Random Discussions On The Case

[William Anthony]

The only word that comes to mind is desperation. Without being able to blame the LAPD and Mark Fuhrman the defense had no case.

I see what you mean as your response is correct. LE made the arrest, the prosecution filed the charges and relied on MF. The defense then tried the trustworthiness of LE's and the prosecution's evidence and theories. Do you suppose the defense was conducting a part of a trial?:)

[William Anthony]

The difference between opinion and testimony may be clear to you but I'm not so sure you have as good an understanding of the difference between fantasy and reality.

I understand that the reality is that Simpson can never be found guilty of murder, no matter how many and how strenuously other fantasize otherwise.:)

[tv]

I understand that the reality is that Simpson can never be found guilty of murder, no matter how many and how strenuously other fantasize otherwise.:)

I understand the reality that being found not guilty of murder doesn't mean he's innnocent no matter how much you might wish it were so and make excuses for the presence of his DNA and the victim's DNA being found in incriminating places.

[tv]

I see what you mean as your response is correct. LE made the arrest, the prosecution filed the charges and relied on MF. The defense then tried the trustworthiness of LE's and the prosecution's evidence and theories. Do you suppose the defense was conducting a part of a trial?:)
The defense put LE on trial because without doing that OJ Simpson would have been in jail for the rest of his life. His money bought him an elite group of lawyers willing to lie for money.

[William Anthony]

I understand the reality that being found not guilty of murder doesn't mean he's innnocent no matter how much you might wish it were so and make excuses for the presence of his DNA and the victim's DNA being found in incriminating places.

What the reality means is the the prosecution failed to prove Simpson a murderer and to label him one is only a fantasy to wish the prosecution had proved their case. What do you think of this fantasy?

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

a: No, it might not."

The reality of that meant it was intentional and not a slip of his tongue. The reality meant that MF was trapped again.

[William Anthony]

The defense put LE on trial because without doing that OJ Simpson would have been in jail for the rest of his life. His money bought him an elite group of lawyers willing to lie for money.

The reality is that the defense did their job by testing the sufficiency of the evidence against their client to show that it did not prove the client guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[tv]

Because he wouldn't answer any questions and he had no cause not to answer them if I remember right.
That's the way I remember it and I also remember she had to ask the Court's permission to treat him as a hostile witness and the Court gave it. I'm not sure why anyone would think she didn't have grounds.

[weezer]

I think Victor Anthony lives in the same house as Doc Holiday, Truly Speaking, Isontknow, Chi and all of the other people using that same computer:tongue:

LOL -- I've been trying and trying to remember by-gone posters. Thanks!

[William Anthony]

That's the way I remember it and I also remember she had to ask the Court permission to treat him as a hostile witness and the Court gave. I'm not sure why anyone would think she didn't have grounds.

Please, show me where Kato refused to answer a question? That's the procedure, because a party cannot impeach its own witness.

[tv]

The reality is that the defense did their job by testing the sufficiency of the evidence against their client to show that it did not prove the client guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

They made up a bunch of conspiracy theories, planting, framing and LE misconduct to deflect the attention from their client and on to LE and the lab. They had not one iota of real evidence or proof and the jury bought it. The stragegy worked but that doesn't mean any of it was true or that it was done with any conviction in OJ Simpson's innocence. IMO, they sold out their integrity for money. Before you tell me that a defense attorney doesn't have to believe his client is innocent to represent him, I already know that.

[weezer]

They made up a bunch of conspiracy theories, planting, framing and LE misconduct to deflect the attention from their client and on to LE and the lab. They had not one iota of real evidence or proof and the jury bought it. The stragegy worked but that doesn't mean any of it was true or that it was done with any conviction in OJ Simpson's innocence. IMO, they sold out their integrity for money. Before you tell me that a defense attorney doesn't have to believe his client is innocent to represent him, I already know that.

Excellent! I'd give you rep points for this but it says I have to 'spread' them around. . . .

[William Anthony]

They made up a bunch of conspiracy theories, planting, framing and LE misconduct to deflect the attention from their client and on to LE and the lab. They had not one iota of real evidence or proof and the jury bought it. The stragegy worked but that doesn't mean any of it was true or that it was done with any conviction in OJ Simpson's innocence. IMO, they sold out their integrity for money. Before you tell me that a defense attorney doesn't have to believe his client is innocent to represent him, I already know that.

They did not make up a bunch of conspiracy theories, although it is convenient for some Gs to say so. What the defense did is show improper collection storage handling techniques in regard to the evidence; should inaccurate results of testing: showed inconsistencies in the blood evidence; showed a lack of evidence; showed evidence of motive opportunity and means to plant evidence; showed human error, carelessness, mistakes, slanting of testimonies, and missing blood. If a reasonable inference was drawn from the totality of all the aforementioned showings was that there was a conspiracy, then so be it. :)

[tv]

Excellent! I'd give you rep points for this but it says I have to 'spread' them around. . . .
Thanks, weezer. It's the truth and OJ Simpson's supporters just won't admit it. If they would offer some proof of all the allegations I might say they believe their own argument but they haven't so I can't.

[tv]

Please, show me where Kato refused to answer a question? That's the procedure, because a party cannot impeach its own witness.I'm not the person that said Kato didn't answer any questions. I simply remembered that she felt he was being uncooperative. It's possible he wasn't answering her questions -- not sure. :shrug:

[tv]

They did not make up a bunch of conspiracy theories, although it is convenient for some Gs to say so. What the defense did is show improper collection storage handling techniques in regard to the evidence; should inaccurate results of testing: showed inconsistencies in the blood evidence; showed a lack of evidence; showed evidence of motive opportunity and means to plant evidence; showed human error, carelessness, mistakes, slanting of testimonies, and missing blood. If a reasonable inference was drawn from the totality of all the aforementioned showings was that there was a conspiracy, then so be it. :)

If it's not made up where's the proof?

[William Anthony]

Thanks, weezer. It's the truth and OJ Simpson's supporters just won't admit it. If they would offer some proof of all the allegations I might say they believe their own argument but they haven't so I can't.

:) I noticed that you did not say offer evidence of any more. The prosecution failed to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which was the only party required to provide proof. The only "truth" determined by the criminal trial is that the prosecution failed to meet its burden. Where is the evidence of/proof of your claim or shall I say your agreement to the claim based on your memory that Kato refused to answer Ms. Clark's question? It is alright to have a faulty memory. :)

[tv]

What the reality means is the the prosecution failed to prove Simpson a murderer and to label him one is only a fantasy to wish the prosecution had proved their case. What do you think of this fantasy?

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

a: No, it might not."

The reality of that meant it was intentional and not a slip of his tongue. The reality meant that MF was trapped again.

Desperation.

[tv]

:) I noticed that you did not say offer evidence of any more. The prosecution failed to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which was the only party required to provide proof. The only "truth" determined by the criminal trial is that the prosecution failed to meet its burden. Where is the evidence of/proof of your claim or shall I say your agreement to the claim based on your memory that Kato refused to answer Ms. Clark's question? It is alright to have a faulty memory. :)

I'm not on the stand so according to you my faulty memory doesn't matter. I already said I wasn't sure of the exact nature of his not being cooperative with MC. I just remember that she was having a hard time getting anything from him.

[William Anthony]

If it's not made up where's the proof?

The proof is that they did not create Martz, Collin Y, Matheson, Mazzola, DF, MF, the Blood on Rockingham, Bodziac, Thano Peratis, Ralph Rokar, magical socks nor did they remove evidence from behind Kato quarters, nor did they create a barking dog or someone saying hey, hey, hey, nor Park and Kato.

[William Anthony]

I'm not on the stand so according to you my faulty memory doesn't matter. I already said I wasn't sure of the exact nature of his not being cooperative with MC. I just remember that she was having a hard time getting anything from him.

You are correct that you are not on the stand but there are rules to this board.:) Your original post was that you remembered Kato refused to answer a question, which you now change. I will accept the change as an acknowledgment that your memory is faulty on that issue. :)

[William Anthony]

Desperation.

Yes, I agree that MF was desperate at this point, as he claimed he was not "in" the Bronco at the time he made the statement and could not have seen blood "in' the Bronco but was trapped into admitting he said "in", which is why he tried unsuccessfully to say he did not think he said "in" but was trapped by the transcript and the tape. MF always seemed to get trapped by words on tapes.:)

[tv]

The proof is that the did not create Martz, Collin Y, Matheson, Mazzola, DF, MF, the Blood on Rockingham, Bodziac, Thano Peratis, Ralph Rokar, magical socks nor did they remove evidence from behind Kato quarters, nor did they create a barking dog or someone saying hey, hey, hey, nor Park and Kato.

Your Dr. Gerdes, who ranted on about contamination, admitted that all the rest results were valid results. Colin Yamauchi, Andrea Mazzola, Dennis Fung and Mark Fuhrman were all doing their jobs. OJ Simpson created the blood at Rockingham with contributions from Ron and Nicole; the magical socks turned out to be not so magical after all. Thano Peratis should have never been asked how much blood he drew because it's not measured. Park and Kato testified truthfully. Their testimony puts OJ Simpson returning from committing the murders.

[weezer]

I understand that the reality is that Simpson can never be found guilty of murder, no matter how many and how strenuously other fantasize otherwise.:)

I think it would be more accurate to say that orenthal will never serve prison time for murdering Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. The reality is that the majority of people in the US believe orenthal james simpson is the butcher of brentwood. :shrug:

[tv]

Yes, I agree that MF was desperate at this point, as he claimed he was not "in" the Bronco at the time he made the statement and could not have seen blood "in' the Bronco but was trapped into admitting he said "in", which is why he tried unsuccessfully to say he did not think he said "in" but was trapped by the transcript and the tape. MF always seemed to get trapped by words on tapes.:)Feeling a little twisty this morning? :)

[tv]

I think it would be more accurate to say that orenthal will never serve prison time for murdering Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. The reality is that the majority of people in the US believe orenthal james simpson is the butcher of brentwood. :shrug:
Unfortunately, he wasn't convicted of the murders he committed but at least his image was tarnished and we all know that image is everything to him.

