence. They would not go down certain paths even if meant losing a key witness.

[Parker]

TV Dinner and William,

Interesting point. OJ Simpson spent many years in broadcasting, he has done several commericals and movies---what are the chances that somewhere in his past, Simpson received voice lessons? Didn't he make the comment that he worked with Marcus Allen on this issue because he wanted to go into broadcasting as well?

I think this is a very good question. And it raises an interesting point. Was this ever followed up by the police or the prosecution?

[William Anthony]

TV Dinner and William,

Interesting point. OJ Simpson spent many years in broadcasting, he has done several commericals and movies---what are the chances that somewhere in his past, Simpson received voice lessons? Didn't he make the comment that he worked with Marcus Allen on this issue because he wanted to go into broadcasting as well?

I think I understand what you are saying and that is exactly why the objection to that line of questioning was sustained and, in a side bar, the magnificent one brought up the issue of the question being racial. After some instruction from the judge Darden asked the appropriate questions in a manner similar to the one I suggested. I am not a licensed lawyer but, even I saw the inappropriateness of the questions. The simple truth is that Heidstra heard voices and he had no idea, who they belonged to but the inference could be drawn that it was Simpson and Mr. RG but, if they were, it differed with the prosecution's time line and his testimony showed that the prosecution played the race card first. This is sometimes overlooked when people buy into the so often repeated but incorrect accusation that the magnificent brought race into the trial, imho.

July 11th testimony,

"MR. COCHRAN: What time is it by this time now when you now hear at least two dogs barking? Give us your time, the best time that you--

MR. HEIDSTRA: Around 10:40 or something.

MR. COCHRAN: About 10:40 P.M.?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Yeah.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And at that point you are in the alley and it is 10:40 on June 12th, 1994. What happens next?

MR. HEIDSTRA: Well, like I said, I was listening to the dogs and all of a sudden I heard two voices.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You heard two voices?"

Simpson couldn't have committed the murders and been back at Rockingham by 10:45, making thumps on the wall behind Kato's quarters by Heidstra's testimony.

[William Anthony]

fgump2,

One more thing on Dennis Fung. Barry Scheck asked point blank hard ball questions, he prepared his cross of Fung for days. However, there is no way he could have prepared himself for Fung's answers. He did not know if Fung had watched the video of his work and he had no idea how the DA's prepared him to testify.

I have always gotten the impression that Fung was walking a very fine line. He would exactly what the DA's wanted him to say nor did he go out of his way to say what the defense wanted him to say.

Last thing, if Dennis Fung was called by the defense, like Roger Martz, the DA's would have done the same thing to him. They would have had to. They would have taken the same approach they did with Dr. Golden.

The dream team was not there to ask questions coated with cotton candy to Fung or Mazzola. They were there to give their client the best defense possible and they did not assign them to collect the evidence nor call them to testify. The prosecution acted untoward with a lot of the defense witnesses but the most egregious, imho, was the question to Ms. McKinney as to whether or not she had a sexual relationship with MF, who was later convicted of perjury but the prosecution believed him when he said he had, knowing that if a person is falsus in onus, falsus in ominbus.

[William Anthony]

TV Dinner,

Limakey here. I have disagree with about the DA's being competent on this issue. They never called Heistra for their witness and I think there was another reason besides the timeline. There was no way the the DA's could have proved that it was Ron's voice that he heard. He only described it as a younger man's voice. I don't know if he was ever asked if had an opinion on the race of the younger voice.

For years, it has been assumed that the "Hey, Hey, Hey" had to have come from Ron Goldman, yet there is no proof that it was him.

ITA. Once the time line was destroyed, the defense had to try to destroy Heidstra's credibility, which they attempted through ridiculous questions playing the race card.

[Parker]

William Anthony, you've replied to everyone's posts but mine. And I don't know for sure that you replied to TV Dinner's. Do you only reply to certain posts and not to others? I'm interested in what you have to say.:)

[GreenIce]

William,

In this case, I have learned to look a little bit deeper then one reason or reasons they media gave about why the DA's treated certain witnesses or which witnesses they didn't call, etc.

Because of the way the DA's shifted the timeline toward the end of the case and in their closing led me to believe they were more reasons why they didn't use Hesistra. By the time the defense put on their case, the DA's already knew they had the support of their public as well as allowing the media to call them victims of Simpson's defense team. Bottom line, the DA's seemed to have convinced millions and millions of people that the only two voices the dog walker heard were Ron's and OJ's--yet there is no proof of this.

In Donald Freed's book, he says that Sydney also heard the "Hey, Hey, Hey" and an exchange between two men. Now if this true and she did hear this, then she knew it wasn't her father. We do not know if she recognized the voice of the "hey, hey, hey". I always found it odd that the DA's would have rather caught off their own limbs then admit that Ron and Nicole were much closer friends then people realized. They attend relationship theraphy together and there were stories that Ron did hangout around the kids. I am not saying they were lovers only that they may have been close enough friends that Sydney may have recognized Ron's voice--and perhaps she would have said the "hey, hey, hey" was not Ron nor was the other male's voice her father's.

I think the DA's were delighted that people did believe it was Ron and OJ.

[GreenIce]

I think this is a very good question. And it raises an interesting point. Was this ever followed up by the police or the prosecution?

Parker,

The DA's never would have followed up on this information. They got what they wanted, two voices, one older male, OJ Simpson and one younger man, Ron Goldman. I did read that Darden did ask the dog walker if he could tell if the younger voice came from a black man or a whiteman or any other race and Heistra could not.

I do believe there was a time when you could tell or be pretty accurate on what race a person was from hearing their voices---just like at one time a person's heritiage or race could be determined by the person's last name. However, since the time of my youth, this has changed. I think my best example is Patrick Ewing. When I first heard his name there is no way I would have associated it with a 7ft black man from Jamacia. I heard the name Patrick--thought "Irish"---heard Ewing and I am sorry, I thought of "Dallas".

What I find interesting is that in the book by the Goldmans' they make fun of this witness and they say how the DA's slammed him and turned his testimony into mush--not their words, mine and I don't get it.

[Parker]

The DA's would never have followed up on this info? You raised the point and I think it's interesting.

Then you go after the Goldman's.

You're not being consistent.

[William Anthony]

William Anthony, you've replied to everyone's posts but mine. And I don't know for sure that you replied to TV Dinner's. Do you only reply to certain posts and not to others? I'm interested in what you have to say.:)

Tvdinner and I have a longer relationship and, as a result, I have developed a comfort level believing I understand her question. I have answered and it is my firm belief that she understands my answer. I really don't understand your question. Is your question whether or not LE followed up on Simpson having voice lessons or whether or not he gave voice lessons to Marcus Allen?

[William Anthony]

William,

In this case, I have learned to look a little bit deeper then one reason or reasons they media gave about why the DA's treated certain witnesses or which witnesses they didn't call, etc.

Because of the way the DA's shifted the timeline toward the end of the case and in their closing led me to believe they were more reasons why they didn't use Hesistra. By the time the defense put on their case, the DA's already knew they had the support of their public as well as allowing the media to call them victims of Simpson's defense team. Bottom line, the DA's seemed to have convinced millions and millions of people that the only two voices the dog walker heard were Ron's and OJ's--yet there is no proof of this.

In Donald Freed's book, he says that Sydney also heard the "Hey, Hey, Hey" and an exchange between two men. Now if this true and she did hear this, then she knew it wasn't her father. We do not know if she recognized the voice of the "hey, hey, hey". I always found it odd that the DA's would have rather caught off their own limbs then admit that Ron and Nicole were much closer friends then people realized. They attend relationship theraphy together and there were stories that Ron did hangout around the kids. I am not saying they were lovers only that they may have been close enough friends that Sydney may have recognized Ron's voice--and perhaps she would have said the "hey, hey, hey" was not Ron nor was the other male's voice her father's.

I think the DA's were delighted that people did believe it was Ron and OJ.

The prosecution may have made a tactical error other than the obvious ones they made in the trial by believing they had public support, when they should have realized that the only support that counted was that of the jury.
I was not one of the millions convinced that the voices Heidstra heard belonged to Simpson and Mr. RG. I believe that the voices he heard could belong to any two people. I do believe that those millions, who want to believe the voices belonged to Simpson and Mr. RG would have believed that regardless of what the actual evidence was.

I agree that to have people believe the voices were Simpson's and Mr. RG's was a delight to the defense, which would mean that they felt that Heidstra had been discredited, because he lied about it and were hoping would not believe his time line. When the prosecution changed its time line, it added to rather than diminish Heidstra's testimony, imho, which the jury may have recognized.

[martin II]

The DA's would never have followed up on this info? You raised the point and I think it's interesting.

Then you go after the Goldman's.

You're not being consistent.

Parker
Here is a question for you.

Heidstra testified (above in williams post) that he was in the alley at 10:40 when he heard two voices. Many believe the hey hey hey was ron entering the gate.The prosecutions story. Heidstra then testified that he saw a white suv at Bundy turning right.Prosecution says this was Simpson.
Kato testified that he heard the knocks on the wall at 10:45 in the south walkway. It is not possible for Simpson to be at Bundy and the walkway at 10:45 So where was he at 10:45.

[William Anthony]

The prosecution may have made a tactical error other than the obvious ones they made in the trial by believing they had public support, when they should have realized that the only support that counted was that of the jury.
I was not one of the millions convinced that the voices Heidstra heard belonged to Simpson and Mr. RG. I believe that the voices he heard could belong to any two people. I do believe that those millions, who want to believe the voices belonged to Simpson and Mr. RG would have believed that regardless of what the actual evidence was.

I agree that to have people believe the voices were Simpson's and Mr. RG's was a delight to the defense, which would mean that they felt that Heidstra had been discredited, because he lied about it and were hoping would not believe his time line. When the prosecution changed its time line, it added to rather than diminish Heidstra's testimony, imho, which the jury may have recognized.

correction-I agree that to have people believe the voices were Simpson's and Mr. RG's was a delight to the prosecution.

[tv]

The prosecutions table was all white until the jury was selected and G Garcetti decided he needed to show the jury that the prosecution was not racist so Darden as added to their table. There were other prosectors available with more trial experience than Darden.imomartin, you're always saying you don't know what's in someone else's mind but you seem to be able to read Gil Garcetti's mind without a problem.

[martin II]

First of all Blake was never famous as Mr Simpson. Secondly, the trial never got as much publicity. Also few if any people made heroes of the lawyer(s) who got Blake off. I saw pictures of people dancing in the streets because of the Simpson acquittal, but no such pictures of people dancing about Blakes acquittal. I also haven't read where Mr. Blake made any asinine statements like OJS did. I am pretty sure he made one statement in Florida that "sometimes when a man kills a woman, the woman had it coming". The fact that this man had a squeaky clean image for more than 25 years should bother us. Who a country's heroes are is important. OJ Simpson and Johnnie Cochran are unworthy as heroes.
To take up another point; most people believe that criminology is more imprecise than physics or chemistry. Criminology is usually grouped with social sciences in most universities. Most social sciences are imprecise, economics is imprecise obviously. If we don't want to call them a science, we should call them perhaps a craft. The word art doesn't fit for me.
The fact that the dream team supporters almost never expressed sympathy for the families of the victims or asked to investigate the work of the police personnel working on the case also bothered me.
If they dream team supports really thought OJS was innocent, they should have asked to examine the prior work of such people as Lange, Vanneter, Fung, and others (not to mention the one with initials of MF), and check to see if there were any problems with their work in the past; if there was any likelihood that they might have framed innocent people. If the dream team really believed that a frame-up occurred, they should be interested in any case where these people worked together, especially if the accused was a minority person. If they could have found evidence of mishandled cases, or innocent people imprisoned, that would have helped the public images of both OJS, and the dream team. By not asking for this investigation, that is almost the same as admitting that OJS was probably guilty. OJS spent more than 10M to defend himself, why not have OJS, and Cochran, and Scheck spend say, 1M to investigate people like Fungi, etc. For starters they could use the evidence that Scheck had that Fungi had falsified evidence. Well, Scheck implied he had the evidence; he made the charge. I think Scheck should have been sued for slander.

Fgump2

The prosecution set the time of the murders at 10:20 pm. this was based on some of their witnesses saying they heard the dog bark then.Heidstras testimony destroyed this time line.When do you believe ron arrived and when did the murders take place 10:20 or about 10:40?

[martin II]

martin, you're always saying you don't know what's in someone else's mind but you seem to be able to read Gil Garcetti's mind without a problem.

My comment about why Garcetti added Darden was from a jury members comments as to why some thought he was added.imo

[martin II]

correction-I agree that to have people believe the voices were Simpson's and Mr. RG's was a delight to the prosecution.

For what it is worth Wagner puts forth the theory that the hey hey hey voice was from a motorist in a car yelling at the dog in the street on Bundy.

[tv]

William,

In this case, I have learned to look a little bit deeper then one reason or reasons they media gave about why the DA's treated certain witnesses or which witnesses they didn't call, etc.

Because of the way the DA's shifted the timeline toward the end of the case and in their closing led me to believe they were more reasons why they didn't use Hesistra. By the time the defense put on their case, the DA's already knew they had the support of their public as well as allowing the media to call them victims of Simpson's defense team. Bottom line, the DA's seemed to have convinced millions and millions of people that the only two voices the dog walker heard were Ron's and OJ's--yet there is no proof of this.

In Donald Freed's book, he says that Sydney also heard the "Hey, Hey, Hey" and an exchange between two men. Now if this true and she did hear this, then she knew it wasn't her father. We do not know if she recognized the voice of the "hey, hey, hey". I always found it odd that the DA's would have rather caught off their own limbs then admit that Ron and Nicole were much closer friends then people realized. They attend relationship theraphy together and there were stories that Ron did hangout around the kids. I am not saying they were lovers only that they may have been close enough friends that Sydney may have recognized Ron's voice--and perhaps she would have said the "hey, hey, hey" was not Ron nor was the other male's voice her father's.

I think the DA's were delighted that people did believe it was Ron and OJ.


Welcome back, limakey. Do you have a link to the information that Ron and Nicole were attending relationship therapy together? I seem to recall that Ron had a girlfriend and he was using her car the night of the murders.

Did this author Donald Freed interview Sydney? I've heard that she heard her mother arguing with someone on the phone but haven't heard that she heard any voices outside.

[tv]

For what it is worth Wagner puts forth the theory that the hey hey hey voice was from a motorist in a car yelling at the dog in the street on Bundy.

Wagner. :eek:

[Kate Sachel]

The prosecutions table was all white until the jury was selected and G Garcetti decided he needed to show the jury that the prosecution was not racist so Darden as added to their table. There were other prosectors available with more trial experience than Darden.imo

Specifically what other prosecutors were available with more trial experience that you are aware of?

Let us remember that Robert Shapiro of the defense team had virtually no trial experience, he was known as a successful plea bargainer. By your thought process, can we then also assume that Shapiro was originally chosen as OJ's lawyer to add a little "whiteness" to the defense?

Kate

[tv]

My comment about why Garcetti added Darden was from a jury members comments as to why some thought he was added.imo

I see -- it was just an opinion from a jury member. I wonder what the jury member would have said if the prosecution had been all white. In this case, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. :shrug:

[Kate Sachel]

William,

In this case, I have learned to look a little bit deeper then one reason or reasons they media gave about why the DA's treated certain witnesses or which witnesses they didn't call, etc.

Because of the way the DA's shifted the timeline toward the end of the case and in their closing led me to believe they were more reasons why they didn't use Hesistra. By the time the defense put on their case, the DA's already knew they had the support of their public as well as allowing the media to call them victims of Simpson's defense team. Bottom line, the DA's seemed to have convinced millions and millions of people that the only two voices the dog walker heard were Ron's and OJ's--yet there is no proof of this.

In Donald Freed's book, he says that Sydney also heard the "Hey, Hey, Hey" and an exchange between two men. Now if this true and she did hear this, then she knew it wasn't her father. We do not know if she recognized the voice of the "hey, hey, hey". I always found it odd that the DA's would have rather caught off their own limbs then admit that Ron and Nicole were much closer friends then people realized. They attend relationship theraphy together and there were stories that Ron did hangout around the kids. I am not saying they were lovers only that they may have been close enough friends that Sydney may have recognized Ron's voice--and perhaps she would have said the "hey, hey, hey" was not Ron nor was the other male's voice her father's.

I think the DA's were delighted that people did believe it was Ron and OJ.