[William Anthony]

Your Dr. Gerdes, who ranted on about contamination, admitted that all the rest results were valid results. Colin Yamauchi, Andrea Mazzola, Dennis Fung and Mark Fuhrman were all doing their jobs. OJ Simpson created the blood at Rockingham with contributions from Ron and Nicole; the magical socks turned out to be not so magical after all. Thano Peratis should have never been asked how much blood he drew because it's not measured. Park and Kato testified truthfully. Their testimony puts OJ Simpson returning from committing the murders.

Before I respond to the remainder of your post, please, show the testimony of either Park or Kato, which "puts OJ Simpson returning from the murders"?

[tv]

You are correct that you are not on the stand but there are rules to this board.:) Your original post was that you remembered Kato refused to answer a question, which you now change. I will accept the change as an acknowledgment that your memory is faulty on that issue. :)

Twisty and nitpicky -- all on the same day!

[William Anthony]

Feeling a little twisty this morning? :)

No, honest.:)

[William Anthony]

Twisty and nitpicky -- all on the same day!

No, I just want you to adhere to the rules or state it as your opinion or say you stand corrected. :)

[tv]

Before I respond to the remainder of your post, please, show the testimony of either Park or Kato, which "puts OJ Simpson returning from the murders"?
I'm not going there, William. Suffice it to say that their combined testimony leaves little doubt that he was returning from killing Ron and Nicole. I'm not going to add IMO because there are some posters on this board that have elevated speculation to an olympic event and it appears it's become an acceptable way to post.

[tv]

No, I just want you to adhere to the rules or state it as your opinion or say you stand corrected. :)
William, if you'll look back a few posts I clarified my reponse to Jayme. :) That's all you're going to get from me.

[tv]

No, honest.:)How refreshing.

[William Anthony]

I'm not going there, William. Suffice it to say that their combined testimony leaves little doubt that he was returning from killing Ron and Nicole. I'm not going to add IMO because there are some posters on this board that have elevated speculation to an olympic event and it appears it's become an acceptable way to post.

I have posted their combined testimonies and they show that Park did not know from whence the six foot figure of a Black male came and Kato did not see Simpson until he was standing in the driveway after he finished his second cursory search. I see that you now have a desire for equality in regard to posting but I think you should adhere to the rules until they are amended.:)

[William Anthony]

How refreshing.

I know that is why you enjoy posting with me.:)

[William Anthony]

William, if you'll look back a few posts I clarified my reponse to Jayme. :) That's all you're going to get from me.

Clarified, changed. :)

[tv]

I think it would be more accurate to say that orenthal will never serve prison time for murdering Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. The reality is that the majority of people in the US believe orenthal james simpson is the butcher of brentwood. :shrug:

The majority of reasonable thinking people believe he's guilty. Remember after the verdict when he was seen attending church and being embraced by the hip hop community? Where were all his new friends during the Vegas trial?

[William Anthony]

The majority of reasonable thinking people believe he's guilty. Remember after the verdict when he was seen attending church and being embraced by the hip hop community? Where were all his new friends during the Vegas trial?

Attending church. Your post implies that some reasonable thinking people do not believe he's guilty.

[tv]

Clarified, changed. :)

I don't know why you made such a big deal out of this. Are you miffed about something? :)

[William Anthony]

I don't know why you made such a big deal out of this. Are you miffed about something? :)

My kingdom for one honest man.:)

[tv]

Attending church.

Speaking of church, I wonder if Rosey Grier visited OJ Simpson this time around? Something tells me no. :)

[tv]

My kingdom for one honest man.:)

I feel your pain. :)

[tv]

Attending church. Your post implies that some reasonable thinking people do not believe he's guilty.

I didn't say they were reasonable. I just said they were in church.

[William Anthony]

I didn't say they were reasonable. I just said they were in church.

Did you not say this?

The majority of reasonable thinking people believe he's guilty.

[William Anthony]

I feel your pain. :)

I still have my kingdom.:)

[tv]

I have posted their combined testimonies and they show that Park did not know from whence the six foot figure of a Black male came and Kato did not see Simpson until he was standing in the driveway after he finished his second cursory search. I see that you now have a desire for equality in regard to posting but I think you should adhere to the rules until they are amended.:)

I'll adhere if everyone else adheres. If others continue to post willy-nilly I'll do the same. :)

[tv]

I still have my kingdom.:)I expect you'll keep it until your last breath. Just remember you can't take it with you. :)

[William Anthony]

Speaking of church, I wonder if Rosey Grier visited OJ Simpson this time around? Something tells me no. :)

I am sure they have ministers in Nevada. Maybe, in the casinos.:)

[tv]

Did you not say this?

.

It doesn't mean they were in the majority of reasonable thinking people. :shrug:

[tv]

I am sure they have ministers in Nevada. Maybe, in the casinos.:)

I think Rev. Grier decided to distance himself from OJ Simpson. Smart man. :)

[William Anthony]

I'll adhere if everyone else adheres. If others continue to post willy-nilly I'll do the same. :)

I thought you were posting bobbie-augustly. :)

[tv]

I know that is why you enjoy posting with me.:)

I enjoy posting with you because I hold out hope you'll see the light one day and thank me for all the endless hours I spent telling you the truth. :)

[William Anthony]

I think Rev. Grier decided to distance himself from OJ Simpson. Smart man. :)

I think that Rev. Grier did not feel it necessary for him to travel to Nevada to give Simpson spiritual counseling as there were others there would could do the job. :) I think that Rev. Grier was smart enough to realize he couldn't be all things to all people and that his loyalty only went so far.:)

[tv]

I thought you were posting bobbie-augustly. :)

Heavens no. No one has command of the facts of this case like bobaugust, but you already know that. :)

[William Anthony]

I enjoy posting with you because I hold out hope you'll see the light one day and thank me for all the endless hours I spent telling you the truth. :)

I believe that you will continue to enjoy posting with me, then. :)

[tv]

I think that Rev. Grier did not feel it necessary for him to travel to Nevada to give Simpson spiritual counseling as there were others there would could do the job. :) I think that Rev. Grier was smart enough to realize he couldn't be all things to all people and that his loyalty only went so far.:)
I actually agree with your last sentence. :)

[tv]

I believe that you will continue to enjoy posting with me, then. :)I'm sure of it. :)

[William Anthony]

Heavens no. No one has command of the facts of this case like bobaugust, but you already know that. :)

I did not mean it like that. I thought you were above stating things in your opinion and I do believe you are right in regard to the claims to know the facts. :)

[William Anthony]

I actually agree with your last sentence. :)

I was so hoping you would.:)

[William Anthony]

It doesn't mean they were in the majority of reasonable thinking people. :shrug:

Ms. Tvdinner,

You accuse me of spinning. You said the majority of reasonable thinking people believe he's guilty. Does that mean that the minority of reasonable thinking people believe he is not?

[tv]

Ms. Tvdinner,

You accuse me of spinning. You said the majority of reasonable thinking people believe he's guilty. Does that mean that the minority of reasonable thinking people believe he is not?
Yes, take martin for instance. He's seems reasonable to me in everything except OJ Simpson's guilt. You, on the other hand, think he's guilty. You've never said that but I'm posting willy-nilly now. :)

[tv]

I did not mean it like that. I thought you were above stating things in your opinion and I do believe you are right in regard to the claims to know the facts. :) Very subtle, but not what I said. :)

[William Anthony]

Yes, take martin for instance. He's seems reasonable to me in everything except OJ Simpson's guilt. You, on the other hand, think he's guilty. You've never said that but I'm posting willy-nilly now. :)

I don't know for sure what you last sentence means but, if you are saying that you believe I believe that Simpson is guilty, although I have never told you such, then you believe wrongly. I have formed no belief one way or the other as to Simpson's innocence but I know he is not guilty.

[William Anthony]

Very subtle, but not what I said. :)

I know but that is what I said and how I believe it should be said.:)

[tv]

I don't know for sure what you last sentence means but, if you are saying that you believe I believe that Simpson is guilty, although I have never told you such, then you believe wrongly. I have formed no belief one way or the other as to Simpson's innocence but I know he is not guilty.It goes against human nature not to form an opinion whether you want to or not. IMO, you find him not guilty under the law but in your heart you know he killed Ron and Nicole. It's okay, your secret is safe with me. :)

[tv]

I know but that is what I said and how I believe it should be said.:)
I'm going to have to disagree. bobaugust knows the testimony better than anyone. That's just a fact. :)

[William Anthony]

It goes against human nature not to form an opinion whether you want to or not. IMO, you find him not guilty under the law but in your heart you know he killed Ron and Nicole. It's okay, your secret is safe with me. :)

While my nature is in all respects human, I would like to think my spiritual level is a cut above (wishful thinking).:) A secret is only safe as long as one person knows it (a Williamism).:)

[William Anthony]

I'm going to have to disagree. bobaugust knows the testimony better than anyone. That's just a fact. :)

Its okay that you state that but in your heart of hearts you know the truth but its okay as your secret is safe with me. :)

[Jayme K]

"Marcia Clark duped him into an unexpected appearance before the grand jury for which he was not prepared. He refused to answer her questions on the basis of the Fifth Amendment (against self-incrimination), and she took him before a judge to compel his cooperation. In that session, the judge assessed that Kato, legal amateur that he was, had meant to decline testifying until he could consult his attorney, not on Fifth Amendment grounds, and the judge granted him the weekend to do so. In every subsequent appearance in court, Kato was vague, equivocal, and evasive, and in the end was declared a "hostile witness," by Ito."

So it was in front of the grand jury that he refused to answer questions and it was in the actual trial that he was declared a hostile witness.