I have not read Donald Freed's book, but how does he claim that he knows that Sydney heard the "hey hey hey" exchange? That seems somewhat odd to me.

Kate

[martin II]

The DA's would never have followed up on this info? You raised the point and I think it's interesting.

Then you go after the Goldman's.

You're not being consistent.

Why do you believe Fung did not collect the blood drop on the back gate until
a week or weeks later although he was told to do so on 6/13??

[William Anthony]

For what it is worth Wagner puts forth the theory that the hey hey hey voice was from a motorist in a car yelling at the dog in the street on Bundy.

I do understand his point in that it could have been anyone speaking to anyone else. The hey hey hey has always troubled me. To address another issue, which is the classification of errors as mistakes, human error and lies. This is from a side bar on February 7th.

"MR. DARDEN: YOUR HONOR, I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT MR. DOUGLAS IS STILL WHINING ABOUT THE SANCTIONS THE COURT IMPOSED A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AS A RESULT OF HIS OWN MISCONDUCT REGARDING THE ISSUE OF DISCOVERY. I CAN NOT SPEAK TO THE ISSUE OF WHEN THE TAPE CAME INTO THE POSSESSION OF THE PROSECUTION BECAUSE I WAS NOT A PART OF THE PROSECUTION TEAM IN THIS MATTER APPARENTLY WHEN THE TAPE CAME INTO OUR POSSESSION. BUT WHEN MR. COCHRAN BROUGHT IT TO OUR --

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE A ROUGH IDEA WHEN IT WAS?

MR. DARDEN: DO I HAVE A ROUGH ITEM WHEN THAT WAS?

THE COURT: YEAH.

MR. DARDEN: NO. I'M SURE IT'S BEEN UP THERE AWHILE THOUGH. BUT WHEN IT CAME INTO OUR POSSESSION, I DON'T KNOW. MR. COCHRAN BROUGHT IT TO OUR ATTENTION, THEN WE WENT IN SEARCH OF THAT PARTICULAR TAPE. WE HAVE SOME 400 VIDEOTAPES UPSTAIRS AND THAT HAPPENED TO BE ONE OF THEM UNFORTUNATELY. I WOULD SIMPLY LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT OBVIOUSLY WE WERE NOT HIDING THE TAPE. THE FACT OF THE TAPE'S EXISTENCE APPARENTLY WAS KNOWN TO OTHERS OUTSIDE THE D.A.'S OFFICE. SO WHY WOULD WE HIDE IT? IT'S A MISTAKE. IT'S ANOTHER INNOCENT MISTAKE IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE 30,000 PAGES OF DISCOVERY AND HUNDREDS OF VIDEOTAPES. IT HAPPENS.

THE COURT: IS THIS VIDEOTAPE LOGGED IN ANY WAY IN ANY OF THE LOGS THAT WERE DISCLOSED TO THE DEFENSE?

MR. DARDEN: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: IN FACT, IT WASN'T DISCLOSED IN ANY LOG PROVIDED TO DEPUTY D.A. CHRISTOPHER DARDEN FOR THAT MATTER, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WELL, LET'S ADDRESS MR. DOUGLAS' REQUEST, THAT HOW ARE WE ASSURED THAT EVERYTHING THAT IS BRADY VERSUS MARYLAND TYPE MATERIAL HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AND DISGORGED BY THE PROSECUTION?

MR. DARDEN: WILL, I AM CONFIDENT THAT EVERY PIECE OF PAPER AND EVERY AUDIOTAPE THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO TURN OVER HAS BEEN TURNED OVER AND I'M CONFIDENT NOW THAT EVERY VIDEOTAPE WE'RE REQUIRED TO TURN OVER HAS BEEN TURNED OVER. AS TO MR. DOUGLAS' CHARACTERIZATION OF THE TAPE AS BEING SOMEWHAT EXCULPATORY, I DISAGREE. I THINK THAT THE DEMEANOR AND APPEARANCE OF THE DEFENDANT IN A VIDEOTAPE IS NOTHING LIKE I'VE EVER SEEN OF THE DEFENDANT. IT DOESN'T EVEN LOOK LIKE HIM. IT LOOKS LIKE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PERSON. AND THAT OF COURSE IS AN ISSUE FOR THE JURY TO RESOLVE. BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY OTHER PROBLEMS WITH OUR DISCOVERY. I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO WRITE OUT FIVE OR SIX PAGES OF COMMENTARY FOR THIS MORNING'S PROCEEDING LIKE MR. DOUGLAS DID. (talk about whining)

MR. DOUGLAS: I'M JUST HAPPY, YOUR HONOR, MR. DARDEN IS NOT SITTING ON THIS JURY. I THINK, YOUR HONOR, IT'S INTERESTING HOW EVERYTHING THAT THEY DO IS INNOCENT AND EVERYTHING THAT WE DO IS MISCONDUCT, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO DWELL ON THAT. WHAT I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING IS, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM, JUST HOW THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH MARY ANN GERCHAS AND A STATEMENT THERE WAS A PROBLEM APPARENTLY WITH THE VIDEOTAPE IN THE PEOPLE'S POSSESSION SINCE LAST JULY, AND CERTAINLY I THINK THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATE EXPLANATION FOR THE PROBLEM AND THERE NEEDS TO BE IN CAMERA AN OFFICIAL INQUIRY. THAT'S ALL THAT I ASK. "

[Kate Sachel]

My comment about why Garcetti added Darden was from a jury members comments as to why some thought he was added.imo

You form your beliefs on Chris Darden's addition to the prosecution based on a juror's comment regarding such?

Interesting; I have always believed that second hand opinions don't make you look any smarter.

Kate

[tv]

Parker,

IMO, there is only one true truth in a murder case--that is the victim(s) are dead. From there, that is when different interpetations of the evidence comes into play.

However, it has been said many times, the truth is not the goal of the DA's or the defense team. They will only delve into issues that and ask certain questions that should be benefit their side.

And as you know, it is never a good idea to ask a question that you don't know the answer to. It is even worse letting a team member ask a questions or do demonstration when in fact, they already know the answer to the question. Perfect example, the glove demonstration, there is no doubt in my mind that Clark knew the gloves were not going to fit. Clark was in the position to stop Darden. She was first chair, she could have forbidden Darden from doing the demonstration yet she only put up a token resistence to it.

I think all of us would be stunned to know that each side had other witness that had vital information to this case, yet for what ever reason, they were not called. As far as I know, while these witnesses could have been ordered to testify, both sides realized that it is a huge risk to put these witnesses on the stand.

I believe this is the case with some of the evidence. Both sides, at times appeared to be afraid of the evidence. They would not go down certain paths even if meant losing a key witness.
There is another obvious truth -- someone murdered the victims.

[martin II]

I see -- it was just an opinion from a jury member. I wonder what the jury member would have said if the prosecution had been all white. In this case, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. :shrug:

What i think is that Darden was maby one or two prosecutors that were black. Most prosecutors in the la DA were white so it would not have been
surprise to see a all white DA table. As a matter of fact it was a all white table before Garcetti added Darden.

It has been stated that there were other DAS available that had more trial experience than Darden.I think Darden was a junior prosecutor.If true what would be the reason to put a less experienced person on such a high profile complicated case when more experienced prosecutors were available? imo

[tv]

Why do you believe Fung did not collect the blood drop on the back gate until
a week or weeks later although he was told to do so on 6/13??

Because he was part of the evil conspiracy to frame OJ Simpson for double murder. I wish someone out of the large number of people that were in on the conspiracy would write a tell-all book. It would take just one person to blow the lid off this thing. I swear, these people can really keep a secret!

martin, are you admitting there was actually blood on the gate on June 13?

[martin II]

There is another obvious truth -- someone murdered the victims.

The prosecution made the claim that oj did it but were not able to prove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

July 12th, sidebar

"MR. DARDEN: Thank you for the opportunity to explain my position, your Honor. Your Honor, in the discovery we just provided the Defense, and in a statement Patricia Baret gave to Detective Tom Lange, she told Detective Lange that Heidstra told her that he heard what sounded to him to be a young man hollering, "Hey, hey, hey." Heidstra had then stated that he heard the very angry screaming of an older man who sounded black. And that is a good faith basis upon which I am asking these questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: First of all, we have never seen that statement and I resent--the reason I stood before--I resent that statement. You can't tell by somebody's voice whether they sounded black. I don't know who made that statement, Baret or Lange, and I resent that is a racist statement. I don't think you can tell whether somebody is a young--you can tell if it is a child or not--but I resent that entire area and I think it is entirely inappropriate. And we have never seen any statement in that regard. He walked over and handed Mr. Douglas a purported report from Miss Baret, but this statement about whether he sounds black or white is racist and I resent it and that is why I stood and objected. And I think it is totally improper in America at this time in 1995 we have to hear this and endure this.

MR. DARDEN: I didn't make the statement, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, the Court--may I say one thing, your Honor? When I had a question about how Mr. Darden conducted himself on that morning, I approached the bench before I asked it in front of the jury because I think dignity and integrity require that, but to ask that question in front of the jury I think is totally, totally improper. And we have said back in chambers when this case started, when there was a questionable area we had promised you that we would approach the bench on those things. Didn't we not do that?

THE COURT: We did.

MR. COCHRAN: We have kept that word and they violated it again, so I resent that.

MR. DARDEN: I have always considered the question of race in this case, your Honor, to be questionable. If this is the witness' statement, then he is the racist and not me, but that is what you are suggesting.

MR. COCHRAN: I didn't say that.

THE COURT: Wait, wait.

MR. DARDEN: That is what has created a lot of problems for myself and my family, statements that you make about me and race, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. I'm going to take a recess right now because I am so mad at both of you guys I'm about to hold both of you in contempt. We will take 15. If I see this conduct again from either of you two--

MR. DARDEN: I apologize, your Honor.

THE COURT: It will take more than that.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All counsel are present. Mr. Simpson is present. The jury is not present. Counsel, I have warned counsel for both sides previously that the Court will not tolerate the personal attacks that have been exchanged and that started again this morning. All counsel are on notice that the next time that happens there will be severe sanctions. The issue before the Court is whether or not the Prosecution can attempt to impeach Mr. Heidstra. Mr. Heidstra, would you step outside, please.

(Mr. Heidstra exits the courtroom.)

THE COURT: The issue before the Court is whether or not the Prosecution can attempt to impeach Mr. Heidstra's testimony with statements alleged to have been made to other persons that are inconsistent with his statement to the jury here in court. Under 1235 of the evidence code there is a required compliance with evidence code section 770, that the person be confronted with or challenged or not released, one or the other, and that appears to be the process that I have seen here. To wave the racism flag at this point I think is not germane to the topic. The issue is was this statement made. The content of the statement, however repugnant, depending upon what your interpretation of the statement may be, is not particularly relevant. I have allowed the same type of impeachment for Detective Fuhrman. All right. Let's have Mr. Heidstra."

I must disagree with the impeachment being similar as MF denied, when he was asked the question, which is not impeachment to me. The impeachment occurred when witnesses and the tapes were admitted into evidence to rebut his denial, which the prosecution never did in Heidstra's case. Thus, the prosecution was allowed to play the race card without placing any evidence in admission to show that it was relevant.

[martin II]

Because he was part of the evil conspiracy to frame OJ Simpson for double murder. I wish someone out of the large number of people that were in on the conspiracy would write a tell-all book. It would take just one person to blow the lid off this thing. I swear, these people can really keep a secret!

martin, are you admitting there was actually blood on the gate on June 13?

I don't think it requires a large conspiracy to frame a person.Maby 1 or 2 and the blue wall of keeps others silent.imo

[tv]

July 12th, sidebar

"MR. DARDEN: Thank you for the opportunity to explain my position, your Honor. Your Honor, in the discovery we just provided the Defense, and in a statement Patricia Baret gave to Detective Tom Lange, she told Detective Lange that Heidstra told her that he heard what sounded to him to be a young man hollering, "Hey, hey, hey." Heidstra had then stated that he heard the very angry screaming of an older man who sounded black. And that is a good faith basis upon which I am asking these questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: First of all, we have never seen that statement and I resent--the reason I stood before--I resent that statement. You can't tell by somebody's voice whether they sounded black. I don't know who made that statement, Baret or Lange, and I resent that is a racist statement. I don't think you can tell whether somebody is a young--you can tell if it is a child or not--but I resent that entire area and I think it is entirely inappropriate. And we have never seen any statement in that regard. He walked over and handed Mr. Douglas a purported report from Miss Baret, but this statement about whether he sounds black or white is racist and I resent it and that is why I stood and objected. And I think it is totally improper in America at this time in 1995 we have to hear this and endure this.

MR. DARDEN: I didn't make the statement, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, the Court--may I say one thing, your Honor? When I had a question about how Mr. Darden conducted himself on that morning, I approached the bench before I asked it in front of the jury because I think dignity and integrity require that, but to ask that question in front of the jury I think is totally, totally improper. And we have said back in chambers when this case started, when there was a questionable area we had promised you that we would approach the bench on those things. Didn't we not do that?

THE COURT: We did.

MR. COCHRAN: We have kept that word and they violated it again, so I resent that.

MR. DARDEN: I have always considered the question of race in this case, your Honor, to be questionable. If this is the witness' statement, then he is the racist and not me, but that is what you are suggesting.

MR. COCHRAN: I didn't say that.

THE COURT: Wait, wait.

MR. DARDEN: That is what has created a lot of problems for myself and my family, statements that you make about me and race, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait. I'm going to take a recess right now because I am so mad at both of you guys I'm about to hold both of you in contempt. We will take 15. If I see this conduct again from either of you two--

MR. DARDEN: I apologize, your Honor.

THE COURT: It will take more than that.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All counsel are present. Mr. Simpson is present. The jury is not present. Counsel, I have warned counsel for both sides previously that the Court will not tolerate the personal attacks that have been exchanged and that started again this morning. All counsel are on notice that the next time that happens there will be severe sanctions. The issue before the Court is whether or not the Prosecution can attempt to impeach Mr. Heidstra. Mr. Heidstra, would you step outside, please.

(Mr. Heidstra exits the courtroom.)

THE COURT: The issue before the Court is whether or not the Prosecution can attempt to impeach Mr. Heidstra's testimony with statements alleged to have been made to other persons that are inconsistent with his statement to the jury here in court. Under 1235 of the evidence code there is a required compliance with evidence code section 770, that the person be confronted with or challenged or not released, one or the other, and that appears to be the process that I have seen here. To wave the racism flag at this point I think is not germane to the topic. The issue is was this statement made. The content of the statement, however repugnant, depending upon what your interpretation of the statement may be, is not particularly relevant. I have allowed the same type of impeachment for Detective Fuhrman. All right. Let's have Mr. Heidstra."

I must disagree with the impeachment being similar as MF denied, when he was asked the question, which is not impeachment to me. The impeachment occurred when witnesses and the tapes were admitted into evidence to rebut his denial, which the prosecution never did in Heidstra's case. Thus, the prosecution was allowed to play the race card without placing any evidence in admission to show that it was relevant.
I must agree with the court. :)

Mr. Cochran's feigned outrage at the suggestion that there is a differernce between white and black voices is nothing more than a ploy to incite the jury. The differences in voice is based on bone structure -- what is racist about saying that?

[William Anthony]

What i think is that Darden was maby one or two prosecutors that were black. Most prosecutors in the la DA were white so it would not have been
surprise to see a all white DA table. As a matter of fact it was a all white table before Garcetti added Darden.

It has been stated that there were other DAS available that had more trial experience than Darden.I think Darden was a junior prosecutor.If true what would be the reason to put a less experienced person on such a high profile complicated case when more experienced prosecutors were available? imo

There was an assistant prosecutor in the trial of the officers that beat Rodney King that was Black, Terry White, who did an admirable job, imho. I think that Darden had the characteristics the prosecution was looking for but the prosecution hadn't counted on the infamous MF tapes or how Darden would view himself after hearing them.

[William Anthony]

I must agree with the court. :)

Mr. Cochran's feigned outrage at the suggestion that there is a differernce between white and black voices is nothing more than a ploy to incite the jury. The differences in voice is based on bone structure -- what is racist about saying that?

I must agree with the magnificent one, as Blacks come in all shades and sizes, and so do their voices and to make a generalization about bone structure reinforces those old stereotypes found in the text books I read when I attended high school and college immediately after high school. America has changed but the stereotypes have not, as recently shown on this board, when comparing AC to step-n-fetchit.