[Jayme K]

While my nature is in all respects human, I would like to think my spiritual level is a cut above (wishful thinking).:) A secret is only safe as long as one person knows it (a Williamism).:)

I think you've definitely proven the last statement to be true.

[tv]

Its okay that you state that but in your heart of hearts you know the truth but its okay as your secret is safe with me. :)You forgot to say IMO. :no: :)

[William Anthony]

"Marcia Clark duped him into an unexpected appearance before the grand jury for which he was not prepared. He refused to answer her questions on the basis of the Fifth Amendment (against self-incrimination), and she took him before a judge to compel his cooperation. In that session, the judge assessed that Kato, legal amateur that he was, had meant to decline testifying until he could consult his attorney, not on Fifth Amendment grounds, and the judge granted him the weekend to do so. In every subsequent appearance in court, Kato was vague, equivocal, and evasive, and in the end was declared a "hostile witness," by Ito."

So it was in front of the grand jury that he refused to answer questions and it was in the actual trial that he was declared a hostile witness.

Thank you for correcting the matter. Are you on break?

[Jayme K]

William, if you'll look back a few posts I clarified my reponse to Jayme. :) That's all you're going to get from me.

Your memory wasn't wrong. He refused to answer questions in front of the grand jury court proceeding so see ... he did really refuse to answer questions.

[William Anthony]

I think you've definitely proven the last statement to be true.

I am glad you said you think. :)

[tv]

I think you've definitely proven the last statement to be true.

Once again, I have to agree with you. :)

[tv]

Your memory wasn't wrong. He refused to answer questions in front of the grand jury court proceeding so see ... he did really refuse to answer questions.
Thank you, Jayme. It's been a nitpicky kind of morning. I think William needs a nap. :)

[Jayme K]

Thank you for correcting the matter. Are you on break?

I'm on a leave from work right now ... my insane morning sickness is doing me in!

[Jayme K]

I am glad you said you think. :)

LOL ... I'm pregnant right now so sometimes even when I think I'm thinking I'm really not thinking ... LOL.

[tv]

I'm on a leave from work right now ... my insane morning sickness is doing me in!
Are you pregnant? If so, congratulations! Oops, cancel that question!

[Jayme K]

Are you pregnant? If so, congratulations! Oops, cancel that question!

HA HA, thanks! Yep, not my first though but it's going to be my last! I have a REALLY hard time with pregnancies:(

[William Anthony]

Once again, I have to agree with you. :)

I am glad you agree with what she thinks. :)

[William Anthony]

LOL ... I'm pregnant right now so sometimes even when I think I'm thinking I'm really not thinking ... LOL.

Congratulations and may all your children be born naked. :)

[weezer]

LOL ... I'm pregnant right now so sometimes even when I think I'm thinking I'm really not thinking ... LOL.

congratulations!

[William Anthony]

Are you pregnant? If so, congratulations! Oops, cancel that question!

We see you can't keep a secret but neither can Jayme K, especially not for long in her case. :)

[William Anthony]

Thank you, Jayme. It's been a nitpicky kind of morning. I think William needs a nap. :)

You will be happy to know that William will be taking a break as I have an appointment this afternoon and will be celebrating this weekend. :)

[tv]

We see you can't keep a secret but neither can Jayme K, especially not for long in her case. :)
I canceled the question because Jayme had already announced her pregnancy in the previous post.

[tv]

You will be happy to know that William will be taking a break as I have an appointment this afternoon and will be celebrating this weekend. :)

What are you celebrating or is it a secret?

[William Anthony]

I canceled the question because Jayme had already announced her pregnancy in the previous post.

I stand corrected. :)

[William Anthony]

What are you celebrating or is it a secret?

The birth of my new arrival:)-I am walking in the commencement ceremony and celebrating the fact that stage is over.:)

[tv]

The birth of my new arrival:)-I am walking in the commencement ceremony and celebrating the fact that stage is over.:)

Congratulations! Aren't you glad you've had all of us to keep your brain sharp for learning? :)

[Jayme K]

congratulations!

Thanks! Love my kids, but hate being pregnant -- definitly NOT the glowing and happy preggie chick that's for sure!

[William Anthony]

Congratulations! Aren't you glad you've had all of us to keep your brain sharp for learning? :)

You'll never know what all of you have taught me. :)

[fgump2]

Mr. August,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

****************************************
I don't see why it makes a difference that MF thought the knit hat was a ski mask. Criminals often wear ski masks while committing crimes, so it was logical to think a knit hat was a ski mask. MF woke up at least two hours early to go to the crime scene, so he would have been sleepy. Sleepy people make mistakes, and since they are less alert than usual, and realiize it, they are less likely to do something risky, so they aren't likely to plant evidence.
MF was over 35 at the time, he was nearing retirement. He had a history of saying racist things, but no history of doing extremely risky things.

I think that is it very unlikely that the police first at the scene would have missed a second glove if it had been anywhere near the first glove. This was a fight scene with two dead bodies. The cops would have examined that area very carefully. Since there was one glove there, they would have been looking for anything else they could see. Criminals have dropped their wallets weapons at a crime scene. Some people wear identifying bracelets.

It might be interesting to ask police at other departments or even other cournries about dealing with the initial scene.The key question is whether or not they would carefully examine this scene; carefullly enough to make it almost very unlikely to miss a second glove. I think the answer is that it is almost certain that a seond glove would have been spotted.

What evidence is there that someone left the hat and glove(s?) on purpose?

[weezer]

Thanks! Love my kids, but hate being pregnant -- definitly NOT the glowing and happy preggie chick that's for sure!

I've always been in awe of the miracle of children. I look at my kids and I think that's all of the people I've ever loved and all the people my husband has ever loved (Mom, Dad, grandparents, etc) all rolled up in one little person. Pretty amazing.

[William Anthony]

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


i think that is it very unlikely that the police first at the scene would have missed a second glove if it had been anywhere near the first glove. This was a fight scene with two dead bodies. The cops would have examined that area very carefully. Since there was one glove there, they would have been looking for anything else they could see. Criminals have dropped their wallets weapons at a crime scene. Some people wear identifying bracelets.

It might be interesting to ask police at other departments or even other cournries about dealing with the initial scene.the key question is whether or not they would carefully examine this scene; carefullly enough to make it almost very unlikely to miss a second glove. I think the answer is that it is almost certain that a seond glove would have been spotted.



"q: When you were searching, were you searching by yourself or in company with some other officer?

a: I was alone.

q: And who had directed you to do this search?

A: Nobody.

Q: And as you searched, how long did you search, sir?

A: 10 minutes maybe.

q: All right. And during the time that you searched, did you ever find any bloody clothes or knife or anything of that nature at all?

A: No, i didn't.

q: Were any of the other officers who you previously told us who were at the scene that morning, were any of them searching do you recall?

A: I know they were knocking on doors talking to neighbors, but if they were searching, i have no knowledge."

q: You don't know if they were searching or not?

A: No.

[martin II]

Yes, take martin for instance. He's seems reasonable to me in everything except OJ Simpson's guilt. You, on the other hand, think he's guilty. You've never said that but I'm posting willy-nilly now. :)

They needed to catch him.they didn't. You cannot say he is guilty based on, he must have, i think he did, it looks like he did.We don't know who else did. :cool:

[GreenIce]

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


William,

I remember reading that the Browns were told that if their case went to trial, the defense would have access to all the records, to include all the telephone records. Also, they knew that the defense did cut out about 40 percent of their case in the criminal trial because of the length of the trial and the fact that the defense did win their case during cross examination.

I have no doubt that the Browns love the children, I have no doubt for many, many years they loved Simpson as a soon and a welcome member in their family. However, keeping this in mind, I would think they knew of evidence that would clear Simpson of the murders, they would have allowed and/or demanded this evidence come to light. They may hate him for the way he treated their daughter for the children's sake, I believe they should have opened all the records. IMO.

[GreenIce]

****************************************
I don't see why it makes a difference that MF thought the knit hat was a ski mask. Criminals often wear ski masks while committing crimes, so it was logical to think a knit hat was a ski mask. MF woke up at least two hours early to go to the crime scene, so he would have been sleepy. Sleepy people make mistakes, and since they are less alert than usual, and realiize it, they are less likely to do something risky, so they aren't likely to plant evidence.
MF was over 35 at the time, he was nearing retirement. He had a history of saying racist things, but no history of doing extremely risky things.

I think that is it very unlikely that the police first at the scene would have missed a second glove if it had been anywhere near the first glove. This was a fight scene with two dead bodies. The cops would have examined that area very carefully. Since there was one glove there, they would have been looking for anything else they could see. Criminals have dropped their wallets weapons at a crime scene. Some people wear identifying bracelets.

It might be interesting to ask police at other departments or even other cournries about dealing with the initial scene.The key question is whether or not they would carefully examine this scene; carefullly enough to make it almost very unlikely to miss a second glove. I think the answer is that it is almost certain that a seond glove would have been spotted.

What evidence is there that someone left the hat and glove(s?) on purpose?

fgump2,

First, the defense was not allowed total access to MF's records at the LAPD. What is known of that history is not a very pretty picture. MF was involved in another case of where he was being accused of planting evidence on a black defendant. The first trial ended in a hung jury, the re-trial was scheduled to happen during the Simpson trial. Rather then it come out that MF would be starring in another trial, for the exact same things he was going to be a star in the Simpson trial, the city of LA paid out $100,000.00 to a career, petty criminal. How much more do you need know about his history?

MF was not on call, however, he did not have to responded to Ron Phillips request. The real question here is why was Fuhrman called in the first place?

You must consider the facets of the job as well as their job experience. Would you give the same "sleepy" excuse if a surgeon was called in to operate and he killed someone during surgery because he was tired? A police officer/detective job duties are very much in line with those of doctors and nurses'. Their actions and their decisions and their words are what juries make their verdicts on, some of these verdicts put people on death row. It is unacceptable to give excuses for their actions and their behaviors. In other words, if they can't meet the job requirements, then they should have left long ago, IMO.