[William Anthony]

Because he was part of the evil conspiracy to frame OJ Simpson for double murder. I wish someone out of the large number of people that were in on the conspiracy would write a tell-all book. It would take just one person to blow the lid off this thing. I swear, these people can really keep a secret!

martin, are you admitting there was actually blood on the gate on June 13?

I think Martin is only admitting that there was testimony to the effect that he was allegedly ordered to collect the gate stain on that date, as I understood his post.

[tv]

I don't think it requires a large conspiracy to frame a person.Maby 1 or 2 and the blue wall of keeps others silent.imo

If that were true, the blue wall would be a part of a large conspiracy. Don't forget the 14 cops that were at Bundy before the head conspirator arrived -- referred to as MF by you. :)

[tv]

I think Martin is only admitting that there was testimony to the effect that he was allegedly ordered to collect the gate stain on that date, as I understood his post.Why do you think he was ordered to collect the blood on the gate on June 13? The obvious answer is because there was blood on the gate that needed to be collected.

[William Anthony]

Why do you think he was ordered to collect the blood on the gate on June 13? The obvious answer is because there was blood on the gate that needed to be collected.

That would be an obvious inference, if you find his testimony credible. :)

[tv]

I must agree with the magnificent one, as Blacks come in all shades and sizes, and so do their voices and to make a generalization about bone structure reinforces those old stereotypes found in the text books I read when I attended high school and college immediately after high school. America has changed but the stereotypes have not, as recently shown on this board, when comparing AC to step-n-fetchit.


There are physical characteristics unique to each race as you well know. God, in his infinite wisdom, made us all different and also all the same. It's been a while since you and I went to high school. I said before that the differences are subtle and not infallible. Please don't judge what I'm saying by what you remember from those books.

[tv]

That would be an obvious inference, if you find his testimony credible. :)I could be mistaken but I believe the head conspirator documented the blood on the back gate in his notes. :)

[William Anthony]

There are physical characteristics unique to each race as you well know. God, in his infinite wisdom, made us all different and also all the same. It's been a while since you and I went to high school. I said before that the differences are subtle and not infallible. Please don't judge what I'm saying by what you remember from those books.

Good Morning Ms. Dinner, :)

I am not judging you by what you said but I think that to convict a person requires more that a generalization about a race. We have all been programed to a certain degree by those text books and the propaganda contained therein. I was able to rise above what was in those books when I saw the world as God intended for us to see, if we have a receptive heart and an open mind. After I was able to deal with my anger from being deceived, I was able to understand that generalizations are not acceptable, even though I do sometimes use them.:) The problem here is that the prosecution tried to generalize about a race of people, as opposed to limiting the question to the recognition of Simpson's voice, until the court instructed the prosecution otherwise. That is what is racist, imho.

[William Anthony]

I could be mistaken but I believe the head conspirator documented the blood on the back gate in his notes. :)

Can notes be doctored/altered/changed/manipulated?

[tv]

Good Morning Ms. Dinner, :)

I am not judging you by what you said but I think that to convict a person requires more that a generalization about a race. We have all been programed to a certain degree by those text books and the propaganda contained therein. I was able to rise above what was in those books when I saw the world as God intended for us to see, if we have a receptive heart and an open mind. After I was able to deal with my anger from being deceived, I was able to understand that generalizations are not acceptable, even though I do sometimes use them.:) The problem here is that the prosecution tried to generalize about a race of people, as opposed to limiting the question to the recognition of Simpson's voice, until the court instructed the prosecution otherwise. That is what is racist, imho.
I don't think anyone, even OJ Simpson, should be convicted on voice alone. That was one piece of evidence in the totality of all the evidence. Besides, even if Mr. Heidstra had said it was a black voice then it would have to be argued that it was OJ Simpson's voice.

William, I'm glad you have a receptive heart and an open mind. I sometimes find my heart less receptive as time goes on. I always try to keep an open mind, however.

[tv]

Can notes be doctored/altered/changed/manipulated?

Are you suggesting the head conspirator doctored/altered/changed or otherwise manipulated his notes? Is this something you believe?

[William Anthony]

I don't think anyone, even OJ Simpson, should be convicted on voice alone. That was one piece of evidence in the totality of all the evidence. Besides, even if Mr. Heidstra had said it was a black voice then it would have to be argued that it was OJ Simpson's voice.

William, I'm glad you have a receptive heart and an open mind. I sometimes find my heart less receptive as time goes on. I always try to keep an open mind, however.

My point is and I agree with you that no one should be convicted on voice alone that the question was so improper that it should have never been asked and the only way to allow it would be to engage in speculation and to adhere to a racial generalization. It was the prosecution that played the race card and cannot say that it was for impeachment, because they did not offer any evidence to impeach that testimony, as did the defense with MF. It could not have been argued that it was Simpson's voice, without a sustained objection, imho, unless Heidstra had identified the voice as one similar to that of Simpson.

I will try to speak to your mind and not your heart. :)

[William Anthony]

Are you suggesting the head conspirator doctored/altered/changed or otherwise manipulated his notes? Is this something you believe?

You should not answer a question with a question. My question was a simple one and requires a yes or no. If you need a chance to explain your answer, you may have it.:)

[tv]

You should not answer a question with a question. My question was a simple one and requires a yes or no. If you need a chance to explain your answer, you may have it.:) I think you need to explain your question first.

[William Anthony]

I think you need to explain your question first.

Very well, let me ask another one, before I come back to that one. Can a person slant, meaning offer it in a manner to benefit one party in a trial and not the other party, their testimony?

[tv]

Very well, let me ask another one, before I come back to that one. Can a person slant, meaning offer it in a manner to benefit one party in a trial and not the other party, their testimony?

It's done all the time as you well know.

[William Anthony]

It's done all the time as you well know.

Thank you. What is the common usage of the pronoun, I, and, please, bear with me by providing the answer as it will all become clear in a second?

[William Anthony]

It is my firm believe that tvdinner is no longer logged in, so I offer the following testimony of DF for consideration in answer to my question of slanting.

"MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, after you were cross-examined by Mr. Scheck about this issue of the Grand Jury transcript and, umm, the issue of whether or not you wanted to conceal the existence of Andrea Mazzola--do you remember that?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Were you trying to be careful to specify who physically collected what?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And during the cross-examination did you notice that you were still at time testifying in conformity with your habit of using the term "I" or making it sound--

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you notice, even after that, that you were testifying at times in conformity with your habit?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading. Move to strike.

THE COURT: Stricken. The jury is to disregard."

I think we all can agree that the pronoun I has a distinctively different meaning from the pronoun we. I think that we all can agree that DF, with the assistance of the lack of integrity by the prosecution, was trying to slant his testimony in order to alter/doctor/change/manipulate his notes and the jury, if they reached that conclusion, was free to apply the doctrine of falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus.

[William Anthony]

I think that DF would have come across more credible, if he said I was trying to take credit for work that I had not done, which would have opened up a different line of cross from the dream team but, at least, imho, his credibility would not have been so destroyed.

[tv]

Thank you. What is the common usage of the pronoun, I, and, please, bear with me by providing the answer as it will all become clear in a second?Logged in but distracted. I'm not sure exactly what answer you're looking for but I would say the common usage of "I" is referring to one's self.

[William Anthony]

Are you suggesting the head conspirator doctored/altered/changed or otherwise manipulated his notes? Is this something you believe?

I have now provided you with the testimony, albeit stricken, that allows me to say, yes, DF attempted to doctor/alter/change or otherwise manipulate his notes via his testimony.

[tv]

I think that DF would have come across more credible, if he said I was trying to take credit for work that I had not done, which would have opened up a different line of cross from the dream team but, at least, imho, his credibility would not have been so destroyed.I've never claimed that Dennis Fung was the brightest bulb in the lamp but I don't think he was being deliberately deceitful, either.

[William Anthony]

Logged in but distracted. I'm not sure exactly what answer you're looking for but I would say the common usage of "I" is referring to one's self.

Thank You and that is the common and accepted use of that particular pronoun, imho. DF lost all credibility and so did the prosecution, imho, by trying to suggest that I meant we.

[William Anthony]

I've never claimed that Dennis Fung was the brightest bulb in the lamp but I don't think he was being deliberately deceitful, either.

Did he deliberately write the word I? I guess it was another of the prosecutions' innocent mistakes. Do you believe that a person should be convicted on testimony that has questionable credibility?

[tv]

Thank You and that is the common and accepted use of that particular pronoun, imho. DF lost all credibility and so did the prosecution, imho, by trying to suggest that I meant we.It would seem that the prosecution lost all credibility with you several times. I thought the same of the defense. :)

[William Anthony]

It would seem that the prosecution lost all credibility with you several times. I thought the same of the defense. :)

You are correct and the prosecution had the higher burden of putting forth evidence of a caliber that was credible and could show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty as accused. I know you find it incredible that the defense was so thoroughly able to destroy the credibility of the prosecution's alleged "mountain of evidence", smile.

[tv]

Did he deliberately write the word I? I guess it was another of the prosecutions' innocent mistakes. Do you believe that a person should be convicted on testimony that has questionable credibility?I didn't find the collection of the evidence to be questionable. Dennis Fung didn't do well on the stand. He was in way over his head with the defense. Remember how he shook hands with them after his testimony as they patted him on the back and then they claimed in the closing argument that he conspired to frame OJ Simpson? Naive is a word I'd use to describe Dennis Fung.

[tv]

You are correct and the prosecution had the higher burden of putting forth evidence of a caliber that was credible and could show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty as accused. I know you find it incredible that the defense was so thoroughly able to destroy the credibility of the prosecution's alleged "mountain of evidence", smile.I don't find it incredible at all because they didn't destroy the mountain of evidence. OJ Simpson's acquittal was payback for the Rodney King verdict. Plain and simple. :)

[William Anthony]

I didn't find the collection of the evidence to be questionable. Dennis Fung didn't do well on the stand. He was in way over his head with the defense. Remember how he shook hands with them after his testimony as they patted him on the back and then they claimed in the closing argument that he conspired to frame OJ Simpson? Naive is a word I'd use to describe Dennis Fung.

Falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus. Whether he did or did not do something untoward or whether or not Mazzola did or did not all became questionable when DF tried to slant his testimony incredibly to suggest that he routinely uses I to mean we. He was in way over his head when he allowed the prosecution to destroy his credibility in front of the jury. The larger fact that the prosecution tried to conceal was that an inexperienced Mazzola collected mostly all of the evidence, and when trapped, decided to ask those preposterous questions making DF look totally unbelievable. He was naive in thinking the prosecution was his friend but smart enough to answer in a manner that meant job security by showing the prosecution I am with you regardless or did he mean we, :).

[William Anthony]

I don't find it incredible at all because they didn't destroy the mountain of evidence. OJ Simpson's acquittal was payback for the Rodney King verdict. Plain and simple. :)

Ah, we have the issue of race placed squarely before the board, again. :) When faced with the testimony and its incredulity it is often the tendency to say the case was about racial payback.:)

[weezer]

It is my firm believe that tvdinner is no longer logged in, so I offer the following testimony of DF for consideration in answer to my question of slanting.

"MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, after you were cross-examined by Mr. Scheck about this issue of the Grand Jury transcript and, umm, the issue of whether or not you wanted to conceal the existence of Andrea Mazzola--do you remember that?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Were you trying to be careful to specify who physically collected what?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And during the cross-examination did you notice that you were still at time testifying in conformity with your habit of using the term "I" or making it sound--

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you notice, even after that, that you were testifying at times in conformity with your habit?

MR. FUNG: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading. Move to strike.

THE COURT: Stricken. The jury is to disregard."

I think we all can agree that the pronoun I has a distinctively different meaning from the pronoun we. I think that we all can agree that DF, with the assistance of the lack of integrity by the prosecution, was trying to slant his testimony in order to alter/doctor/change/manipulate his notes and the jury, if they reached that conclusion, was free to apply the doctrine of falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus.

william, the prosecution and defense both used video of evidence collection at both scenes -- and you still think they were 'hiding' Mazzola? lol

[tv]

Ah, we have the issue of race placed squarely before the board, again. :) When faced with the testimony and its incredulity it is often the tendency to say the case was about racial payback.:)After the black power salute and remarks from the jury about 'taking care of our own' that's the impression I'm left with. I'm just being honest. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

william, the prosecution and defense both used video of evidence collection at both scenes -- and you still think they were 'hiding' Mazzola? lol

I said attempted but knew they were trapped. DF clearly was trying to say he (I) collected the majority of the evidence but Mazzola wrote on the evidence collection report that she was the OIC. The prosecution unethically, imho, tried to rehabilitate DF by those preposterous questions but only were successful in destroying his credibility. I'll bet DF will not say they put we through a vigorous cross.:)

[William Anthony]

After the black power salute and remarks from the jury about 'taking care of our own' that's the impression I'm left with. I'm just being honest. :shrug:

I understand and that is a way of looking at it. I choose to look at it through the prism of the caliber of the evidence presented, keeping in mind reasonable doubt, before I judge 12 people that I have never come in contact with. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

The case on trutv is awaiting a verdict and there was a discussion of the Robert Blake case, in which it was said that the jury stated they had a hunch but the prosecution failed to put the gun in his hand. The prosecution in the Simpson case failed to put the knife in his hand and they are now discussing the concept of reasonable doubt. It was brief and not of much substance, because that concept has not been adequately explained, imho.

[William Anthony]

To clarify, Mazzola put herself as OIC on the vehicle search report form at Rockingham.

[William Anthony]

After the black power salute and remarks from the jury about 'taking care of our own' that's the impression I'm left with. I'm just being honest. :shrug:

Did any juror say this is payback for Rodney King or is this just your impression based on the aforementioned statement and conduct and do you believe there was reasonable doubt?

[William Anthony]

Logged in but distracted. I'm not sure exactly what answer you're looking for but I would say the common usage of "I" is referring to one's self.

Can't those pms be distracting. :)

[weezer]

I said attempted but knew they were trapped. DF clearly was trying to say he (I) collected the majority of the evidence but Mazzola wrote on the evidence collection report that she was the OIC. The prosecution unethically, imho, tried to rehabilitate DF by those preposterous questions but only were successful in destroying his credibility. I'll bet DF will not say they put we through a vigorous cross.:)

I guess your analogy would be the pictures showing Nicole beaten and battered and orenthal swearing he never touched her?

I work in a group setting -- it is not uncommon to hear someone refer to a project with 'I", 'them,' 'us,' 'we.'

[William Anthony]

I guess your analogy would be the pictures showing Nicole beaten and battered and orenthal swearing he never touched her?

I work in a group setting -- it is not uncommon to hear someone refer to a project with 'I", 'them,' 'us,' 'we.'

I live in the northeast United States and when working in a team, when people say I they mean that was done personally. When they say we and us, that means collectively. When they say them or they that means the person was not personally involved. I have read things written by people from different countries and I have found that is the way they use those pronouns. What country do you live in? :) You may make a good California prosecutor, :).

[William Anthony]

I guess your analogy would be the pictures showing Nicole beaten and battered and orenthal swearing he never touched her?

I work in a group setting -- it is not uncommon to hear someone refer to a project with 'I", 'them,' 'us,' 'we.'

I don't think the charges included spousal or domestic abuse.

[weezer]

I don't think the charges included spousal or domestic abuse.

and that means what?

[William Anthony]

and that means what?

Irrelevant, immaterial and superfluous to the case.

[weezer]

I live in the northeast United States and when working in a team, when people say I they mean that was done personally. When they say we and us, that means collectively. When they say them or they that means the person was not personally involved. I have read things written by people from different countries and I have found that is the way they use those pronouns. What country do you live in? :) You may make a good California prosecutor, :).

ahh -- see there quite possibly is the problem -- you live in the north! :tongue:

[weezer]

Irrelevant, immaterial and superfluous to the case.

no -- it was very relevant and material to the case. the fact that some folks in some communities accepted orenthal's adultery and beating/abusing Nicole formed one leg of the stool on which he was acquitted. imo

[William Anthony]

ahh -- see there quite possibly is the problem -- you live in the north! :tongue:

I don't think this is the problem but the problem is the incredible lengths others will go to in order to justify a miserable prosecution. This is from Stephen F. Austin, the father of Texas and I ask that you note how he uses the pronoun, I,:).

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ssc/primary_resources/pdf/texas/Austins_Letter_from_Prison.pdf

[William Anthony]

no -- it was very relevant and material to the case. the fact that some folks in some communities accepted orenthal's adultery and beating/abusing Nicole formed one leg of the stool on which he was acquitted. imo

I think that most of the United States' courtrooms have adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence and I would venture to say that all of them have come to the conclusion that evidence has to be more probative than prejudicial in order to be relevant and, if this had been a domestic or spousal abuse case, that evidence may have fit that standard. You keep saying but have never been specific, although requested to be so, which communities and which folks accepted Simpson's abuse of Ms. NBS.

[weezer]

I don't think this is the problem but the problem is the incredible lengths others will go to in order to justify a miserable prosecution. This is from Stephen F. Austin, the father of Texas and I ask that you note how he uses the pronoun, I,:).

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/ssc/primary_resources/pdf/texas/Austins_Letter_from_Prison.pdf

and even more so is the ridiculous and incredible lengths some will go to in order to excuse a double murderer because of the color of his skin. :seeya:

[weezer]

I think that most of the United States' courtrooms have adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence and I would venture to say that all of them have come to the conclusion that evidence has to be more probative than prejudicial in order to be relevant and, if this had been a domestic or spousal abuse case, that evidence may have fit that standard. You keep saying but have never been specific, although requested to be so, which communities and which folks accepted Simpson's abuse of Ms. NBS.

Were you able to write that with a straight face?! LOL

the beatings of Nicole and the book taping of Fuhrman happened in the same time period. Which of those two things do you think had more relevance to the murder of Nicole?

[William Anthony]

and even more so is the ridiculous and incredible lengths some will go to in order to excuse a double murderer because of the color of his skin. :seeya:

I don't know if Simpson is the murderer or not, which has nothing to do with the color of his skin to me, but it does have to do with the miserable prosecution case and the magnificent defense case or reasonable doubt, if you will. Adios.

[William Anthony]

Were you able to write that with a straight face?! LOL

the beatings of Nicole and the book taping of Fuhrman happened in the same time period. Which of those two things do you think had more relevance to the murder of Nicole?

You seem to be missing a very important distinction. MF was impeached, his credibility destroyed, as was DF, by virtue of the appearances on the witness stand, which the common law and rules of evidence allow for the impeachment of a witness as it relates to his proclivity to tell the truth. Simpson was not charged with spousal or domestic abuse, although the court allowed some limited evidence of that nature in regard to motive. The defense countered that with evidence that Simpson had resigned himself to the fact that the relationship was over. Whether you believe he had the motive to commit the crime becomes irrelevant, imho, without evidence of a sufficient caliber to allow you to infer that he committed the crime, which is where the prosecution failed miserably.

[weezer]

I don't know if Simpson is the murderer or not, which has nothing to do with the color of his skin to me, but it does have to do with the miserable prosecution case and the magnificent defense case or reasonable doubt, if you will. Adios.

we all know that orenthal is the murderer -- it's been proven twice and he confessed at least once.

the prosecution wasn't miserable, the people looking for an excuse for the pass they were/are willing to give orenthal have used that myth for years.

any reasonable person looking at this case would think: hair, blood, fiber, footprints, beating, adultery, threatening, stalking, peeping tom, no alibi at the time of the murders -- hmmm......

but not some -- they scream/rant/rave that the world framed orenthal. what a joke!

[weezer]

You seem to be missing a very important distinction. MF was impeached, his credibility destroyed, as was DF, by virtue of the appearances on the witness stand, which the common law and rules of evidence allow for the impeachment of a witness as it relates to his proclivity to tell the truth. Simpson was not charged with spousal or domestic abuse, although the court allowed some limited evidence of that nature in regard to motive. The defense countered that with evidence that Simpson had resigned himself to the fact that the relationship was over. Whether you believe he had the motive to commit the crime becomes irrelevant, imho, without evidence of a sufficient caliber to allow you to infer that he committed the crime, which is where the prosecution failed miserably.

I'm going with the hair, fiber, blood, footprints and history. You do whatever it is that makes you feel good. Just don't continue to say orenthal got away with double murder because of the prosecution -- it ain't so.

[William Anthony]

and even more so is the ridiculous and incredible lengths some will go to in order to excuse a double murderer because of the color of his skin. :seeya:

I did not mean you any offense by that statement. It is just that I was saying that some will refuse to see the light of the prosecution's tactics, because they believe that Simpson is the murder and will not consider the concept of reasonable doubt. I hope you understand and didn't take my use of some personally, as I did not take it when you used some folks in some communities.

[William Anthony]

I'm going with the hair, fiber, blood, footprints and history. You do whatever it is that makes you feel good. Just don't continue to say orenthal got away with double murder because of the prosecution -- it ain't so.

In difference to frump2, so you are going with the junk crafts. :)

[weezer]

In difference to frump2, so you are going with the junk crafts. :)

how do you suppose barry scheck and company feels about this new theory?

does this mean that the people freed using those 'junk crafts' can now be locked back up or is this like most things you champion and it's going to work one way?

[William Anthony]

we all know that orenthal is the murderer -- it's been proven twice and he confessed at least once.

the prosecution wasn't miserable, the people looking for an excuse for the pass they were/are willing to give orenthal have used that myth for years.

any reasonable person looking at this case would think: hair, blood, fiber, footprints, beating, adultery, threatening, stalking, peeping tom, no alibi at the time of the murders -- hmmm......

but not some -- they scream/rant/rave that the world framed orenthal. what a joke!

I am not of the opinion that the world framed Simpson but there was evidence that he was framed and the majority of the world was able to overlook that evidence, because for whatever reason, they believed him guilty, despite, imho, the prosecution's miserable failure to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

how do you suppose barry scheck and company feels about this new theory?

does this mean that the people freed using those 'junk crafts' can now be locked back up or is this like most things you champion and it's going to work one way?

I think that they are happy to have the crafts exposed.

I would offer an educated guess and say that a person once tried and later exonerated not simply released cannot be retried because of the concept of double jeopardy.

[weezer]

I think that they are happy to have the crafts exposed.

I would offer an educated guess and say that a person once tried and later exonerated not simply released cannot be retried because of the concept of double jeopardy.

and what about the people found 'innocent' and released using 'junk crafts'?

[William Anthony]

and what about the people found 'innocent' and released using 'junk crafts'?

I am really trying to understand. If you mean people that have been tried and found not guilty, then double jeopardy applies.

[weezer]

I am not of the opinion that the world framed Simpson but there was evidence that he was framed and the majority of the world was able to overlook that evidence, because for whatever reason, they believed him guilty, despite, imho, the prosecution's miserable failure to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

"I'm not. . ." but "there is. . ." -- LOL

there is and has never been any credible evidence that anyone at anytime either tried or did frame orenthal.

I believe orenthal murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown based on hair, blood, fiber, footprints, no alibi, history of abuse and threats. . . .and as much as all of those, orenthal's lies.

[fgump2]

I said attempted but knew they were trapped. DF clearly was trying to say he (I) collected the majority of the evidence but Mazzola wrote on the evidence collection report that she was the OIC. The prosecution unethically, imho, tried to rehabilitate DF by those preposterous questions but only were successful in destroying his credibility. I'll bet DF will not say they put we through a vigorous cross.:)

I think that the defense spent far too much time questioning the prosecution technicians about their memories of what the did several months earlier. The study of forensic memory shows that most people over estimate the accuracy of their own memories, and also over estimate how accurate other people’s memories are, or should be. It is also true that most people think less clearly than usual when someone is questioning them in an abrasive manner. To make Dennis Fung look bad in those circumstances wasn’t difficult. It also doesn’t add much to a juror’s understanding of the crime. Dennis Fung probably got up there thinking they would ask about the way the evidence was processed.
I think if there was much evidence of the crime evidence being mishandled the defense would have felt no need of asking questions about who did what.
To quote a forensic memory expert, Elizabeth Loftus: My research shows that memory is malleable--and that it is a flimsy
curtain indeed that separates memory from imagination.
I've seen how false memories can destroy lives, especially when such
mistakes in recollection work their way into the legal system. As a
result of eyewitness accounts of imagined events, I've seen more than a
few innocent people sent to prison.
In this case the defense was trying to use memory weaknesses as a way to keep a guilty man out of jail. I think the term 'junk science' fits the defense questions about which technician did what.
I understand the natural sciences better than I understand criminology. A lot of experiments in the natural sciences have been rejected for some reason or another, but as far as I know never because the experimenters couldn’t remember who did what several months earlier.

[William Anthony]

"I'm not. . ." but "there is. . ." -- LOL

there is and has never been any credible evidence that anyone at anytime either tried or did frame orenthal.

I believe orenthal murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown based on hair, blood, fiber, footprints, no alibi, history of abuse and threats. . . .and as much as all of those, orenthal's lies.

Please, quote me correctly in the future.:)

Credibility is in the eye and mind of the beholder. What you say is credible, I can and have said is incredible. :)

You may rely on the junk crafts but I rely on the concept of reasonable doubt to say that I do not know who murdered the two victims and, consequently, have never formed a belief in the matter, based on the miserable prosecution of Simpson. I have suspicions but not enough evidence to form a conclusion.

[weezer]

I am really trying to understand. If you mean people that have been tried and found not guilty, then double jeopardy applies.

so, what you're really saying is the 'junk arts' should only be used if it benefits the accused/criminal/guilty. now, why doesn't that surprise me? LOL

[weezer]

Please, quote me correctly in the future.:)

Credibility is in the eye and mind of the beholder. What you say is credible, I can and have said is incredible. :)

You may rely on the junk crafts but I rely on the concept of reasonable doubt to say that I do not know who murdered the two victims and, consequently, have never formed a belief in the matter, based on the miserable prosecution of Simpson. I have suspicions but not enough evidence to form a conclusion.

here is what is clear to me about your beliefs in this case -- and most others I would venture -- LE did it.

[William Anthony]

I think that the defense spent far too much time questioning the prosecution technicians about their memories of what the did several months earlier. The study of forensic memory shows that most people over estimate the accuracy of their own memories, and also over estimate how accurate other people’s memories are, or should be. It is also true that most people think less clearly than usual when someone is questioning them in an abrasive manner. To make Dennis Fung look bad in those circumstances wasn’t difficult. It also doesn’t add much to a juror’s understanding of the crime. Dennis Fung probably got up there thinking they would ask about the way the evidence was processed.
I think if there was much evidence of the crime evidence being mishandled the defense would have felt no need of asking questions about who did what.
To quote a forensic memory expert, Elizabeth Loftus: My research shows that memory is malleable--and that it is a flimsy
curtain indeed that separates memory from imagination.
I've seen how false memories can destroy lives, especially when such
mistakes in recollection work their way into the legal system. As a
result of eyewitness accounts of imagined events, I've seen more than a
few innocent people sent to prison.
In this case the defense was trying to use memory weaknesses as a way to keep a guilty man out of jail. I think the term 'junk science' fits the defense questions about which technician did what.
I understand the natural sciences better than I understand criminology. A lot of experiments in the natural sciences have been rejected for some reason or another, but as far as I know never because the experimenters couldn’t remember who did what several months earlier.

I agree with Ms. Loftus that memory is malleable as apparently is testimony, if one is so inclined to slant it. It appears that was the case as the prosecution tried incredibly to mold DF's memory into a theory that he wrote routinely on reports I when he meant we. The report was generated at or near the time the items were collected. If DF's memory was that short he should not have been working, imho. The art of cross examination is very hard to hone, whether you think it a junk science or not, it is an art to be admired, as it calls for quick thinking and a clear memory of sometimes immediate testimony, which I would call an art, and think that DF would not be that type of artist. The bottom line is that the magnificent defense provided evidence form which the jury could apply falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus as it related to DF and other prosecution witnesses, or reasonable doubt, if you will.

[William Anthony]

so, what you're really saying is the 'junk arts' should only be used if it benefits the accused/criminal/guilty. now, why doesn't that surprise me? LOL

Not true. I am merely reminding you of legal concepts. :)

[William Anthony]

here is what is clear to me about your beliefs in this case -- and most others I would venture -- LE did it.

Not true. I don't know who did it and am unable to form a belief as to who did it, because of the miserable prosecution of Simpson.

[weezer]

Not true. I am merely reminding you of legal concepts. :)

I understand legal concepts and double jeopardy, blah, blah, blah. Now, do you believe 'junk craft' should be used to free people found guilty?

[William Anthony]

I understand legal concepts and double jeopardy, blah, blah, blah. Now, do you believe 'junk craft' should be used to free people found guilty?

I don't understand blah, blah, blah. No, unless it is shown that the craftsman subjectively interpreted the results wrongly.

[weezer]

Not true. I don't know who did it and am unable to form a belief as to who did it, because of the miserable prosecution of Simpson.

you know, for someone who pushes other posters to be honest about their feelings and beliefs, you sure avoid it.

I can only speak for myself but I'm not really impressed with the fact that you want to be a lawyer and that you've studied toward that goal other than to say, good for you -- go for it. I don't think you have any greater insight into the murders than the next guy. and your views are, at times, actually distorted by your obvious hatred for LE.

the prosecution of orenthal wasn't miserable. the orenthal apologists and folks needing to further their cause believe that a lie told often enough becomes the truth. or at least it has for them. the rest of the world believes orenthal james simpson butchered two human beings: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. and on the night he butchered them, he left behind at the murder scene his blood, hair, fiber and footprints; he took to his car the blood of both victims as well as his own.

whether or not Dennis Fung said "I" or 'we' doesn't mean squat to me. I watched the same clips you did and it showed both criminalists collecting evidence at both scenes. To proffer a silly argument that they were 'hiding' one of them is laughable.

[William Anthony]

you know, for someone who pushes other posters to be honest about their feelings and beliefs, you sure avoid it.

I can only speak for myself but I'm not really impressed with the fact that you want to be a lawyer and that you've studied toward that goal other than to say, good for you -- go for it. I don't think you have any greater insight into the murders than the next guy. and your views are, at times, actually distorted by your obvious hatred for LE.

the prosecution of orenthal wasn't miserable. the orenthal apologists and folks needing to further their cause believe that a lie told often enough becomes the truth. or at least it has for them. the rest of the world believes orenthal james simpson butchered two human beings: Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. and on the night he butchered them, he left behind at the murder scene his blood, hair, fiber and footprints; he took to his car the blood of both victims as well as his own.

whether or not Dennis Fung said "I" or 'we' doesn't mean squat to me. I watched the same clips you did and it showed both criminalists collecting evidence at both scenes. To proffer a silly argument that they were 'hiding' one of them is laughable.

Because I am hesitant to draw a conclusion, does not mean that I am being dishonest and I hope you understand that.

I readily admit that I have no greater insight into who actually committed the murders than the next guy, which is why I do not rush to judgment. I hope that my studying the law enables me not to rush to judgment and it gives me a better insight into the legal issues than others, otherwise my training, experience and studying was for naught. One may argue that your views are distorted by your obvious hatred of Simpson but I have quoted the testimony and have not come up with the laughable notion that the meaning of the pronoun I depends on what part of the United States on lives in or that it is a common thing to say I when you mean we.

Most professionals in the legal field readily admit that the prosecution bungled the case and I will defer to their opinions, even if they believe Simpson did it. The fact that the information about the junk crafts has come to light reinforces my opinion of reasonable doubt.

I have never said that the prosecution hid Mazzola I said they attempted to hide the fact that she, as a novice collected most of the evidence. However, which you correctly pointed out, when faced with the indisputable evidence of that, they attempted to make DF say he routinely misspeaks and destroyed his credibility, imho. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

[William Anthony]

whether or not Dennis Fung said "I" or 'we' doesn't mean squat to me.

I know but don't understand why not.

[weezer]

Because I am hesitant to draw a conclusion, does not mean that I am being dishonest and I hope you understand that.

I readily admit that I have no greater insight into who actually committed the murders than the next guy, which is why I do not rush to judgment. I hope that my studying the law enables me not to rush to judgment and it gives me a better insight into the legal issues than others, otherwise my training, experience and studying was for naught. One may argue that your views are distorted by your obvious hatred of Simpson but I have quoted the testimony and have not come up with the laughable notion that the meaning of the pronoun I depends on what part of the United States on lives in or that it is a common thing to say I when you mean we.

Most professionals in the legal field readily admit that the prosecution bungled the case and I will defer to their opinions, even if they believe Simpson did it. The fact that the information about the junk crafts has come to light reinforces my opinion of reasonable doubt.