The problem with Fuhrman is his details, he got close enough to a glove to determine it looked like it had dog bites on it, thus, why the prep was bleeding from the scene but must took a watch cap for a ski mask? I serious doubt it. There is no way to mistake the two. However, I will give him this, "a ski" mask makes much more sense as well as sounding a lot more sinister then a "knit cap"--one that was a very small one. So either he lied on the description of the cap to use the "ski mask" to justify going over the wall at Rockingham or there was a ski mask that, like a man's jean jacket, bloody fingerprints on a gate, on a wall and I believe on a lense of the glasses. Perhaps if so much evidence didn't keep disappearing and getting lost and then being found, I might cut some slack but this is just another pattern of the problems of evidence in this case, IMO.

To the best of my knowledge, the police officers were not asked about second glove being looked for. I believe from the moment they checked out the house and notified their superiors of the situation, they were to secure the scene the scene only. And your theory makes sense but it doesn't explain how other evidence was missed that was right out in the open and other evidence that was not tested, like Ron's car keys. (However, in Joe Bosco's book, his source said the keys were tested but Simpson's blood was not found on them.)

Mark Fuhrman did a hell of alot risky things, things that you and I would lose our jobs over in a heartbeat. MF had no fear of getting caught and he explained why on the tapes. Corrupt cops, for whatever reasons they became corrupt, show little fear of getting caught---why? Because they have been shown the path by more experience cops who have also have decided to take the wrong turn in their career. Mind you, if I was a cop, I probably would love to kick the hell out of a drug dealer and take his money, which is probably more money then I would ever make in months let alone a night, but that still wouldn't be right. And if you are justify your behavior once in these type of situations, then next time it just gets easier and eaiser. IMO.

[GreenIce]

So if two dudes get in a brawl at a bar and toss a few punches they are labeled batterers? Gosh I didn't even know I'm a batterer - that one time back in college when I smacked the chick I hated really did me in I guess.:eek:

Jayme,

First, I hope the morning sickness gets better. I was lucky, only got it at night and at the same time every night.

And you are right, if two guys get arrested for wailing on each other, they both get the labels. Now, if the cops come to a DV call and both the man and woman get physical with each other, they both get arrested. Doesn't matter who started it, who hit who first, they both go and they both face the same charges.

[William Anthony]

William,

I remember reading that the Browns were told that if their case went to trial, the defense would have access to all the records, to include all the telephone records. Also, they knew that the defense did cut out about 40 percent of their case in the criminal trial because of the length of the trial and the fact that the defense did win their case during cross examination.

I have no doubt that the Browns love the children, I have no doubt for many, many years they loved Simpson as a soon and a welcome member in their family. However, keeping this in mind, I would think they knew of evidence that would clear Simpson of the murders, they would have allowed and/or demanded this evidence come to light. They may hate him for the way he treated their daughter for the children's sake, I believe they should have opened all the records. IMO.

GreenIce,

A lot of dirty laundry gets aired in a custody battle and the parties usually end up hating each other. The reasons for a custody battle a lot of times is said to be in the child's best interest. I think that in the majority of the divorces in which custody is sought it is more a matter of revenge. I think the Browns and Simpson realized that the children needed both families and it was best not to sever all ties. That is just my personal feeling without anything to support it.

[GreenIce]

William and Martin,

In all your observations of MF, even before the tapes came to light, did he ever give the impression that he was prone to make "slips" of the tongue or say anything, really stupid, such as VA's "OJ Simpson was no more of a suspect then you were Mr. Shapiro."?

Did you ever see a chink in his armor where he appeared to be apprehensive or concerned how he may come across to the jury?

The problem with the G's is they can provide no proof of why MF should be believed about anything and it doesn't matter what the question is. He answered every single question with authority and arrogance. I find it impossible to believe this Aryan Poster Boy would ever allow him to make an honest slip of the tongue. Do I believe that he may have said "them" knowing that this would result in another battle between him and a defense lawyer, you bet I do.

G's forget how many people MF was willing to throw under the bus to testify in this trial---the only person who he would not throw under the bus, was himself and tell the truth. When he said that bascially anyone who would say anything against him would all be liars, everyone of them, is what really, really confirmed my opinon of him. He knew other cops may very well have to testify about this. He knew he was ordered not to talk to the author. He knew all of this and let Clark treat him like an angel on the stand and then got angry with her when she denounced him in her closing arguements.

G's also forget that MF wasn't the only detective to give the jury pause and concern. VA came off worse then MF did. Lange and Phillips came off as "good old" boys who were willing to close their eyes or vouch for stories that just made no sense.

G's also forget that MF could have been taken out of this trial in a heartbeat and it only would have helped the DA's case. Clark could have hidden him just as she did other witnesses. IMO.

While I believe that 4 lead detectives did believe Simpson was guilty, not one of their actions or statements or conduct convinces me that they are to be trusted and to be believed.

Another G's forget, every single witness, reardless of their role, who takes the stand in a trial, goes on trial. Their creditials, their habits, their sucesses, their failtures, how much money they are making for their work in this trial, etc.

Look at what Clark tried to do Mendal and Aronson, Bell and Singer? These were just civilians who happened to meet MF or walk past Bundy that night.

They went on trial--and for the most part, I understand why Clark and the DA's went after them---they had to. When I hear seemlingly intelligent people say negative things about a defense who buts the PD's on trial or the labs on trial, I have to seriously reconsider if I am giving them a tad too much credit on the intelligence part. Who knows?:)

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

A lot of dirty laundry gets aired in a custody battle and the parties usually end up hating each other. The reasons for a custody battle a lot of times is said to be in the child's best interest. I think that in the majority of the divorces in which custody is sought it is more a matter of revenge. I think the Browns and Simpson realized that the children needed both families and it was best not to sever all ties. That is just my personal feeling without anything to support it.

William,

If you were in the Browns' shoes, would you want the one piece of proof that could answer the question, did this man kill my daughter?

However, the Browns didn't get great marks in regards to their treatment of Simpson in front of the kids. Apparently their guardian said the Browns had built a shrine to Nicole and that all comments made about Simpson were very, very negative. I think they knew they would lose the case and not just because Simpson was the natural parent, IMO.

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

In all your observations of MF, even before the tapes came to light, did he ever give the impression that he was prone to make "slips" of the tongue or say anything, really stupid, such as VA's "OJ Simpson was no more of a suspect then you were Mr. Shapiro."?

Did you ever see a chink in his armor where he appeared to be apprehensive or concerned how he may come across to the jury?

The problem with the G's is they can provide no proof of why MF should be believed about anything and it doesn't matter what the question is. He answered every single question with authority and arrogance. I find it impossible to believe this Aryan Poster Boy would ever allow him to make an honest slip of the tongue. Do I believe that he may have said "them" knowing that this would result in another battle between him and a defense lawyer, you bet I do.

G's forget how many people MF was willing to throw under the bus to testify in this trial---the only person who he would not throw under the bus, was himself and tell the truth. When he said that bascially anyone who would say anything against him would all be liars, everyone of them, is what really, really confirmed my opinon of him. He knew other cops may very well have to testify about this. He knew he was ordered not to talk to the author. He knew all of this and let Clark treat him like an angel on the stand and then got angry with her when she denounced him in her closing arguements.

G's also forget that MF wasn't the only detective to give the jury pause and concern. VA came off worse then MF did. Lange and Phillips came off as "good old" boys who were willing to close their eyes or vouch for stories that just made no sense.

G's also forget that MF could have been taken out of this trial in a heartbeat and it only would have helped the DA's case. Clark could have hidden him just as she did other witnesses. IMO.

While I believe that 4 lead detectives did believe Simpson was guilty, not one of their actions or statements or conduct convinces me that they are to be trusted and to be believed.

Another G's forget, every single witness, reardless of their role, who takes the stand in a trial, goes on trial. Their creditials, their habits, their sucesses, their failtures, how much money they are making for their work in this trial, etc.

Look at what Clark tried to do Mendal and Aronson, Bell and Singer? These were just civilians who happened to meet MF or walk past Bundy that night.

They went on trial--and for the most part, I understand why Clark and the DA's went after them---they had to. When I hear seemlingly intelligent people say negative things about a defense who buts the PD's on trial or the labs on trial, I have to seriously reconsider if I am giving them a tad too much credit on the intelligence part. Who knows?:)

MF is simply what he is as he was proven to be. I believe the lack of notes may have been an attempt to hide MF but MF put himself in the thick of things when he questioned Kato and Rosa Lopez and was seen by Ms. Arnelle. If they had tried to hide him at that point, it would have been more disastrous, imho. Additionally, I could hear all the hearsay objections if one of the other detectives tried to say what MF said before taking them to see the spot MF claimed to have found the Rockingham glove. MF did one thing that should have pleased him very much; MF embarrassed the entire police force and the prosecutors. Those words on the tapes, indicating that he did not care what any one thought came to fruition in front of the entire world of media coverage. The dream team was not the first team of lawyers to put the police on trial but they were, imho, most effective as they had a large audience to expose the sloppiness, carelessness, human errors, mistakes, and lies that LE engaged in. The sad part is that there was so much evidence of these things. I guess to some it does not matter that the results were obtained in a cesspool of contamination, since the results were valid. They fail to consider that valid results of evidence that was previously contaminated does not make the results the correct results, only that the results, after being contaminated, were valid results of materials that could have been contaminated in that cesspool. Unless someone comes forth and said yes, when I was handling the materials some got mixed with other materials from the case, then we are not permitted, despite the fact that there was evidence of spillage, materials put in wrong envelopes, evidence of people having blood preserved with EDTA in their blood stream, then we should not reasonably doubt that anything untoward happened.

[tv]

They needed to catch him.they didn't. You cannot say he is guilty based on, he must have, i think he did, it looks like he did.We don't know who else did. :cool:
I say it based on the overwhelming evidence that proves he did it and points to no one else.