I have never said that the prosecution hid Mazzola I said they attempted to hide the fact that she, as a novice collected most of the evidence. However, which you correctly pointed out, when faced with the indisputable evidence of that, they attempted to make DF say he routinely misspeaks and destroyed his credibility, imho. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

but that is the dishonesty william -- evreyone but you knows what your opinion is: orenthal couldn't have done it because LE did.

I don't know what environment you live and/or work in -- actually, I don't care -- but when I say that the environment I live and work in does in fact use those words interchangably when talking about a group effort, that's exactly what I mean. As a manager, I will also tell you that I've used the word "I" in presentations when it wasn't "I" but "we" who performed the work.

and william, the prosecution wasn't 'faced' with anything for Pete's sake -- the prosecution used the video just like the defense and knew what was on the video.

you give waaaay too much credit to a defense team that is undeserving of such worship. especially when we all understand that the court was stacked in their favor. :rolleyes:

[weezer]

I know but don't understand why not.

because I understand something you don't -- or can't. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

but that is the dishonesty william -- evreyone but you knows what your opinion is: orenthal couldn't have done it because LE did.

I don't know what environment you live and/or work in -- actually, I don't care -- but when I say that the environment I live and work in does in fact use those words interchangably when talking about a group effort, that's exactly what I mean. As a manager, I will also tell you that I've used the word "I" in presentations when it wasn't "I" but "we" who performed the work.

and william, the prosecution wasn't 'faced' with anything for Pete's sake -- the prosecution used the video just like the defense and knew what was on the video.

you give waaaay too much credit to a defense team that is undeserving of such worship. especially when we all understand that the court was stacked in their favor. :rolleyes:

This is worthy of repetition, "but that is the dishonesty william -- evreyone but you knows what your opinion is: orenthal couldn't have done it because LE did." So, everyone but me knows my opinion.:)

This is also worthy of repetition even if I find it incredible, "but when I say that the environment I live and work in does in fact use those words interchangably when talking about a group effort, that's exactly what I mean." It is funny how you use the word I the same as those who live and work in my environment, whether in a team or solo, would have used it. :)

Of course they knew what was on the video but short term memory loss DF did not at the time he created his report.

You do not give the dream team as much credit as they deserve, imho. They stacked up the court with the mistakes/human errors/inconsistencies/lies of the prosecution's witnesses. :)

[William Anthony]

because I understand something you don't -- or can't. :shrug:

I see, you don't think a lie when told by a prosecution witness "means squat." You are right I can't understand that.

[weezer]

I see, you don't think a lie when told by a prosecution witness "means squat." You are right I can't understand that.

no william -- the part that you aren't capable of is not assuming LE is lying. The witness didn't lie -- there was no reason to --

[weezer]

This is worthy of repetition, "but that is the dishonesty william -- evreyone but you knows what your opinion is: orenthal couldn't have done it because LE did." So, everyone but me knows my opinion.:)

This is also worthy of repetition even if I find it incredible, "but when I say that the environment I live and work in does in fact use those words interchangably when talking about a group effort, that's exactly what I mean." It is funny how you use the word I the same as those who live and work in my environment, whether in a team or solo, would have used it. :)

Of course they knew what was on the video but short term memory loss DF did not at the time he created his report.

You do not give the dream team as much credit as they deserve, imho. They stacked up the court with the mistakes/human errors/inconsistencies/lies of the prosecution's witnesses. :)

here's the problem when an average guy believes he's smarter than everyone else -- he thinks he's fooling folks with his double talk and evasions. he's not. most of us just get tired of it and walk away.

I understand your problem with comprehending the use of the word "I" -- the part that I understand and you obviously don't it, some of us don't have to be the "I" -- some us can be 'we'. . . .

so Mr. Fung wrote his report and what? he hadn't been doing the job long enough to know that the other criminalist was also writing a report? come on william --

[William Anthony]

no william -- the part that you aren't capable of is not assuming LE is lying. The witness didn't lie -- there was no reason to --

So, every time he wrote I he meant we, because he was in the minority of one like you, and it mattered not that Mazzola was still in training and that the defense would have a field day, as they did with their cross of her evidence collection, handling and storage techniques. He had all the reason in the world to lie, which would have been the cross if that line of questioning had not been sustained.

Q. So, Mr. Fung, you routinely take credit or it appears so because you routinely use the word I, for work that others perform.

Q. Is your use of the word I on evidence collection reports taken into consideration by your supervisor's when you considering a promotion based on the amount of work you preform, if you know?

Q. Do you think that you are being overpaid, because you routinely use the word I when others have done the actual work?

Q. You were not trying to be dishonest when you used the word I for work others did, were you?

Either way he lied.

[weezer]

So, every time he wrote I he meant we, because he was in the minority of one like you, and it mattered not that Mazzola was still in training and that the defense would have a field day, as they did with their cross of her evidence collection, handling and storage techniques. He had all the reason in the world to lie, which would have been the cross if that line of questioning had not been sustained.

Q. So, Mr. Fung, you routinely take credit or it appears so because you routinely use the word I, for work that others perform.

Q. Is your use of the word I on evidence collection reports taken into consideration by your supervisor's when you considering a promotion based on the amount of work you preform, if you know?

Q. Do you think that you are being overpaid, because you routinely use the word I when others have done the actual work?

Q. You were not trying to be dishonest when you used the word I for work others did, were you?

Either way he lied.

I hate to say it again, but I have to state the obvious: there was no reason for him to lie.

[William Anthony]

here's the problem when an average guy believes he's smarter than everyone else -- he thinks he's fooling folks with his double talk and evasions. he's not. most of us just get tired of it and walk away.

I understand your problem with comprehending the use of the word "I" -- the part that I understand and you obviously don't it, some of us don't have to be the "I" -- some us can be 'we'. . . .

so Mr. Fung wrote his report and what? he hadn't been doing the job long enough to know that the other criminalist was also writing a report? come on william --

Here is the problem, when it does not fit, you must acquit. Judge Ito got tired of the prosecution's attempt to double talk and sustained those preposterous questions. Another problem is when the average person says something that just does not fit and puts themselves in the position of trying to defend the incredible, they lose credibility.

Now, you really have me confused as you said you use the word I to mean we. If you don't have to be the I then why not say we? I think you want to be the I and most of the time are the we, judging from your posts on the subject. :)

[William Anthony]

I hate to say it again, but I have to state the obvious: there was no reason for him to lie.

Being part of a team, even though he represented he (I) was the team and job security come to mind. I agree there was no important reason to lie but he did and lost credibility.

[weezer]

Here is the problem, when it does not fit, you must acquit. Judge Ito got tired of the prosecution's attempt to double talk and sustained those preposterous questions. Another problem is when the average person says something that just does not fit and puts themselves in the position of trying to defend the incredible, they lose credibility.

Now, you really have me confused as you said you use the word I to mean we. If you don't have to be the I then why not say we? I think you want to be the I and most of the time are the we, judging from your posts on the subject. :)

But you see, it did fit.

I'm a manager and I'm often in the position of representing the group. it is not uncommon for me to use the word "I" in a presentation -- especially when "I" know that the collective work is under scrutiny.

[weezer]

Being part of a team, even though he represented he (I) was the team and job security come to mind. I agree there was no important reason to lie but he did and lost credibility.

he lost credibility only with those that needed him to. ;)

[William Anthony]

But you see, it did fit.

I'm a manager and I'm often in the position of representing the group. it is not uncommon for me to use the word "I" in a presentation -- especially when "I" know that the collective work is under scrutiny.

Nothing is beginning to fit. A few days ago, you said you did not work. Let me answer this for you, if I might. You do not look upon your management of the collective work as work. I can admire you boldness to take the burden of scrutiny by saying I did it when in fact you didn't. I understand your motivation for misleading the audience, or telling a fib, if you will. That was exactly the same motivation for DF telling a lie, because he knew the collection, handling and storage of the items would be under scrutiny. However, magnanimous his or your gesture, the fact is that he lied on his report and, imho, his testimony and you did in your presentations that are being scrutinized. He could have said as you could have, although I did only a slight amount of work, the buck stops here, as I am the manager. You might not make a good Apprentice contestant if you did that but you would be telling the truth, imho. In fairness to you, you weren't under oath.

[William Anthony]

he lost credibility only with those that needed him to. ;)

He lost credibility with all those, who understand the meaning of the pronoun, I, imho.

[weezer]

Nothing is beginning to fit. A few days ago, you said you did not work. Let me answer this for you, if I might. You do not look upon your management of the collective work as work. I can admire you boldness to take the burden of scrutiny by saying I did it when in fact you didn't. I understand your motivation for misleading the audience, or telling a fib, if you will. That was exactly the same motivation for DF telling a lie, because he knew the collection, handling and storage of the items would be under scrutiny. However, magnanimous his or your gesture, the fact is that he lied on his report and, imho, his testimony and you did in your presentations that are being scrutinized. He could have said as you could have, although I did only a slight amount of work, the buck stops here, as I am the manager. You might not make a good Apprentice contestant if you did that but you would be telling the truth, imho. In fairness to you, you weren't under oath.

when did I ever say I didn't work?

you've obviously never been in a position where you present a collective work for scrutiny. To use the word "I" is not misleading nor a fib.

there was no reason for him to lie and except for the apologists, no one else believes he did. I'm not even sure the apologists believe it -- I think they just need for it to be so their excuse works. :shrug:

[weezer]

He lost credibility with all those, who understand the meaning of the pronoun, I, imho.

he lost credibility only with those that needed him to. but then, those same folks didn't expect to believe him even before he testified. . . .

[martin II]

If that were true, the blue wall would be a part of a large conspiracy. Don't forget the 14 cops that were at Bundy before the head conspirator arrived -- referred to as MF by you. :)

tv

The fourteen cops you speak of were not allowed into the crime scene. they were standing on the outside and visiting neighbors homes looking for witnesses.Only the lead detectives were inside the scene.

I am sure you already know that the blue wall of silence is active in most u.s. police departments.They protect their own.Never rat on a fellow officer.
EXAMPLE: It would only take substituting some blood samples by a lab person on orders and a litle planting of a glove in a place that the prosecution failed to prove the defendant was in that area where the glove was found.imo

[William Anthony]

when did I ever say I didn't work?

you've obviously never been in a position where you present a collective work for scrutiny. To use the word "I" is not misleading nor a fib.

there was no reason for him to lie and except for the apologists, no one else believes he did. I'm not even sure the apologists believe it -- I think they just need for it to be so their excuse works. :shrug:

You keep using the I word correctly. The search engine did not work properly but it seems we were discussing it on the OJ in the News thread.

In a work position, I have never made a presentation of anyone other than myself. As a foreman, I spoke of my crew. In college, I introduced the members of my team and explained the approach that we took as a team. I took the position that I was presenting the presentation and explained the work that each team member did in a specific area to arrive at our conclusion that our solution was the best. This way I was sure not to fib or mislead the audience into believing I was the most important part of the team.

[martin II]

I hate to say it again, but I have to state the obvious: there was no reason for him to lie.

But he did lie.

[William Anthony]

he lost credibility only with those that needed him to. but then, those same folks didn't expect to believe him even before he testified. . . .

No, he didn't lose credibility until he opened his mouth.

[weezer]

tv

The fourteen cops you speak of were not allowed into the crime scene. they were standing on the outside and visiting neighbors homes looking for witnesses.Only the lead detectives were inside the scene.

I am sure you already know that the blue wall of silence is active in most u.s. police departments.They protect their own.Never rat on a fellow officer.
EXAMPLE: It would only take substituting some blood samples by a lab person on orders and a litle planting of a glove in a place that the prosecution failed to prove the defendant was in that area where the glove was found.imo

again with the analogy: your accusation would be the same as the jury 'taking care of their own'?

[martin II]

but that is the dishonesty william -- evreyone but you knows what your opinion is: orenthal couldn't have done it because LE did.

I don't know what environment you live and/or work in -- actually, I don't care -- but when I say that the environment I live and work in does in fact use those words interchangably when talking about a group effort, that's exactly what I mean. As a manager, I will also tell you that I've used the word "I" in presentations when it wasn't "I" but "we" who performed the work.

and william, the prosecution wasn't 'faced' with anything for Pete's sake -- the prosecution used the video just like the defense and knew what was on the video.

you give waaaay too much credit to a defense team that is undeserving of such worship. especially when we all understand that the court was stacked in their favor. :rolleyes:

If Fung was asked what time did you arrive at Riockingham he would have said i arrived at 12;00 example. If he was asked what time did Mazzola arrive he would have said at 12:00 or she arrived at the time that i did.

I he was asked who took the envelope from Vanhatter he would have said i did. Not WE did.

He first said he collected all most of the samples at Rockingham.But Mazzola listed the samples she took which turned out to be most of the collected samples. It seems Fung wanted to take credit for most of the work when it was Mozzola that did most of the work.

It may be that Fung knew Mazzola was going to testify that she put her initials on the blood envelopes and he was trying to negate her testimony.imo

[weezer]

If Fung was asked what time did you arrive at Riockingham he would have said i arrived at 12;00 example. If he was asked what time did Mazzola arrive he would have said at 12:00 or she arrived at the time that i did.

I he was asked who took the envelope from Vanhatter he would have said i did. Not WE did.

He first said he collected all most of the samples at Rockingham.But Mazzola listed the samples she took which turned out to be most of the collected samples. It seems Fung wanted to take credit for most of the work when it was Mozzola that did most of the work.

It may be that Fung knew Mazzola was going to testify that she put her initials on the blood envelopes and he was trying to negate her testimony.imo

watch out! here comes the boogey man again --- :eek:

[William Anthony]

watch out! here comes the boogey man again --- :eek:

The boogey man must have removed Mazzola's initials from the envelopes. You see it all fits together. Switch the envelopes and possibly tamper with the evidence and we can support that DF collected the evidence. If it doesn't fit, something wrong.

[weezer]

The boogey man must have removed Mazzola's initials from the envelopes. You see it all fits together. Switch the envelopes and possibly tamper with the evidence and we can support that DF collected the evidence. If it doesn't fit, something wrong.

lol -- all this talk about something based on smoke and mirrors advanced by the defense -- you guys crack me up.

[martin II]

I didn't find the collection of the evidence to be questionable. Dennis Fung didn't do well on the stand. He was in way over his head with the defense. Remember how he shook hands with them after his testimony as they patted him on the back and then they claimed in the closing argument that he conspired to frame OJ Simpson? Naive is a word I'd use to describe Dennis Fung.

Maby Fung was apologizing for the lie when he shook hands with the defence.
haha

[martin II]

lol -- all this talk about something based on smoke and mirrors advanced by the defense -- you guys crack me up.

The dissapearance of Mazzolas initials on the samples she collected was a act of smoke and mirrors if you ask me.

[weezer]

The dissapearance of Mazzolas initials on the samples she collected was a act of smoke and mirrors if you ask me.

there were no initials that disappeared.

[weezer]

Maby Fung was apologizing for the lie when he shook hands with the defence.
haha

and maybe he was just a decent and nice guy that wanted the defense to understand it wasn't personal. but then of course, the defense and apologists wouldn't recognize decent and nice. oops! haha

[martin II]

when did I ever say I didn't work?

you've obviously never been in a position where you present a collective work for scrutiny. To use the word "I" is not misleading nor a fib.

there was no reason for him to lie and except for the apologists, no one else believes he did. I'm not even sure the apologists believe it -- I think they just need for it to be so their excuse works. :shrug:

In a hospital setting if a nurse drew some blood from paitent in room 101 and was asked by the supervisor WHO DREW THE BLOOD FROM PATIENT IN ROON 101 and the nurse answered WE did and it was later proven that SHE did, she would be brought up on charges for telling a lie. imo

[martin II]

there were no initials that disappeared.

If the initials did not dissapear then the only logical answer is that the blood samples envelopes she collected and initialed were not the ones presented to her in court.imo

[weezer]

If the initials did not dissapear then the only logical answer is that the blood samples envelopes she collected and initialed were not the ones presented to her in court.imo

I'm still trying to figure out where in the world you even came up with this story! what initials on what bindles? just because a double murderer's defense team tried to say something was, doesn't make it so. There were no disappearing initials.

[martin II]

and maybe he was just a decent and nice guy that wanted the defense to understand it wasn't personal. but then of course, the defense and apologists wouldn't recognize decent and nice. oops! haha

Are you suggesting that all the other prosecution witnesses that did not shake hands with the defence were not decent and fine people.? You may be correct.

[weezer]

In a hospital setting if a nurse drew some blood from paitent in room 101 and was asked by the supervisor WHO DREW THE BLOOD FROM PATIENT IN ROON 101 and the nurse answered WE did and it was later proven that SHE did, she would be brought up on charges for telling a lie. imo

how bout we stick to comparing apples to apples? :punch:

[weezer]

Are you suggesting that all the other prosecution witnesses that did not shake hands with the defence were not decent and fine people.? You may be correct.

because I don't want to get into trouble I'm putting stupid people on ignore!

[William Anthony]

I'm still trying to figure out where in the world you even came up with this story! what initials on what bindles? just because a double murderer's defense team tried to say something was, doesn't make it so. There were no disappearing initials.

April 27th testimony

"MR. NEUFELD: On August 23rd, when you testified under oath, were you asked these questions and did you give these answers, Miss Mazzola? "Question: When you placed the plastic into the coin envelope, you said you make a notation on the coin envelope; namely, the photo number at that point as well? "Answer: It is labeled the photo item number. "Question: Do you initial the plastic bag yourself? "Answer: The coin envelope is initialed. "Question: By you? "Answer: That is correct. "Question: And in each of these instances where you collected the stain, you personally initial the envelope? "Answer: I collected the stain, it was initialed by me." did you give those answers to those questions under oath on August 23rd, 1994?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, your Honor, also page 768, line 16 through 18.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: And then again on page 768, Miss Mazzola, at the same hearing on August 23rd, 1994, were you asked this question, did you give this answer? "Question: Well, I'm sorry. You know the coin envelopes were initialed by you, correct? "Answer: Correct." did you give that answer to that question on August 23rd?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, your initials would be what, A.M.; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And when Dennis Fung would initial an envelope or item, he would initial it D.F.?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: So it was your sworn testimony on August 23rd that you and not Fung initialed the coin envelopes for the stains you personally collected?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: At that time, I believe I had initialed them, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And at that time, ma'am, on August 23rd, it was just two months after you had actually gone out and collected the stains in this case; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately two months, yes."

[William Anthony]

how bout we stick to comparing apples to apples? :punch:

I see it as apples to apples, since the issue is when to use the pronouns, I and we.

[William Anthony]

Maby Fung was apologizing for the lie when he shook hands with the defence.
haha

Maybe he was giving them their props for catching his lies.

[William Anthony]

I don't think we should be referring to other posters as stupid, and I believe it is against the rules.

[William Anthony]

It appears to me that thus far DF, Mazzola, Peratis and MF all had memory problems.

[tv]

In a hospital setting if a nurse drew some blood from paitent in room 101 and was asked by the supervisor WHO DREW THE BLOOD FROM PATIENT IN ROON 101 and the nurse answered WE did and it was later proven that SHE did, she would be brought up on charges for telling a lie. imo
LOL, I don't think so. :rolleyes:

[tv]

I am not of the opinion that the world framed Simpson but there was evidence that he was framed and the majority of the world was able to overlook that evidence, because for whatever reason, they believed him guilty, despite, imho, the prosecution's miserable failure to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judge Ito:

"the underlying assumption that [that Fuhrman planted the Rockingham glove] for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal and savage murders upon the defendant requires a leap in both law and logic too broad to be made based on the evidence before the jury."

"incidents of Fuhrman's alleged misconduct [on the tapes] as prior bad acts [and therefore] evidence of custom and habit" is only a "theory without factual support."

What evidence are you talking about?

[William Anthony]

Judge Ito:

"the underlying assumption that [that Fuhrman planted the Rockingham glove] for the purpose of placing blame for two brutal and savage murders upon the defendant requires a leap in both law and logic too broad to be made based on the evidence before the jury."

"incidents of Fuhrman's alleged misconduct [on the tapes] as prior bad acts [and therefore] evidence of custom and habit" is only a "theory without factual support."

What evidence are you talking about?

The evidence that was redacted from the tapes the jury heard, although those that watched the trial heard them in their entirety. Perhaps, judge Ito was too rational to understand that a racist does not think or act rationally. I concur with his rulings on the law, as I do not believe the brilliant Bailey had the tapes at the time he crossed him and didn't ask if he ever admitted to planting/fabricating/manufacturing evidence in cases in the last ten years, plus the missing blood, gloves that did not fit, blood where there should not have been, no blood where they should have been, magical socks with an EDTA blood stain in the magnitude that represented a person with that level would have been dead and the magical socks themselves and MF's slips but non-slips of the tongue and the testimony of the witnesses about what MF told them was his proclivity. That is all I can think of at the present time.

[weezer]

since orenthal's beating, stalking, and threatening of Nicole happened in the same time period as Fuhrman's collaboration on the book, which do you feel had more relevance to the death of Nicole?

[William Anthony]

since orenthal's beating, stalking, and threatening of Nicole happened in the same time period as Fuhrman's collaboration on the book, which do you feel had more relevance to the death of Nicole?

Asked and answered and explained.

[martin II]

LOL, I don't think so. :rolleyes:

In a well run first class health care facility she would be.imo

[martin II]

It appears to me that thus far DF, Mazzola, Peratis and MF all had memory problems.

With the help of the prosecution.

[William Anthony]

With the help of the prosecution.

Especially, DF and Peratis.

[tv]

In a well run first class health care facility she would be.imomartin, not to be rude or argumentative, but what you know about health care practices, policies and procedures would fit into a thimble. :)

[tv]

The evidence that was redacted from the tapes the jury heard, although those that watched the trial heard them in their entirety. Perhaps, judge Ito was too rational to understand that a racist does not think or act rationally. I concur with his rulings on the law, as I do not believe the brilliant Bailey had the tapes at the time he crossed him and didn't ask if he ever admitted to planting/fabricating/manufacturing evidence in cases in the last ten years, plus the missing blood, gloves that did not fit, blood where there should not have been, no blood where they should have been, magical socks with an EDTA blood stain in the magnitude that represented a person with that level would have been dead and the magical socks themselves and MF's slips but non-slips of the tongue and the testimony of the witnesses about what MF told them was his proclivity. That is all I can think of at the present time.

Ito said the defense didn't prove framing or planting by Mark Fuhrman. They failed to make their case against him in the trial within a trial. That's the reality.

[fgump2]

It appears to me that thus far DF, Mazzola, Peratis and MF all had memory problems.

Human beings in general have memory problems. If you do much reading about either memory or criminology, you will find that human memory isn't very accurate. With a mountain of evidence to process, and months to process it, it is not surprising that some things aren't initialed correctly, and that some people will make innocent memory mistakes. I notice that the pro defense people think that Henry Lee's inability to remember what he wrote about hair evidence contradicted what he wrote in a book. Before OJS was arrested, H Lee said the defense would provide no more than 3 hairs. His book said that more than 20 hairs should be provided, and selected from specific parts of the body.
Then there was J Cochran absent mindedly breaking the reciprocal discovery law for 14 witnesses. If this memory problem is OK, the prosecution should be allowed some mistakes. Breaking the reciprocal discovery law is a violation of court procedures, failing to initial something, or forgetting who did what work isn't.

[GreenIce]

The DA's would never have followed up on this info? You raised the point and I think it's interesting.

Then you go after the Goldman's.

You're not being consistent.

It was not my intention to "go after the Goldmans". The Goldmans' book came out before the civil trial. Petrocelli learned a valuable lesson from the criminal trial, he conceded the points to the defense on issues that he knew would cause his case damage, for example, he agreed with the defense's timeline. He also was able to get witness who had valuable information for the defense's case and turn them into his witness, such as Kato. Clark was intent on pinning Kato down to the time he heard the thumps. Petrocelli got Kato to testify that he only gave an estimate of the time and never gave a precise time the DA's.

The DA's were not going to follow up on any lead that did not point to Simpson and only to Simpson. As Clark wrote in her book, she was married to the sole killer because of the press conference she gave.

[GreenIce]

The prosecution may have made a tactical error other than the obvious ones they made in the trial by believing they had public support, when they should have realized that the only support that counted was that of the jury.
I was not one of the millions convinced that the voices Heidstra heard belonged to Simpson and Mr. RG. I believe that the voices he heard could belong to any two people. I do believe that those millions, who want to believe the voices belonged to Simpson and Mr. RG would have believed that regardless of what the actual evidence was.

I agree that to have people believe the voices were Simpson's and Mr. RG's was a delight to the defense, which would mean that they felt that Heidstra had been discredited, because he lied about it and were hoping would not believe his time line. When the prosecution changed its time line, it added to rather than diminish Heidstra's testimony, imho, which the jury may have recognized.


William,

I firmly believe the DA's knew their case had major, major problems and there was no way they were going to be able to over come them--which why the released that one 911 tape.

Think about it, they knew the cops had credibility issues, they knew their CSI had job performance issues and they knew that even their FBI witness was going to be trouble for them.

They went to the court of public opinion for the their verdict, IMO.

Don't forget, people from their own side told them they had problems with the evidence. While Clark might not have taken any one's advice, it does not mean that she did not realize that her case was a loser in court but a winner in the court of public opinion. Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Ito said the defense didn't prove framing or planting by Mark Fuhrman. They failed to make their case against him in the trial within a trial. That's the reality.

TV Dinner,

When I heard those comments from Judge Ito, was truly baffled because he did have a say on what doors the defense could open on this issue. He also opened the door to Fuhrman's past in regards to his racial views. It made no sense to me at the time, until I thought of this.

Judge Ito said the defense did not prove it was Fuhrman, however, that does not mean that the glove was not planted. He never made the statement that the defense did not prove any one, let alone MF, planted evidence in this case.

[GreenIce]

Welcome back, limakey. Do you have a link to the information that Ron and Nicole were attending relationship therapy together? I seem to recall that Ron had a girlfriend and he was using her car the night of the murders.

Did this author Donald Freed interview Sydney? I've heard that she heard her mother arguing with someone on the phone but haven't heard that she heard any voices outside.

TV,

Both Ron and Nicole attended group sessions on this issue. The Dr. was Dr. Ameli.

The best of my knowledge, no "professional" interviewed Sydney or Justin. However, some of the comments that they made while being taken to the police station and while in the police station have printed in the press.

Donald Freed did not give his source about this--however, it has been a long time so when I get a chance, I will try to find it.

[GreenIce]

I have not read Donald Freed's book, but how does he claim that he knows that Sydney heard the "hey hey hey" exchange? That seems somewhat odd to me.

Kate

Kate,

As I have just posted before, I do not know the source of Mr. Freed. I have always felt that Syndey and Justin were two of the most important witnesses in this case on several key points.

However, it appears to me that the Browns as well as Simpson did not want the children questioned. There have been leaks that Sydney and Justin did see a professional and that they saw and heard nothing that night but then again, we may not know if this is in fact true. I can understand why both the Browns and Simpson would not want the kids to take the stand even if they vital information.

If you think about it, Sydney and Justin could have convicted their father with just five questions. The Browns opted not to allow this.

[GreenIce]

I've never claimed that Dennis Fung was the brightest bulb in the lamp but I don't think he was being deliberately deceitful, either.

TV Dinner,

IMO, Dennis Fung seemed to be so angry at the LAPD and the DA's that he could hardly stand it. It appeared to me that he was truly upset that the LAPD and the DA's put him in this position.

The only thing I don't understand is why the DA's never went over the video tapes of Fung and Mozzola and prepared them for what was coming. You have to admit Fung was asked if he did or did not do something and was asked if he was sure and as soon has he commited to his answer, the defense played video tapes that impeached him.

[Parker]

Kate,

As I have just posted before, I do not know the source of Mr. Freed. I have always felt that Syndey and Justin were two of the most important witnesses in this case on several key points.

However, it appears to me that the Browns as well as Simpson did not want the children questioned. There have been leaks that Sydney and Justin did see a professional and that they saw and heard nothing that night but then again, we may not know if this is in fact true. I can understand why both the Browns and Simpson would not want the kids to take the stand even if they vital information.

If you think about it, Sydney and Justin could have convicted their father with just five questions. The Browns opted not to allow this.

What were the 5 questions?

[William Anthony]

What were the 5 questions?

You commented on me, according to you, responding to only certain posters. Martin asked you a question and you did not respond.

[William Anthony]

When a party prepares someone for cross, they should tell the person to admit their obvious mistakes rather than to lose credibility in front of the jury and run the risk of the jury deciding falsus in onus, falsus in omnibus, imho.

[William Anthony]

TV Dinner,

When I heard those comments from Judge Ito, was truly baffled because he did have a say on what doors the defense could open on this issue. He also opened the door to Fuhrman's past in regards to his racial views. It made no sense to me at the time, until I thought of this.

Judge Ito said the defense did not prove it was Fuhrman, however, that does not mean that the glove was not planted. He never made the statement that the defense did not prove any one, let alone MF, planted evidence in this case.

Based on all the evidence about the glove, I can only say that, if the glove was planted, MF had the motive to plant it by the evidence introduced in court, both outside and in the jury's presence. I do not disagree with Ito's ruling on the law. However, a jury is entitled to draw inferences from the evidence and Ito took that away from them when he decided what was too great a leap in logic, imho. In the law LE enjoys certain privileges and presumptions that others do not. The presumption is that they did everything as they would have done normally and legally, which had to have proof in order to be rebutted. That is why I do not disagree with his analysis of the law but do disagree with his statement that indicated he had determined the facts.

[William Anthony]

William,

I firmly believe the DA's knew their case had major, major problems and there was no way they were going to be able to over come them--which why the released that one 911 tape.

Think about it, they knew the cops had credibility issues, they knew their CSI had job performance issues and they knew that even their FBI witness was going to be trouble for them.

They went to the court of public opinion for the their verdict, IMO.

Don't forget, people from their own side told them they had problems with the evidence. While Clark might not have taken any one's advice, it does not mean that she did not realize that her case was a loser in court but a winner in the court of public opinion. Again, IMO.

You may be correct that they played to the court of public opinion, because they wrote books on how to become famous after losing a case. They should have been trying to prove their case to the jury, imho.

[William Anthony]

Human beings in general have memory problems. If you do much reading about either memory or criminology, you will find that human memory isn't very accurate. With a mountain of evidence to process, and months to process it, it is not surprising that some things aren't initialed correctly, and that some people will make innocent memory mistakes. I notice that the pro defense people think that Henry Lee's inability to remember what he wrote about hair evidence contradicted what he wrote in a book. Before OJS was arrested, H Lee said the defense would provide no more than 3 hairs. His book said that more than 20 hairs should be provided, and selected from specific parts of the body.
Then there was J Cochran absent mindedly breaking the reciprocal discovery law for 14 witnesses. If this memory problem is OK, the prosecution should be allowed some mistakes. Breaking the reciprocal discovery law is a violation of court procedures, failing to initial something, or forgetting who did what work isn't.

You seem not to have read my posts on DF's testimony and the issue of credibility. He lost credibility when he testified under oath that he routinely wrote I on reports and meant we. Of course, people have memory problems and it is simple to say, I can't remember. Before Simpson was arrested, H. Lee was not part of the defense team and the obligations of discovery are different for the prosecution and the defense. Additionally, unless advised by the judge for what the judge considers an egregious violation of the discovery rules, the jury (trier of fact) doesn't know of the discovery violations, whereas, the credibility issues of the witnesses is placed directly to the jury. No one is not saying that the prosecution isn't allowed to make mistakes and that is the purpose of redirect. However, given the vast number of credibility issues related to the silly, imho, attempts of the prosecution to conceal these mistakes and not stealing the the thunder by calling Martz on direct, the prosecution and its witnesses lost credibility, imho. A person should not be convicted on evidence that is incredible.

[William Anthony]

Ito said the defense didn't prove framing or planting by Mark Fuhrman. They failed to make their case against him in the trial within a trial. That's the reality.

They were not originally allowed to pursue that issue but, when they were, MF hobbled to the stand and took the 5th and that's the reality.

[William Anthony]

Human beings in general have memory problems. If you do much reading about either memory or criminology, you will find that human memory isn't very accurate. With a mountain of evidence to process, and months to process it, it is not surprising that some things aren't initialed correctly, and that some people will make innocent memory mistakes. I notice that the pro defense people think that Henry Lee's inability to remember what he wrote about hair evidence contradicted what he wrote in a book. Before OJS was arrested, H Lee said the defense would provide no more than 3 hairs. His book said that more than 20 hairs should be provided, and selected from specific parts of the body.
Then there was J Cochran absent mindedly breaking the reciprocal discovery law for 14 witnesses. If this memory problem is OK, the prosecution should be allowed some mistakes. Breaking the reciprocal discovery law is a violation of court procedures, failing to initial something, or forgetting who did what work isn't.