[William Anthony]

William,

If you were in the Browns' shoes, would you want the one piece of proof that could answer the question, did this man kill my daughter?

However, the Browns didn't get great marks in regards to their treatment of Simpson in front of the kids. Apparently their guardian said the Browns had built a shrine to Nicole and that all comments made about Simpson were very, very negative. I think they knew they would lose the case and not just because Simpson was the natural parent, IMO.

To answer your question, I would need more than one piece of proof. I understand you question and I would like to think that I could trust the judicial process in that regard.

That is one thing that I have never agreed with. I don't think a parent should down another parent nor should a person in a former relationship down their former partner. What does it make the person saying those negative things look like-someone that did not have the sense to know who they were getting involved with. I respect a person, who simply says, that the relationship did not work out. Just as it takes two to start something, it takes to two keep it going or contribute to its demise, imho.

[tv]

I've always been in awe of the miracle of children. I look at my kids and I think that's all of the people I've ever loved and all the people my husband has ever loved (Mom, Dad, grandparents, etc) all rolled up in one little person. Pretty amazing.

I've never thought of it that way. :rose:

[William Anthony]

I say it based on the overwhelming evidence that proves he did it and points to no one else.

What about the Caucasian hair and the type B blood? What about that, Ms. Tvdinner?:)

[tv]

You'll never know what all of you have taught me. :)
I'm glad you put a smiley on that. :)

[William Anthony]

I'm glad you put a smiley on that. :)

Truly speaking (Just for Jayme, smile), if God should see fit to allow me to attain my goal, I will use much of the skills that I have learned in my practice and take the advice into advisement that some have shared with me on this message board. I sometimes succumb to that natural human characteristic of losing my cool and I must remember to never let them see you sweat. :)

[tv]

Truly speaking (Just for Jayme, smile), if God should see fit to allow me to attain my goal, I will use much of the skills that I have learned in my practice and take the advice into advisement that some have shared with me on this message board. I sometimes succumb to that natural human characteristic of losing my cool and I must remember to never let them see you sweat. :)

Another good thing to remember -- never be the first to blink. :)

[William Anthony]

Another good thing to remember -- never be the first to blink. :)

I will remember.:)

[tv]

What about the Caucasian hair and the type B blood? What about that, Ms. Tvdinner?:)May have been Ron's, may have been someone else's. Proves nothing either way. The blood? We've already been all over the science of that. :)

[William Anthony]

May have been Ron's, may have been someone else's. Proves nothing either way. The blood? We've already been all over the science of that. :)

I see nothing matters unless it points to Simpson.:)

[tv]

I see nothing matters unless it points to Simpson.:) The hair doesn't impress me. We carry hair around on our clothing all the time. Our hair, our familie's hair, our familie's friend's hair, our dog's hair, other people's dog's hair...too easy to transfer hair for me to be swayed by the presence of one hair. You're wrong about nothing mattering to me unless it points to Simpson. Give me something substantial instead of speculation or maybes.

[William Anthony]

The hair doesn't impress me. We carry hair around on our clothing all the time. Our hair, our familie's hair, our familie's friend's hair, our dog's hair, other people's dog's hair...too easy to transfer hair for me to be swayed by the presence of one hair. You're wrong about nothing mattering to me unless it points to Simpson. Give me something substantial instead of speculation or maybes.

Yes, you have provided a bunch of maybes and speculations as to whom the unidentified hair may have belonged and to whose clothing. Those are the unanswered questions. Could it have been on the clothing of the killer and did it belong to the murderer of a member of the killer's family or a friend and, if that family member or friend was identified could that have led them to the murderer? Those questions will remain unanswered as long as the hair remains unidentified. The one thing we know is that it was found inside the Rockingham glove and a type B blood drop was found under Ms. NBS's fingernails and Simpson, Ms. NBS and Mr RG were excluded as the source of that blood drop. I could not convict under those circumstances, because I would want to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt before I said guilty and risked sending an innocent man to the penitentiary for life or deprive him of his life. If, on the other hand, the person was guilty and was set free and murdered someone else, I would likewise feel guilty. However, I believe that a thousand guilty should go free before one innocent man is wrongly convicted.

[GreenIce]

To answer your question, I would need more than one piece of proof. I understand you question and I would like to think that I could trust the judicial process in that regard.

That is one thing that I have never agreed with. I don't think a parent should down another parent nor should a person in a former relationship down their former partner. What does it make the person saying those negative things look like-someone that did not have the sense to know who they were getting involved with. I respect a person, who simply says, that the relationship did not work out. Just as it takes two to start something, it takes to two keep it going or contribute to its demise, imho.

William,

If those phone records show that Nicole was alive at 11:00 p.m., then, IMO, the Browns should have let those records be released, if only for Nicole's children. As far as I am concerned, I think both families were failed by the judicial process as well as the Simpson family.

Now as I think about it, I wonder if that is why the Brown family did not receive as much as compassion the Goldman family. Perhaps the press did sense that the only one who was "positive" that Simpson did it, was Denise. Don't forget, Mrs. Brown told three different people what time she spoke to Nicole and she said she was looking at a clock. After the trial, Mrs. Brown said something that has never really left me. She said that she knew he did it only after the trial was over and he never called her to ask how she was doing or something like that. During the trial, while she was in the courtroom, even when the verdict was read, she always seemed to waiting for the piece of evidence that would convince her. The relationship she and Mr. Brown have with Simpson, IMO, leads me to believe they do have some doubts but they find him totally responsible for her death. And as a parent, I understand that.

[fgump2]

"q: When you were searching, were you searching by yourself or in company with some other officer?

a: I was alone.

q: And who had directed you to do this search?

A: Nobody.

Q: And as you searched, how long did you search, sir?

A: 10 minutes maybe.

q: All right. And during the time that you searched, did you ever find any bloody clothes or knife or anything of that nature at all?

A: No, i didn't.

q: Were any of the other officers who you previously told us who were at the scene that morning, were any of them searching do you recall?

A: I know they were knocking on doors talking to neighbors, but if they were searching, i have no knowledge."

q: You don't know if they were searching or not?

A: No.

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

I don't see what you are getting at. I doubt all 14 officers who got there before MF searched the fight area, but some of them probably did. What the quotes you put in seem to show is that there was at least one of the 14 who didn't search it. I don't think that shows much.

[tv]

Yes, you have provided a bunch of maybes and speculations as to whom the unidentified hair may have belonged and to whose clothing. Those are the unanswered questions. Could it have been on the clothing of the killer and did it belong to the murderer of a member of the killer's family or a friend and, if that family member or friend was identified could that have led them to the murderer? Those questions will remain unanswered as long as the hair remains unidentified. The one thing we know is that it was found inside the Rockingham glove and a type B blood drop was found under Ms. NBS's fingernails and Simpson, Ms. NBS and Mr RG were excluded as the source of that blood drop. I could not convict under those circumstances, because I would want to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt before I said guilty and risked sending an innocent man to the penitentiary for life or deprive him of his life. If, on the other hand, the person was guilty and was set free and murdered someone else, I would likewise feel guilty. However, I believe that a thousand guilty should go free before one innocent man is wrongly convicted.

The jury said they didn't consider the forensics or Mark Fuhrman. That negates the importance of the hair and the blood under Nicole's fingernail, the lab results or possiblility of contamination. How did they come to their decision? Did they base their verdict on Park's testimony? Even if you believe that Park's testimony doesn't incriminate Simpson it certainly doesn't do anything to exonerate him either. Seriously, what convinced them he is not guilty?

[GreenIce]

MF is simply what he is as he was proven to be. I believe the lack of notes may have been an attempt to hide MF but MF put himself in the thick of things when he questioned Kato and Rosa Lopez and was seen by Ms. Arnelle. If they had tried to hide him at that point, it would have been more disastrous, imho. Additionally, I could hear all the hearsay objections if one of the other detectives tried to say what MF said before taking them to see the spot MF claimed to have found the Rockingham glove. MF did one thing that should have pleased him very much; MF embarrassed the entire police force and the prosecutors. Those words on the tapes, indicating that he did not care what any one thought came to fruition in front of the entire world of media coverage. The dream team was not the first team of lawyers to put the police on trial but they were, imho, most effective as they had a large audience to expose the sloppiness, carelessness, human errors, mistakes, and lies that LE engaged in. The sad part is that there was so much evidence of these things. I guess to some it does not matter that the results were obtained in a cesspool of contamination, since the results were valid. They fail to consider that valid results of evidence that was previously contaminated does not make the results the correct results, only that the results, after being contaminated, were valid results of materials that could have been contaminated in that cesspool. Unless someone comes forth and said yes, when I was handling the materials some got mixed with other materials from the case, then we are not permitted, despite the fact that there was evidence of spillage, materials put in wrong envelopes, evidence of people having blood preserved with EDTA in their blood stream, then we should not reasonably doubt that anything untoward happened.

William,

IMO, Clark's response to why she put Fuhrman on really makes no sense. She said that it would look like she was hiding him and I think that is just another smoke screen. She could have told the jury why she wasn't introducing the glove and she did not have to denounce MF at all.

What bothers me is that it seems many G's don't understand the significance of what MF said on the tape about the glove and what will happen if he goes down and that Clark knew it. IMO, a strong case can be made for a form of blackmail. If Clark knew the case was over if he went down, well then VA and Lange and the LAPD knew that as well and probably a lot quicker then the DA's knew.

You are right, Fuhrman said what he was and he made no apology-however, the sad fact is, this case was over, IMO, when it became obvious the three other detectives were going to do what they could to save the case. Not only did they do what they had to do but Ito made it pretty obvious that he was going to do what he had to do to let the DA's put on a case. One that was filled with lies and deception from the get go.

When Judge Ito refused to do what Judge Kennedy Powell should have done, the case was over. How can any jury convict a person when the judge makes it pretty clear that he knows they are lying about the search warrant but that is okay, lets just move on and forget about it.

It isn't so much of the lies that VA wrote/told, but why did he do it? Why such the senseless lies? To me, it was obvious they were willing to cover for MF and MF took full advantage of it. He knew he was untouchable and he was. His "conviction is nothing more then his ticket to millions. I still can't believe the people who support him and will defend him harder then they would themselves, IMO.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

First, the defense was not allowed total access to MF's records at the LAPD. What is known of that history is not a very pretty picture. MF was involved in another case of where he was being accused of planting evidence on a black defendant. The first trial ended in a hung jury, the re-trial was scheduled to happen during the Simpson trial. Rather then it come out that MF would be starring in another trial, for the exact same things he was going to be a star in the Simpson trial, the city of LA paid out $100,000.00 to a career, petty criminal. How much more do you need know about his history?

MF was not on call, however, he did not have to responded to Ron Phillips request. The real question here is why was Fuhrman called in the first place?

You must consider the facets of the job as well as their job experience. Would you give the same "sleepy" excuse if a surgeon was called in to operate and he killed someone during surgery because he was tired? A police officer/detective job duties are very much in line with those of doctors and nurses'. Their actions and their decisions and their words are what juries make their verdicts on, some of these verdicts put people on death row. It is unacceptable to give excuses for their actions and their behaviors. In other words, if they can't meet the job requirements, then they should have left long ago, IMO.

The problem with Fuhrman is his details, he got close enough to a glove to determine it looked like it had dog bites on it, thus, why the prep was bleeding from the scene but must took a watch cap for a ski mask? I serious doubt it. There is no way to mistake the two. However, I will give him this, "a ski" mask makes much more sense as well as sounding a lot more sinister then a "knit cap"--one that was a very small one. So either he lied on the description of the cap to use the "ski mask" to justify going over the wall at Rockingham or there was a ski mask that, like a man's jean jacket, bloody fingerprints on a gate, on a wall and I believe on a lense of the glasses. Perhaps if so much evidence didn't keep disappearing and getting lost and then being found, I might cut some slack but this is just another pattern of the problems of evidence in this case, IMO.

To the best of my knowledge, the police officers were not asked about second glove being looked for. I believe from the moment they checked out the house and notified their superiors of the situation, they were to secure the scene the scene only. And your theory makes sense but it doesn't explain how other evidence was missed that was right out in the open and other evidence that was not tested, like Ron's car keys. (However, in Joe Bosco's book, his source said the keys were tested but Simpson's blood was not found on them.)

Mark Fuhrman did a hell of alot risky things, things that you and I would lose our jobs over in a heartbeat. MF had no fear of getting caught and he explained why on the tapes. Corrupt cops, for whatever reasons they became corrupt, show little fear of getting caught---why? Because they have been shown the path by more experience cops who have also have decided to take the wrong turn in their career. Mind you, if I was a cop, I probably would love to kick the hell out of a drug dealer and take his money, which is probably more money then I would ever make in months let alone a night, but that still wouldn't be right. And if you are justify your behavior once in these type of situations, then next time it just gets easier and eaiser. IMO.

***************************
There have been periodic reports about misbehavior in the LAPD, and some of this misbehavior has included racism, so I don't totally back either the LAPD police dept, or MF.

The point about MF, and I think Lange and Vannatter being sleepy is that when people are sleepy they are usually aware of it, and likely to behave in a cautious mannter. Regardless of what might have been true about MF, I don't think there was any evidence against Lange, Vannatter or Philips. Since Lange and Vannatter were over 40, nearing retirement, and sleepy that night, they would probably have been behaving cautiously.

I suppose you think that the 4 detectives lied about the reasons for the search warrant, what was on their mind as they went to Rockingham. Maybe so. I read that they got confused about whether they were justified in thinking of Mr. Simpson as a suspect or the suspect. According to Budgliosi, even if they did make mistakes there, whatever they saw would probably have been admitted to the trial because under sometimes evidence is admissable if the DA can convince a judge that the evidence would have been found anyway. In any case if the detectives did lie, they were probably lying about their motives. It is easy for people to convince themselves that motives were more noble and logical than they really were. This isn't good; but it is not a clear cut a lie as a lie about a physical fact. I didn't pay much attention to that part of the case because I am not interested in search warrant discusions.

I don't see why you are concerned that MF thought a watch cap (or whatever you call it) was a ski mask. Did you want him to get a demerit on his next evaluation? I don't see why that mistake matters. It didn't cause any problems in the investigation. If he had trouble understanding what type of hat was there, that might indicate he wasn't observant enough to spot a second glove.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GreenIce, Mark Fuhrman having excellent vision? Who claimed that? Officers Riske, Terrazas and Sgt. Rossi testified they saw one glove and a knit hat under the plant leaves at Ron’s feet before Phillips and Fuhrman ever arrived at Bundy. They didn’t need excellent vision; all they needed was a flashlight.

Of course there is evidence that Simpson wore the knit hat, 12 naturally shed hairs, 10 found inside the hat and 2 found outside the hat, were microscopically consistent with Simpson’s hair. As well as one “unusual” x-shaped fiber consistent with Simpson’s Bronco carpeting, several fibers consistent with Ron Goldman’s shirt and 1 cashmere fiber consistent with the lining of the gloves were found on the knit hat.

The knit hat was not a child’s hat; I don’t know where you got that misinformation from. In the criminal trial Johnny Cochran put the knit hat on his head and it was too big for him.

What Fuhrman wrote in his notes were his first impressions of the evidence that he observed. The knit hat could very well have looked like a knit ski mask. Fuhrman wrote in his notes about blood on the rear gate at Bundy and speculated about where the dog was kept and that the suspect was bitten. Fuhrman wrote “At rear gate on N/S of resid - two blood smears at bottom of gate. This area might have been where the dog was kept. Susp ran through this gate. Susp possibly bitten by dog?”

I do not know of any testimony regarding shoe prints on the menu. Post it please.

I do not know of any testimony regarding cigarette butts at Bundy and Rockingham. Post it please.

Officers Riske and Terrazas as well as Sgt. Rossi testified they walked around the Bundy property before Phillips and Fuhrman arrived there. The only glove they saw was a glove under the plant leaves with the knit hat. No witness was asked by either the prosecution or the defense if there was a second glove since there was no evidence of a second glove at Bundy when the police arrived there.

No one has to prove what you ask. All of the police officers testified to what evidence they saw. No one testified or was asked about evidence that you have imagined.

Did the police unfortunately miss collecting some evidence in this case? Yes, but that in no way changes the huge amount of evidence that was collected.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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

You are wrong again, William.

You have never posted any testimony that supports what you imagine Kaelin did when he returned from his first trip to the south path because Kaelin never said what you have imagined he said. If you look at the layout of the Rockingham estate you would see that your interpretation is incorrect.

The Ashford path was to the left of the parked limo and the gate control box was across the driveway to the right of the parked limo. Kaelin never said that after he returned from his first trip to the south path that he crossed the driveway and went back to the Ashford path. Kaelin never went back to the Ashford path that night until he returned to his room after Simpson left for the airport.

March 22, 1995 Kato Kaelin

MS. CLARK: OKAY.
FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS INDICATED HE WALKED SOUTH ON THE DRIVEWAY OVER TO THE GARAGE AREA, MADE A LEFT AT THE CORNER OF THE GARAGE AND WALKED IN ON THAT SOUTH PATHWAY A SHORT DISTANCE.
THE COURT: YES.
Q BY MS. CLARK: OKAY.
AS FAR AS YOU GOT ON THAT SOUTH PATHWAY, SIR, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE THE AREA -- THE GROUND AREA AROUND THE AIR CONDITIONER IN YOUR ROOM?
A NO.
Q AND WHY DID YOU STOP ON THE PATHWAY WHERE YOU DID?
A I JUST DID. I COULDN'T SEE. I WAS -- I JUST STOPPED.
Q WHY?
A YOU KNOW, I WAS SCARED, BUT -- THAT IS IT.
Q YOU WERE SCARED?
A SCARED, YEAH.

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

Q OKAY.
SO YOU WALKED DOWN THE DRIVEWAY AROUND THE GARAGE TO THE SOUTH PATHWAY, CAME BACK OUT, WALKED BACK UP THE DRIVEWAY AND THE LIMO DRIVER -- THE LIMOUSINE WAS STILL OUTSIDE THE ASHFORD GATE?
A YES.
Q WHEN YOU SAID YOU WENT TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX, YOU POINTED TO AN AREA ON PEOPLE'S 66. IS THAT WHERE IT IS INDICATED BY THAT TREE?
A YES.
Q AND THEN DID THE GATE OPEN?
A YES, IT DID.
Q AND WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A OKAY.
THE GATE OPENED AND HE DROVE IN AND THERE WAS A DOG AND I TOLD HIM TO WATCH IT, AND CHACHI, THE DOG, WENT HERE, (INDICATING), AND THE LIMO DRIVER PARKED HERE, (INDICATING).


***Simpson left for the Airport****

Q WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A SO THE GATE OPENED, WAVED GOOD-BYE AND THEN THEY DROVE OFF AND THEN I STARTED GOING BACK TOWARDS MY ROOM, AND THEN I SAW THE RED LIGHT OR IT WAS A GREEN LIGHT ON THE ALARM, THAT IT WASN'T SET.
Q WHERE DID YOU SEE THAT?
A THERE IS AN ALARM BOX WHERE YOU SET THE CODE.
Q WHERE?
A IN THE FRONT DOOR -- BY THE FRONT DOOR.
Q OUTSIDE?
A OUTSIDE.
Q NEXT TO THE FRONT DOOR, ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE FRONT DOOR?
A TO THE LEFT.
Q AND THAT LIGHT WAS GREEN. WHAT DID THAT MEAN TO YOU?
A THAT IT WAS OPENED.
Q THAT THE ALARM WAS NOT ON?
A YES.

Q WHAT DID YOU DO ABOUT THAT?
A NOTHING. I WENT BACK TO MY ROOM.