Let's discuss Peratis, because his exparte, staged and rehearsed video, imho, seems to contradict Ms. Loftus' theory on how memory works. Remarkably, the prosecution wants us to believe that his memory suddenly improved with age, after the defense presented the issue of missing blood. He could remember exactly how much blood he withdrew from Simpson, several months later, probably over a year later, even though he had drawn blood from many others both before and after Simpson.

[GreenIce]

What were the 5 questions?

1. What time did you go to bed?

2. Was your mother laughing or crying with her best friend?

3. Who is her best friend?

4. Did you see these blood drops on the walkway before last night?

5. Is the hat yours or your brother's?

Of course those basic questions would have led to more basic questions but you get the gist of it.

Please note that I did not ask her the question about hearing the "hey, hey, hey".

[GreenIce]

You may be correct that they played to the court of public opinion, because they wrote books on how to become famous after losing a case. They should have been trying to prove their case to the jury, imho.

William,

IMO, the DA's did try to prove their case but realized they were never going to be able to do this. Right off the bat, the bloody clothes, weapon(s) and shoes were never found. I believe the police and the DA's were banking on that evidence and when it was no where to be found, they knew they were in trouble.

The DA also had the problem with the leaks from the LAPD and possibly the crime lab. In one book on the case, I think it is called the Media and the Spectacle of the Simpson case", a t.v. station did report that not only were those dark clothes taken from the washer but they were also tested for blood and there was none. There is no way this information could have come from the defense at this early stage. If in fact this was done, then there goes that link.

Also, Clark did not have confidence in the blood evidence which is why, IMO she did not introduce Simpson's statement to the police. She knew and basically conceded that there was no way to prove how old some of the blood was.

[GreenIce]

Based on all the evidence about the glove, I can only say that, if the glove was planted, MF had the motive to plant it by the evidence introduced in court, both outside and in the jury's presence. I do not disagree with Ito's ruling on the law. However, a jury is entitled to draw inferences from the evidence and Ito took that away from them when he decided what was too great a leap in logic, imho. In the law LE enjoys certain privileges and presumptions that others do not. The presumption is that they did everything as they would have done normally and legally, which had to have proof in order to be rebutted. That is why I do not disagree with his analysis of the law but do disagree with his statement that indicated he had determined the facts.

William,

I am having a hard time understanding this. I don't understand how Ito could have made that ruling because the DA's never even attempted to explain how Simpson got back there. They never could explain why there was no other trace evidence found, the glove was still moist and sticky when it should have been dried. It took MF 15 minutes to find the glove.

IMO, from what I am getting from Judge Ito on this is that the glove was not planted by MF because I said it wasn't and I am the judge and I will do your thinking for you.

[martin II]

TV Dinner,

IMO, Dennis Fung seemed to be so angry at the LAPD and the DA's that he could hardly stand it. It appeared to me that he was truly upset that the LAPD and the DA's put him in this position.

The only thing I don't understand is why the DA's never went over the video tapes of Fung and Mozzola and prepared them for what was coming. You have to admit Fung was asked if he did or did not do something and was asked if he was sure and as soon has he commited to his answer, the defense played video tapes that impeached him.

I agree

When Vanhatter carried ojs blood around on his person rather than depositing it to SID where he was, he took the blood to Fung at Rockingham. Fung stated that he had never had blood samples brought to him to a crime scene.

Vanhatters action caused Fung to undergo a defense attack about what he did at Rockingham which was not necessary if Vanhatter had not brought the blood sample to him as he was doing his work at Rockingham. I am sure he was not pleased at this action.imo

[GreenIce]

Human beings in general have memory problems. If you do much reading about either memory or criminology, you will find that human memory isn't very accurate. With a mountain of evidence to process, and months to process it, it is not surprising that some things aren't initialed correctly, and that some people will make innocent memory mistakes. I notice that the pro defense people think that Henry Lee's inability to remember what he wrote about hair evidence contradicted what he wrote in a book. Before OJS was arrested, H Lee said the defense would provide no more than 3 hairs. His book said that more than 20 hairs should be provided, and selected from specific parts of the body.
Then there was J Cochran absent mindedly breaking the reciprocal discovery law for 14 witnesses. If this memory problem is OK, the prosecution should be allowed some mistakes. Breaking the reciprocal discovery law is a violation of court procedures, failing to initial something, or forgetting who did what work isn't.

I know you have major issues with Dr. Lee's testimony and you feel he was wrong on several issues. However, how does Dr. Lee's "mistakes" compare to at least 5 experts not seeing blood on the socks only to use the excuse they didn't think to use the equipment that would determine if there was blood on the socks?

How does Dr. Lee's mistakes compare to the "missing blood"?

How do you explain away the clear pattern of evidence problems?

Both sides play the game of hiding witnesses, reports, etc. In this area, the DA's got as good as they gave. They had their own issues, however, they had a judge who gave them the benefit of the doubt and excused the "mistakes" of the state's expert witnesses. The only time Judge Ito told the DA's no was on the FBI fiber report. However, while it was billed as damning evidence, i nthe civil trial, Petrocelli was not able to say these fibers were in fact rare.

As for memory problems with Fung and Mozzola, well first off, we don't know what the real story is. IMO, I think Fung took one for the home team. What I find interesting is that after he got off the stand and while the media was feasting on him, he was given a promotion. In other words, the crime lab was standing by one of their own, yet after the trial ended, I think he was demoted and was working in ballistics.

[martin II]

Let's discuss Peratis, because his exparte, staged and rehearsed video, imho, seems to contradict Ms. Loftus' theory on how memory works. Remarkably, the prosecution wants us to believe that his memory suddenly improved with age, after the defense presented the issue of missing blood. He could remember exactly how much blood he withdrew from Simpson, several months later, probably over a year later, even though he had drawn blood from many others both before and after Simpson.

The other problem i see with Peratis is he was the nurse that drew ojs blood sample, he was in the building or across the street from SID where all evidence is logged in. Why is it that he did not give the blood samples to SID directly rather than to Vanhatter that caried it around and then took it to the crime scene.That seems to go against lapd protocol.imo

In order to try to correct the missing blood problem the prosecution went to Peratis house at night where he was suffering from cancer, got him to make a new video changing his testimony to fit what they needed him to say.imo

I don't think the jury baught this new story.

[GreenIce]

You seem not to have read my posts on DF's testimony and the issue of credibility. He lost credibility when he testified under oath that he routinely wrote I on reports and meant we. Of course, people have memory problems and it is simple to say, I can't remember. Before Simpson was arrested, H. Lee was not part of the defense team and the obligations of discovery are different for the prosecution and the defense. Additionally, unless advised by the judge for what the judge considers an egregious violation of the discovery rules, the jury (trier of fact) doesn't know of the discovery violations, whereas, the credibility issues of the witnesses is placed directly to the jury. No one is not saying that the prosecution isn't allowed to make mistakes and that is the purpose of redirect. However, given the vast number of credibility issues related to the silly, imho, attempts of the prosecution to conceal these mistakes and not stealing the the thunder by calling Martz on direct, the prosecution and its witnesses lost credibility, imho. A person should not be convicted on evidence that is incredible.

William and Martin,

Did either of you ever get the feeling that Fung was taking one for the home team? That he was forced into being the 2nd scapegoat of the DA's after MF? I find it impossible to believe that his notes were not reviewed by his supervisors and I find it impossible to believe that AM's work was not gone over and over again because this was her first case.

I believe the DA's used the same approach on DF and AM that they used for Dr. Golden. They had to make it seem like DF and AM choose the wrong career field.

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

Did either of you ever get the feeling that Fung was taking one for the home team? That he was forced into being the 2nd scapegoat of the DA's after MF? I find it impossible to believe that his notes were not reviewed by his supervisors and I find it impossible to believe that AM's work was not gone over and over again because this was her first case.

I believe the DA's used the same approach on DF and AM that they used for Dr. Golden. They had to make it seem like DF and AM choose the wrong career field.

Yes, ITA and that is what cost him his credibility, imho.

[martin II]

martin, not to be rude or argumentative, but what you know about health care practices, policies and procedures would fit into a thimble. :)

I asked a nurse that works in a major hospital this question and her response was that a nurse that lied about taking blood samples would at least be written up or maby suspended for a few days as there are State regulations covering this kind of action. But she works in a first class well run hospital.I also spoke to someone close to me that has 25 years experience in supplying nurses to hospitals and nursing homes. So i accept their opinions as fact.imo

[William Anthony]

The other problem i see with Peratis is he was the nurse that drew ojs blood sample, he was in the building or across the street from SID where all evidence is logged in. Why is it that he did not give the blood samples to SID directly rather than to Vanhatter that caried it around and then took it to the crime scene.That seems to go against lapd protocol.imo

In order to try to correct the missing blood problem the prosecution went to Peratis house at night where he was suffering from cancer, got him to make a new video changing his testimony to fit what they needed him to say.imo

I don't think the jury baught this new story.

The problem with Peratis is that he looked like a liar and a witness that wanted to please the prosecution on that video, imho, and Vannatter just looked like a liar, especially when he tried to deny saying the husband is always a suspect or, if he did say it, he was joking.

[martin II]

William and Martin,

Did either of you ever get the feeling that Fung was taking one for the home team? That he was forced into being the 2nd scapegoat of the DA's after MF? I find it impossible to believe that his notes were not reviewed by his supervisors and I find it impossible to believe that AM's work was not gone over and over again because this was her first case.

I believe the DA's used the same approach on DF and AM that they used for Dr. Golden. They had to make it seem like DF and AM choose the wrong career field.

The DA tossed AM and DF under the bus for the home team.

[William Anthony]

William,

I am having a hard time understanding this. I don't understand how Ito could have made that ruling because the DA's never even attempted to explain how Simpson got back there. They never could explain why there was no other trace evidence found, the glove was still moist and sticky when it should have been dried. It took MF 15 minutes to find the glove.

IMO, from what I am getting from Judge Ito on this is that the glove was not planted by MF because I said it wasn't and I am the judge and I will do your thinking for you.

To Ito's credit, he changed that ruling and when the defense recalled MF he plead the 5th, claiming he wanted to answer the questions but he knew the first question would have been did he plant evidence in this case and, if he answered it, it would open him up to answering other questions. What, if anything, did he have to hide? He should have had nothing to hide as one sworn to protect and serve all citizens.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, the DA's did try to prove their case but realized they were never going to be able to do this. Right off the bat, the bloody clothes, weapon(s) and shoes were never found. I believe the police and the DA's were banking on that evidence and when it was no where to be found, they knew they were in trouble.

The DA also had the problem with the leaks from the LAPD and possibly the crime lab. In one book on the case, I think it is called the Media and the Spectacle of the Simpson case", a t.v. station did report that not only were those dark clothes taken from the washer but they were also tested for blood and there was none. There is no way this information could have come from the defense at this early stage. If in fact this was done, then there goes that link.

Also, Clark did not have confidence in the blood evidence which is why, IMO she did not introduce Simpson's statement to the police. She knew and basically conceded that there was no way to prove how old some of the blood was.

That has been the sum of their case, imho. We say he did it, therefore he did and end of case.

[Parker]

What were the 5 questions?

I'm interested, What were the 5 questions? Green Ice you haven't answered me.

[William Anthony]

I'm interested, What were the 5 questions?

Asked and answered. Are you only interested in asking questions?:) See post #686 on this page.

[Parker]

Sorry William Anthony. Our posts seemed to have crossed. I have Green Ice's reply now.

[William Anthony]

Sorry William Anthony. Our posts seemed to have crossed. I have Green Ice's reply now.

There is no need to apologize. Since you asked me about answering questions, are you going to answer martin's and, if so, when?

[Parker]

What a pity Dale Hinman didn't get a chance to look at the Simpson murder case.

[William Anthony]

Dr. Lenore Walker, the eminent authority of spousal abuse was contacted and it was her opinion that Simpson did not fit the profile of a spousal abuser, who would then go on to murder his wife.

[weezer]

TV Dinner,

When I heard those comments from Judge Ito, was truly baffled because he did have a say on what doors the defense could open on this issue. He also opened the door to Fuhrman's past in regards to his racial views. It made no sense to me at the time, until I thought of this.

Judge Ito said the defense did not prove it was Fuhrman, however, that does not mean that the glove was not planted. He never made the statement that the defense did not prove any one, let alone MF, planted evidence in this case.

I too was baffled that ito allowed the Fuhrman tapes but restricted the abuse info -- especially when it all happened in the same timeframe and ito stated that the abuse was too far removed from the incident to be relevant. now add to ito's reprimand of the defense that they failed to prove planting and it really becomes a mystery. I think I may have the answer: ito was so upset that his wife was talked about on the tapes in such a disparaging way that playing the irrelevant tapes was his payback. imo

[weezer]

William,

I firmly believe the DA's knew their case had major, major problems and there was no way they were going to be able to over come them--which why the released that one 911 tape.

Think about it, they knew the cops had credibility issues, they knew their CSI had job performance issues and they knew that even their FBI witness was going to be trouble for them.

They went to the court of public opinion for the their verdict, IMO.

Don't forget, people from their own side told them they had problems with the evidence. While Clark might not have taken any one's advice, it does not mean that she did not realize that her case was a loser in court but a winner in the court of public opinion. Again, IMO.

lol -- no one "from their own side" told them they had problems with the evidence. :no:

'they' didn't go to the court of public opinion -- the public watched and listened (unlike the jurors) to the evidence and came to the conclusion that orenthal james simpson was and is the butcher of brentwood.

[Kate Sachel]

It was not my intention to "go after the Goldmans". The Goldmans' book came out before the civil trial. Petrocelli learned a valuable lesson from the criminal trial, he conceded the points to the defense on issues that he knew would cause his case damage, for example, he agreed with the defense's timeline. He also was able to get witness who had valuable information for the defense's case and turn them into his witness, such as Kato. Clark was intent on pinning Kato down to the time he heard the thumps. Petrocelli got Kato to testify that he only gave an estimate of the time and never gave a precise time the DA's.

The DA's were not going to follow up on any lead that did not point to Simpson and only to Simpson. As Clark wrote in her book, she was married to the sole killer because of the press conference she gave.

The Goldman's book was actually published after the civil trial, not prior; in fact a good portion of their book was devoted to the happenings of that trial.

I also don't recall Marcia Clark writing in her book that she was married to the sole killer because of the press conference she gave, so please let us not make it sound as though that were the case. In her book, she spoke about that press conference and how she bungled it by allowing the words "Mr. Simpson is charged alone because he is the sole murderer", and that it wasn't the word "sole" that was a costly mistake but rather the term "murderer" instead of suspect.

Kate

[Parker]

lol -- no one "from their own side" told them they had problems with the evidence. :no:

'they' didn't go to the court of public opinion -- the public watched and listened (unlike the jurors) to the evidence and came to the conclusion that orenthal james simpson was and is the butcher of brentwood.

I figure Dale Hinman is the go to person.

William Anthony wouldn't reply to me. Is it possible, do you figure, to get a real profiler to come on this board?

A real, honest to God, profiler who does this for a living.

Not pretend to be a lawyer but a real, honest criminal profiler?

[tv]

I asked a nurse that works in a major hospital this question and her response was that a nurse that lied about taking blood samples would at least be written up or maby suspended for a few days as there are State regulations covering this kind of action. But she works in a first class well run hospital.I also spoke to someone close to me that has 25 years experience in supplying nurses to hospitals and nursing homes. So i accept their opinions as fact.imo

That's a little different than what you originally said:

In a hospital setting if a nurse drew some blood from paitent in room 101 and was asked by the supervisor WHO DREW THE BLOOD FROM PATIENT IN ROON 101 and the nurse answered WE did and it was later proven that SHE did, she would be brought up on charges for telling a lie. imo

LOL, I've never heard of criminal charges for lying to your employer.

[William Anthony]

I too was baffled that ito allowed the Fuhrman tapes but restricted the abuse info -- especially when it all happened in the same timeframe and ito stated that the abuse was too far removed from the incident to be relevant. now add to ito's reprimand of the defense that they failed to prove planting and it really becomes a mystery. I think I may have the answer: ito was so upset that his wife was talked about on the tapes in such a disparaging way that playing the irrelevant tapes was his payback. imo

The tapes were admitted to impeach the testimony of MF. However, the more germane, imho, was the allowance of the question as to whether or not MF manufactured evidence, to which he took the 5th. Contrary to what has been asserted for Ito allowing the tapes and that question, the legal reasons are reflected in lengthy side bar discussion held on September 6th.