Q HOW DID YOU GO BACK TO YOUR ROOM? DID YOU GO THROUGH THE HOUSE?
A NO. I WENT TO THE PATHWAY, SAME WAY THAT I CAME OUT FROM.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Park-March 28th

Q: WAS HE ON THE DRIVEWAY OR WAS HE ON THE GRASS?

A: NO, HE WAS OFF A COUPLE FEET.

Q: OKAY. TELL THE POINTER WHERE TO GO.

A: JUST RIGHT -- RIGHT THERE, (INDICATING).

Q: OKAY. WAS HE ON THE GRASS OR ON THE PATH?

A: I COULDN'T SEE.

Q: YOU COULDN'T TELL?

A: NO.

Q: SO IS THAT THE GENERAL LOCATION WHERE HE WAS?

A: YES.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHAT KIND OF FLASHLIGHT HE HAD?

A: AT THAT TIME, NO.

Q: WHAT WAS HE DOING WHEN YOU SAW HIM?

A: HE WAS JUST STANDING THERE, FROM WHAT I OBSERVED.

Q: OKAY. COULD YOU TELL WHERE HE WAS LOOKING OR WHAT HE WAS DOING?

A: HE LOOKED AT ME AND THEN HE JUST -- HE STARTED TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, IN THE AREA OF THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY.

Q: NOW, WHEN HE WAS LOOKING AT YOU, WHERE WERE YOU?

A: I WAS INSIDE THE CAR ON THE PHONE.

Q: TALKING TO YOUR BOSS?

A: YES.

Q: HOW LONG -- NOW, AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU SAW KATO KAELIN IN THE SIDE YARD, DID YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE?

A: YES. I SAW A FIGURE COME DOWN -- WELL, NOT COME DOWN, BUT I SAW A FIGURE COME INTO THE ENTRANCEWAY OF THE HOUSE JUST ABOUT WHERE THE -- WHERE THE DRIVEWAY STARTS.

Q: CAN YOU SHOW US ON THIS DIAGRAM WHERE YOU FIRST SAW THAT PERSON?

A: UMM, JUST IF YOU GO WHERE THE CIRCLE IS, GO STRAIGHT BACK -- NO, THE OTHER WAY, A LITTLE BIT FARTHER. IT WAS ABOUT THERE, (INDICATING), AROUND THAT AREA.

Q: OKAY. ROUGHLY THAT AREA?

A: YEAH.

Q: OKAY. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE PERSON THAT YOU SAW -- WAS THAT THE FIRST POINT AT WHICH YOU SAW THE PERSON?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT HE LOOKED LIKE, WHAT THAT PERSON LOOKED LIKE.

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: SIX FOOT, 200 POUNDS.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SIX FOOT, 200 POUNDS?

A: ALL DARK CLOTHING.

Q: AND COULD YOU TELL ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT THIS PERSON?

A: NO.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THE PERSON WAS CAUCASIAN OR AFRICAN AMERICAN?

A: BLACK.

Q: OKAY. AND HOW -- IN RELATIONSHIP TO WHEN YOU SAW KATO KAELIN, WHEN DID YOU FIRST SEE THIS PERSON?

A: IT WAS JUST -- IT WAS ALMOST SIMULTANEOUSLY. IT WAS SECONDS AFTER I SAW HIM.

Q: AND THIS SIX-FOOT 200-POUND AFRICAN AMERICAN PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING, WAS THIS PERSON MOVING QUICKLY OR SLOWLY?

A: NOT QUICKLY, NOT SLOWLY, A GOOD PACE WALK IT SEEMED TO BE.

Q: AND MOVING IN WHAT DIRECTION, SIR?

A: INTO THE HOUSE OR TOWARD THE HOUSE.

Q: DID YOU FORM AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER THIS WAS A MALE OR FEMALE?

A: NO.

Q: AND WHEN YOU SAW THAT PERSON, DID THAT PERSON WALK INTO THE ENTRANCE?

A: YES.

Q: AFTER THAT PERSON WALKED INTO THE ENTRANCE, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: I THEN PROCEEDED TO -- WELL, I WAS STILL TALKING TO DALE AT THE SAME TIME. I SAID "SOMEBODY'S HERE." HE SAID, "FINE, FINISH THE JOB, TAKE HIM TO THE AIRPORT AND I WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW" OR WHATEVER. I HUNG UP THE PHONE AND I STILL WAITED ANOTHER -- IT WAS ABOUT ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS OR SO BEFORE I GOT OUT OF THE CAR, BUT I WAS STILL WAITING FOR SOME SOMEBODY TO COME OPEN THE GATE. I FIGURED SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO COME OPEN THE GATE FOR ME. THEY STILL DIDN'T.

Q: HOW LONG AFTER YOU SAW THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING GO INTO THE HOUSE DID YOU CONTINUE TO TALK TO DALE ST. JOHN?

A: OH, IT WAS JUST ANYWHERE BETWEEN TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS. IT WASN'T VERY LONG.

Q: OKAY. SO ON THE PHONE BILL IN FRONT OF YOU, SIR, ON THAT LAST CALL WHERE IT INDICATES 10:52 AND 17 SECONDS, DOES IT INDICATE HOW LONG THE PHONE CALL WAS FOR, THE DURATION OF THE CALL?

A: UMM, YES, TWO MINUTES AND 55 SECONDS.

Q: OKAY. DOES THAT COMPORT WITH YOUR MEMORY OF THE LENGTH OF THE PHONE CALL?

A: YES.

Q: AND SO YOU WOULD HAVE HUNG UP WITH HIM AT 10:55 AND 12 SECONDS?

A: YES.

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

A: YES.

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

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO OBJECT, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHY WAS THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE AND WE COVERED THIS.

MS. CLARK: THAT WAS FOUNDATIONAL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AFTER YOU -- YOU INDICATED THAT YOU SAT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS. WHY DID YOU SIT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS IN YOUR CAR AFTER YOU HUNG UP?

A: BECAUSE I WAS WAITING FOR THE GATE TO BE OPENED. I FIGURED SOMEBODY IS HOME, THEY SAW ME AND THEY ARE GOING TO LET ME IN.

Q: AND DID KATO KAELIN COME OVER TO LET YOU IN?

A: NO, HE DIDN'T.

Q: AND DID THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON DRESSED IN ALL DARK CLOTHING COME TO LET YOU IN?

A: NO.

Q: AND AFTER THIRTY SECONDS WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: THAT IS WHEN I GOT BACK UP AND OUT OF THE CAR AND RANG THE INTERCOM. THIS TIME THERE WAS AN ANSWER, WHICH WAS MR. SIMPSON. HE TOLD ME THAT HE OVERSLEPT AND HE JUST GOT OUT OF THE SHOWER AND HE WOULD BE DOWN IN A MINUTE.

Q: OKAY. HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU HAVE TO RING THE BUZZER THIS TIME BEFORE IT WAS ANSWERED?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION, HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU HAVE TO RING THE BUZZER.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: CAN YOU REPEAT IT?

Q: BY MS. CLARK: HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU HAVE TO RING THE BUZZER THIS TIME BEFORE IT WAS ANSWERED?

A: OH, IT WAS JUST -- HE ANSWERED IT PRETTY MUCH IMMEDIATELY.

Q: AS SOON AS YOU RANG?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN HE SAID TO YOU --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHEN YOU HEARD THE VOICE SAY TO YOU, "I'M SORRY, I OVERSLEPT," DID YOU RECOGNIZE THAT VOICE?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THIS HAS BEEN COVERED.

THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE ALSO, THAT LAST STATEMENT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHOSE VOICE WAS IT?

A: MR. SIMPSON'S.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU SAY HE SAID TO YOU?

A: THAT HE OVERSLEPT --

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR. WE ALL HEARD IT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: HE OVERSLEPT, HE JUST GOT OUT OF THE SHOWER AND HE WOULD BE DOWN IN A MINUTE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, HAD YOU EVER HEARD MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE BEFORE?

A: YES.

Q: HOW HAD YOU HEARD IT BEFORE?

A: ON T.V. COMMENTARY, SPORTS.

[William Anthony]

Continuation-Park, March 28th

Q: IS THAT HOW YOU RECOGNIZED IT?

A: YES.

Q: COULD YOU TELL, WHEN YOU SAW THAT SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON WALK INTO THE ENTRANCE, COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THAT PERSON WAS COMING FROM THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY OR FROM THE AREA OF THE GARAGE FROM THE SOUTH PATHWAY?

A: NO, I COULDN'T.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THAT PERSON HAD ANYTHING IN HIS HAND -- IN THEIR HANDS?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN THAT PERSON WALKED INTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOUSE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY CHANGE IN THE LIGHTING IN THE HOUSE?

A: SOME LIGHTS CAME ON DOWNSTAIRS, YES.

Q: AND WAS THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PERSON ENTERED THE HOUSE?

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY.

Q: HOW LONG AFTER THAT PERSON ENTERED THE HOUSE, THE FRONT ENTRANCE, DID THE LIGHTS GO ON DOWNSTAIRS?

A: JUST SECONDS.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHICH LIGHTS WENT ON?

A: NO. I JUST -- I JUST SAW -- YOU KNOW, FROM THE -- FROM THE WINDOWS AND THE CURTAINS THEY ILLUMINATED. I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHERE THE HEIGHTS CAME FROM, NO.

Q: AFTER THAT SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE, DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHERE MR. KAELIN WAS?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBERED, HE WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK.

Q: DID HE ACKNOWLEDGE YOU IN ANY WAY AFTER THAT PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, HE KIND OF GAVE ME A HAND GESTURE TO LET ME KNOW HE WAS THERE.

Q: AND THAT WAS AFTER THE SIX-FOOT PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE?

A: I'M PRETTY SURE, YES.

Q: THAT PERSON THAT YOU SAW GO INTO THE HOUSE, DID HE LOOK LIKE SOMEONE YOU RECOGNIZED?