[William Anthony]

that's a little different than what you originally said:

In a hospital setting if a nurse drew some blood from paitent in room 101 and was asked by the supervisor who drew the blood from patient in roon 101 and the nurse answered we did and it was later proven that she did, she would be brought up on charges for telling a lie. imo

lol, i've never heard of criminal charges for lying to your employer.

mf. :) I don't know why my edit is not allowing me to capitalize the original MF.

[tv]

mf. :) I don't know why my edit is not allowing me to capitalize the original MF.He was criminally charged for perjury not for lying to his employer.

[William Anthony]

I figure Dale Hinman is the go to person.

William Anthony wouldn't reply to me. Is it possible, do you figure, to get a real profiler to come on this board?

A real, honest to God, profiler who does this for a living.

Not pretend to be a lawyer but a real, honest criminal profiler?

Getting a little testy over my question to you about asking and not answering Martin's question, are you?

Perhaps, after the prosecution realized that the most eminent professional in the specific area of spousal abuse opined that Simpson did not fit the profile of one that would progress to murder, the prosecution did not want to needlessly spend tax-payer dollars on Ms. Hinnman.

I don't know anyone, who pretends to be a lawyer. I have been a lawyer on four occasions. I will defer to the judgment of REAL PROSECUTORS, who chose not to contact a REAL PROFILER.

[William Anthony]

He was criminally charged for perjury not for lying to his employer.

Are you suggesting that he was not employed by the state or that it was not the state that charged him?

[tv]

I too was baffled that ito allowed the Fuhrman tapes but restricted the abuse info -- especially when it all happened in the same timeframe and ito stated that the abuse was too far removed from the incident to be relevant. now add to ito's reprimand of the defense that they failed to prove planting and it really becomes a mystery. I think I may have the answer: ito was so upset that his wife was talked about on the tapes in such a disparaging way that playing the irrelevant tapes was his payback. imo

I've always felt that's why Judge Ito allowed the tapes. He shouldn't have been allowed to sit for this case because of his connection to the animosity between Det. Fuhrman and his wife. Not only that, but his wife, Capt. Peggy York, downplayed her relationship with Mark Fuhrman. I believe this was done to keep her husband on the case.

[William Anthony]

lol -- no one "from their own side" told them they had problems with the evidence. :no:

'they' didn't go to the court of public opinion -- the public watched and listened (unlike the jurors) to the evidence and came to the conclusion that orenthal james simpson was and is the butcher of brentwood.

I understood the poster's post when she used the word, they, to mean the prosecution and, when she used the phrase, "went to" to mean played, meaning the press conferences and displays in front of the camera. Both sides should realize the strength and weaknesses of their evidence before introducing it, imho.

[William Anthony]

I've always felt that's why Judge Ito allowed the tapes. He shouldn't have been allowed to sit for this case because of his connection to the animosity between Det. Fuhrman and his wife. Not only that, but his wife, Capt. Peggy York, downplayed her relationship with Mark Fuhrman. I believe this was done to keep her husband on the case.

Read the side bars of September 6th and you might change your opinion. Ms. York was not mentioned in them. That was the day MF hobbled to the stand.

[tv]

Are you suggesting that he was not employed by the state or that it was not the state that charged him?
The people of the State of CA prosecuted him. He worked for the LAPD which means he worked for the City of Los Angeles not the state of CA.

[tv]

Read the side bars of September 6th and you might change your opinion. Ms. York was not mentioned in them. That was the day MF hobbled to the stand.
I've done extensive reading on this subject and that's my opinion.

[William Anthony]

I've done extensive reading on this subject and that's my opinion.

I have read the legal argument set forth on September 6th and I don't understand how you can credit Ito in one instance on the issue of planting and this disbelieve him when he allowed the question after entertaining the legal arguments.

[William Anthony]

The people of the State of CA prosecuted him. He worked for the LAPD which means he worked for the City of Los Angeles not the state of CA.

Were you aware of this?

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:LLEou529XAEJ:www.ci.concord.ca.us/citygov/agendas/council/2004/11-09-04/rpt11-09-04-7b.pdf+payment+of+municipal+police+are+allocated+f rom+state+funds+in+california&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

I consider those that pay my salary to be my employer.

[tv]

Were you aware of this?

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:LLEou529XAEJ:www.ci.concord.ca.us/citygov/agendas/council/2004/11-09-04/rpt11-09-04-7b.pdf+payment+of+municipal+police+are+allocated+f rom+state+funds+in+california&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

I consider those that pay my salary to be my employer.

If you reach any further to justify saying that Det. Fuhrman was criminally charged and prosecuted for lying to his employer you're going to pull a muscle. It might be best for you to just let this go. :)

[William Anthony]

If you reach any further to justify saying that Det. Fuhrman was criminally charged and prosecuted for lying to his employer you're going to pull a muscle. It might be best for you to just let this go. :)

Let me see if I can put it this way. In my city, there is a conglomeration that has bought out and taken over a number of hospitals. When someone asks an employee who he works for they usually give the name of the hospital at which they preform services. They do not usually give the name of the conglomeration, although that would be correct, since their salary comes from the conglomeration. He may have been hired by the city but his employer was the state, imho.

[martin II]

That's a little different than what you originally said:

In a hospital setting if a nurse drew some blood from paitent in room 101 and was asked by the supervisor WHO DREW THE BLOOD FROM PATIENT IN ROON 101 and the nurse answered WE did and it was later proven that SHE did, she would be brought up on charges for telling a lie. imo

LOL, I've never heard of criminal charges for lying to your employer.

You know that nurses come under hospital protocol and State Health Department regulations concerning patient care.Falsefying patient treatment
is regulated by both.Some are criminal.imo

[tv]

You know that nurses come under hospital protocol and State Health Department regulations concerning patient care.Falsefying patient treatment
is regulated by both.Some are criminal.imo

We're not talking about falsifying patient treatment. We're talking about lying to your employer. Big difference.

[tv]

Let me see if I can put it this way. In my city, there is a conglomeration that has bought out and taken over a number of hospitals. When someone asks an employee who he works for they usually give the name of the hospital at which they preform services. They do not usually give the name of the conglomeration, although that would be correct, since their salary comes from the conglomeration. He may have been hired by the city but his employer was the state, imho.William, please give this up. He was employed by the City of Los Angeles. :)

[William Anthony]

William, please give this up. He was employed by the City of Los Angeles. :)

If you want to see it that way, Okay, :) but consider this,

http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/info/law/title42sec1983/

Monell changed all that. Now police officers can be sued under Section 1983 if what they did arose out of a "misuse of power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law."

Therefore, the recognition is that police are in fact employed by the state by virtue of the fact that they are clothed with that authority.

[martin II]

I figure Dale Hinman is the go to person.

William Anthony wouldn't reply to me. Is it possible, do you figure, to get a real profiler to come on this board?

A real, honest to God, profiler who does this for a living.

Not pretend to be a lawyer but a real, honest criminal profiler?

Parker
Here is a question for you.

Heidstra testified (above in williams post) that he was in the alley at 10:40 when he heard two voices. Many believe the hey hey hey was ron entering the gate.The prosecutions story. Heidstra then testified that he saw a white suv at Bundy turning right.Prosecution says this was Simpson.
Kato testified that he heard the knocks on the wall at 10:45 in the south walkway. It is not possible for Simpson to be at Bundy and the walkway at 10:45 So where was he at 10:45.

[tv]

If you want to see it that way, Okay, :) but consider this,

http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/info/law/title42sec1983/

Monell changed all that. Now police officers can be sued under Section 1983 if what they did arose out of a "misuse of power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law."

Therefore, the recognition is that police are in fact employed by the state by virtue of the fact that they are clothed with that authority.

We're talking about criminal charges for lying to your employer. You and martin have both run this train right off the tracks. It's not necessary to always be right. Remember, when you acknowledge you're wrong it helps you to get it right.

[tv]

Parker
Here is a question for you.

Heidstra testified (above in williams post) that he was in the alley at 10:40 when he heard two voices. Many believe the hey hey hey was ron entering the gate.The prosecutions story. Heidstra then testified that he saw a white suv at Bundy turning right.Prosecution says this was Simpson.
Kato testified that he heard the knocks on the wall at 10:45 in the south walkway. It is not possible for Simpson to be at Bundy and the walkway at 10:45 So where was he at 10:45.

All times are approximations. No one was watching a clock. It's the sequence of events in the timeline that's important.

[martin II]

We're not talking about falsifying patient treatment. We're talking about lying to your employer. Big difference.

I am assumming we are still talking about a nurse drawing paitents blood.

OK
Drawing of patients blood is patient care just as dispensing medication is.
To lie to ones supervisor about either is against protocol, hospital police and State regulations. I am sure you of all posters know this.imo

[William Anthony]

We're talking about criminal charges for lying to your employer. You and martin have both run this train right off the tracks. It's not necessary to always be right. Remember, when you acknowledge you're wrong it helps you to get it right.

I simply provided an extenuation by virtue of bills and legal decision as to whom MF's employer was and to whom he lied. It is okay for us to disagree without a concession, at least on this issue. :)

[William Anthony]

All times are approximations. No one was watching a clock. It's the sequence of events in the timeline that's important.

The time line becomes very important when we consider who could have deposited that glove behind Kato's quarters.

[tv]

I am assumming we are still talking about a nurse drawing paitents blood.

OK
Drawing of patients blood is patient care just as dispensing medication is.
To lie to ones supervisor about either is against protocol, hospital police and State regulations. I am sure you of all posters know this.imo

martin, you stated that the person would be criminally charged for lying. This is just not true. They could be criminally charged for harming a patient but not for lying to their supervisor.

[William Anthony]

We're talking about criminal charges for lying to your employer. You and martin have both run this train right off the tracks. It's not necessary to always be right. Remember, when you acknowledge you're wrong it helps you to get it right.

Tv,

Since you answered my questions in a civil and honest manner, yesterday, I am compelled to acknowledge that I will concede the issue as to whom it was that was MF's employer.:)

[tv]

Tv,

Since you answered my questions in a civil and honest manner, yesterday, I am compelled to acknowledge that I will concede the issue as to whom it was that was MF's employer.:)Thank you, William, even though I realize from your answer that you're not admitting you're wrong. I'll accept the concession. I hope you have a lovely day. :)

[William Anthony]

Thank you, William, even though I realize from your answer that you're not admitting you're wrong. I'll accept the concession. I hope you have a lovely day. :)

Things understood don't have to be explained.:) I hope you have a lovely future, not just a day.:)

[martin II]

William, please give this up. He was employed by the City of Los Angeles. :)

I am thinking that the State contributed to his salary at lapd.That is how it works in most States.

[martin II]

martin, you stated that the person would be criminally charged for lying. This is just not true. They could be criminally charged for harming a patient but not for lying to their supervisor.

I though i said the nurse would be written up. i will go back and see.

[martin II]

In a hospital setting if a nurse drew some blood from paitent in room 101 and was asked by the supervisor WHO DREW THE BLOOD FROM PATIENT IN ROON 101 and the nurse answered WE did and it was later proven that SHE did, she would be brought up on charges for telling a lie. imo

LOL, I've never heard of criminal charges for lying to your employer.

when i said brought up on charges i meant by the hospital not le.

[William Anthony]

I am thinking that the State contributed to his salary at lapd.That is how it works in most States.

Would that mean he had joint employers?:) I am just joking.

[William Anthony]

In a hospital setting if a nurse drew some blood from paitent in room 101 and was asked by the supervisor WHO DREW THE BLOOD FROM PATIENT IN ROON 101 and the nurse answered WE did and it was later proven that SHE did, she would be brought up on charges for telling a lie. imo

LOL, I've never heard of criminal charges for lying to your employer.

when i said brought up on charges i meant by the hospital not le.

Ah, that inexact art of language.:) I know that, if I was the supervisor and the nurse said we drew the blood, I would ask you and who else, and I would think she was an insane liar, if she said when I said we I meant me. :)

[martin II]

All times are approximations. No one was watching a clock. It's the sequence of events in the timeline that's important.

Heidstra was on the clock when he left home and when he returned

Parker has expressed a desire to discuss the case so i will wait his response to my question. imo

[weezer]

I've always felt that's why Judge Ito allowed the tapes. He shouldn't have been allowed to sit for this case because of his connection to the animosity between Det. Fuhrman and his wife. Not only that, but his wife, Capt. Peggy York, downplayed her relationship with Mark Fuhrman. I believe this was done to keep her husband on the case.

thank you --

[tv]

In a hospital setting if a nurse drew some blood from paitent in room 101 and was asked by the supervisor WHO DREW THE BLOOD FROM PATIENT IN ROON 101 and the nurse answered WE did and it was later proven that SHE did, she would be brought up on charges for telling a lie. imo

LOL, I've never heard of criminal charges for lying to your employer.

when i said brought up on charges i meant by the hospital not le.

The hospital may write up, suspend, terminate or otherwise discipline. I'm not sure what you mean by being brought up on charges by the hospital but I'm not going to contribute to keeping this going. Believe what you want. :shrug:

[tv]

Heidstra was on the clock when he left home and when he returned

Parker has expressed a desire to discuss the case so i will wait his response to my question. imo
Unless the rules have changed it's my understanding that this is an open forum and anyone is allowed to address any post. Don't forget that little ignore button if you're feeling annoyed.

[tv]

thank you --

You're welcome! Judge Ito wanted to be on this case -- we all remember how much he loved the limelight!

[weezer]

I figure Dale Hinman is the go to person.

William Anthony wouldn't reply to me. Is it possible, do you figure, to get a real profiler to come on this board?

A real, honest to God, profiler who does this for a living.

Not pretend to be a lawyer but a real, honest criminal profiler?

I bet if we look, we can find where orenthal has been profiled -- in fact, I remember reading something about that. I'll keep looking but in the meantime. . .

"Dr. Susan Forward, Nicole's therapist: "She was battered incessantly, regularly, all the time. I'm not saying 24 hours a day, but the incidents of battering were extraordinarily high."
Source: Anne McDermott, CNN.com, "Nicole Simpson Profile", January 19, 1995.

Shelley Levitt: "There were, after all, many witnesses to the abuse in the Simpson marriage. Friends and family members say O.J. humiliated Nicole in bars and restaurants. Neighbors heard him screaming threats and obscenities. The Brown family saw photographs of her battered face following the infamous 1989 New Year's Day beating. The police, answering her 911 calls, saw a beaten and frightened Nicole and had no doubt that O.J. was her tormentor ... "One of the most amazing things to me when you study the Simpson case is that it appeared intervention failed at every level," says San Diego deputy city attorney Casey Gwinn, who runs that city's domestic violence unit. "Police didn't write reports when they went to the house. Simpson was not put in jail. Friends and family didn't confront him."
Source: People Weekly, "Facing the rage: it was no secret that Nicole Simpson was abused, yet nobody - friends, family or police - effectively came to her aid", February 20, 1995."

[William Anthony]

I bet if we look, we can find where orenthal has been profiled -- in fact, I remember reading something about that. I'll keep looking but in the meantime. . .

"Dr. Susan Forward, Nicole's therapist: "She was battered incessantly, regularly, all the time. I'm not saying 24 hours a day, but the incidents of battering were extraordinarily high."
Source: Anne McDermott, CNN.com, "Nicole Simpson Profile", January 19, 1995.

Shelley Levitt: "There were, after all, many witnesses to the abuse in the Simpson marriage. Friends and family members say O.J. humiliated Nicole in bars and restaurants. Neighbors heard him screaming threats and obscenities. The Brown family saw photographs of her battered face following the infamous 1989 New Year's Day beating. The police, answering her 911 calls, saw a beaten and frightened Nicole and had no doubt that O.J. was her tormentor ... "One of the most amazing things to me when you study the Simpson case is that it appeared intervention failed at every level," says San Diego deputy city attorney Casey Gwinn, who runs that city's domestic violence unit. "Police didn't write reports when they went to the house. Simpson was not put in jail. Friends and family didn't confront him."
Source: People Weekly, "Facing the rage: it was no secret that Nicole Simpson was abused, yet nobody - friends, family or police - effectively came to her aid", February 20, 1995."

And none of this states that Simpson would progress to murder but the eminent authority on the subject, Dr. Lenore Walker, said he did not fit the profile of a spousal abuser that would make the necessary progression.

[William Anthony]

thank you --

Read the side bar and the legal issues posed.