A: NO.

Q: DID HE LOOK LIKE MR. SIMPSON?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I COULDN'T TELL WHO IT WAS.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID IT APPEAR TO BE THE SAME SIZE AS MR. SIMPSON?

A: YES.

Q: SAME HEIGHT AND WEIGHT?

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: AROUND THERE.

Q: WAS MR. KAELIN EVER ON THE DRIVEWAY AT THE SAME TIME AS THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON THAT WENT INTO THE HOUSE?

A: NOT THAT I REMEMBER, NO.

Q: AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON -- STRIKE THAT. HOW LONG AFTER YOU SAW THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON GO INTO THE HOUSE DID YOU SPEAK TO MR. SIMPSON ON THE INTERCOM?

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK THIS HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. I'M SORRY, I'M GOING TO OVERRULE THAT. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: IT HAD --

THE COURT: DIFFERENT QUESTION ON LIGHTS.

THE WITNESS: IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN ANYWHERE BETWEEN THIRTY SECONDS TO A MINUTE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON ON THE INTERCOM, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: I GOT BACK INTO THE CAR AND WAITED ANOTHER TWENTY, THIRTY SECONDS AND BEFORE MR. KAELIN CAME OVER AND OPENED THE GATE.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU -- AFTER YOU SPOKE TO MR. SIMPSON YOU GOT BACK IN THE CAR?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND HOW LONG AFTER THAT DID MR. KAELIN COME OVER TO THE GATE?

A: TWENTY OR THIRTY SECONDS.

[William Anthony]

Park-July 5th


Q The person that you saw walk into the house
04 after which you saw the lights go on, could you tell
05 where they came from, whether it was Rockingham or the
06 garage area?
07 A I couldn't tell what direction he was coming
08 from. I could tell you what direction he was walking.
09 Q Yeah. He was walking towards the front door?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Okay. Can you -- but you couldn't tell where
12 he was coming from?
13 A No.
14 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I'm going to object to
15 the form of the question.
16 The witness has testified he couldn't tell
17 whether it was a male or female, and now Ms. Clark is
18 saying "You couldn't tell where he was coming from."
19 THE COURT: Sustained. Assumes a fact not in
20 evidence at this point.
21 MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
22 BY MS. CLARK:
23 Q You couldn't tell where that person was coming
24 from?
25 A Correct.
26 Q After you had the conversation with
27 Mr. Simpson, what happened next?
28 A I got back in the car and waited for the gate
0031
01 to be opened, which still took another 30 seconds or so.
02 Q Did you see where the male white was at that
03 point?
04 A He stood there pretty much the whole time.
05 Q Could you see whether he walked over to the
06 garage area at some point while you were waiting for him
07 to open the gate and talking to Mr. Simpson?
08 A Not that I can recall, no.
09 Q Was the male white and the other person you
10 saw walking into the front door dressed in all dark
11 clothing, were they ever on the driveway at the same
12 point in time?
13 A I don't remember that. I wouldn't --
14 Q You don't remember seeing him on the driveway
15 at the same point --
16 A No --
17 Q -- At the same time?
18 A No.
19 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, the witness has not had a
20 chance to complete his answer.
21 THE COURT: Yes.
22 Please let the witness finish entirely before
23 you make an additional statement.
24 BY MS. CLARK:
25 Q Had you completed your answer?
26 A Yes.
27 Q At some point did the male white open the gate
28 for you?
0032
01 A Yes, he did.
02 Q How long had you been waiting at this --
03 strike that. Let me ask you this.
04 After you spoke to the defendant on the
05 intercom, how long after that did you have to wait for
06 this other man to open the gate?
07 A 30 seconds or more.
08 Q What happened next?
09 A He came towards me and opened the gate. I
10 drove in.

Park-June 21st

Q. AFTER YOU HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH
28 MR. SIMPSON, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

261

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

Bobaugust,

I get my positions from actual evidence.

[William Anthony]

The jury said they didn't consider the forensics or Mark Fuhrman. That negates the importance of the hair and the blood under Nicole's fingernail, the lab results or possiblility of contamination. How did they come to their decision? Did they base their verdict on Park's testimony? Even if you believe that Park's testimony doesn't incriminate Simpson it certainly doesn't do anything to exonerate him either. Seriously, what convinced them he is not guilty?

Thank you for this, because it reinforces my opinion that the jury was sophisticated as they realized long before the value of what many are now calling junk science. What convinced them that Simpson was not guilty was, imho, the prosecution's failure to meet its burden of proof.

[William Anthony]

I read that they got confused about whether they were justified in thinking of Mr. Simpson as a suspect or the suspect. According to Budgliosi, even if they did make mistakes there, whatever they saw would probably have been admitted to the trial because under sometimes evidence is admissable if the DA can convince a judge that the evidence would have been found anyway.

I ask you and VB how would the evidence have been found anyway if LE did not have probable cause to enter Simpson's curtilage?

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, Clark's response to why she put Fuhrman on really makes no sense. She said that it would look like she was hiding him and I think that is just another smoke screen. She could have told the jury why she wasn't introducing the glove and she did not have to denounce MF at all.

What bothers me is that it seems many G's don't understand the significance of what MF said on the tape about the glove and what will happen if he goes down and that Clark knew it. IMO, a strong case can be made for a form of blackmail. If Clark knew the case was over if he went down, well then VA and Lange and the LAPD knew that as well and probably a lot quicker then the DA's knew.

You are right, Fuhrman said what he was and he made no apology-however, the sad fact is, this case was over, IMO, when it became obvious the three other detectives were going to do what they could to save the case. Not only did they do what they had to do but Ito made it pretty obvious that he was going to do what he had to do to let the DA's put on a case. One that was filled with lies and deception from the get go.

When Judge Ito refused to do what Judge Kennedy Powell should have done, the case was over. How can any jury convict a person when the judge makes it pretty clear that he knows they are lying about the search warrant but that is okay, lets just move on and forget about it.

It isn't so much of the lies that VA wrote/told, but why did he do it? Why such the senseless lies? To me, it was obvious they were willing to cover for MF and MF took full advantage of it. He knew he was untouchable and he was. His "conviction is nothing more then his ticket to millions. I still can't believe the people who support him and will defend him harder then they would themselves, IMO.

Ms. Clark's hands were tied. She had to introduce MF. If she had not introduced the glove, the defense would and MF, which would have been more devastating, imho.

I agree with the rest of your post.

[martin II]

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

I don't see what you are getting at. I doubt all 14 officers who got there before MF searched the fight area, but some of them probably did. What the quotes you put in seem to show is that there was at least one of the 14 who didn't search it. I don't think that shows much.

Of the fourteen officers at Bundy only 4 or 5 were allowed into the crime scene. All the others were knocking on doors and controlling the media and traffic.

[martin II]

The jury said they didn't consider the forensics or Mark Fuhrman. That negates the importance of the hair and the blood under Nicole's fingernail, the lab results or possiblility of contamination. How did they come to their decision? Did they base their verdict on Park's testimony? Even if you believe that Park's testimony doesn't incriminate Simpson it certainly doesn't do anything to exonerate him either. Seriously, what convinced them he is not guilty?

tv
not exactly correct

one juror said the DNA was shakey or not believable.one said Vanhatter was not truthful in his testimony. all said furhmans racism was not a factor.

The white juror said she did not believe the DNA which imo could mean she fif not trust the problems of the lab.
i posted the jurys comments previously.

[William Anthony]

You are wrong again, William.

You have never posted any testimony that supports what you imagine Kaelin did when he returned from his first trip to the south path because Kaelin never said what you have imagined he said. If you look at the layout of the Rockingham estate you would see that your interpretation is incorrect.

Kaelin never went back to the Ashford path that night until he returned to his room after Simpson left for the airport.


bobaugust

Bobaugust,

This is why I say your constant exhortation of me to look at the Rockingham layout, although I have informed you that I have, is irrelevant, immaterial and superfluous to the issue.

Q: AFTER THAT SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE, DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHERE MR. KAELIN WAS?

"A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBERED, HE WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK."

You have previously agreed that Kato did not open the gate for Park until after Kato had finished his first cursory search. Therefore, all we need do is place the "sidewalk" in context.

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

Hence, Kato walked back up the driveway to the "sidewalk" on the Ashford Path where Park saw him.

What minimizes the possibility that Park could have seen Kato on his commencement of his first cursory search and I ask you to recall that Kato testified he did not stop on his journey to complete his first cursory search?

"04 A He stood 'there' pretty much the whole time.
05 Q Could you see whether he walked over to the
06 garage area at some point while you were waiting for him
07 to open the gate and talking to Mr. Simpson?
08 A Not that I can recall, no."


Where was there? It was on the "sidewalk". Ergo, I have not imagined anything and have supplied actual testimony/evidence to support my inferences. Therefore, the only thing that is incorrect is your claim that there was nothing to support Kato walked back to the Ashford pathway/sidewalk until after Simpson left for the airport. I would also like to point out to you that it was not my statement that Kato said that he walked back there. It was understood by Ms. Clark, Kato, Park, Martin II and probably others who have not commented and me. I have told you that the devil is in the details and sometimes there is an inadvertent statement of phrase that gives meaning to a subject matter that is overlooked by some, who feel that they have formed the correct conclusion and are unwilling to consider other possibilities, as in this case, the word was "sidewalk". You see, Park did not see or, more precisely, did not see Kato walk toward the garage area, while he either waited for Kato to open the gate (20 to 30 seconds) or while Park talked to Simpson, which reinforces that Kato had finished his first cursory search and walked back to the Ashford Sidewalk and then Park said Kato, "PAUSED FOR ANOTHER MINUTE AS HE
2 WAS STILL STANDING IN THE SAME POSITION AS WHERE HE WAS.
3 AT THAT TIME, HE PROCEEDED TO COME OVER AND
4 OPEN THE GATE FOR ME", meaning Kato walked from the "sidewalk" to the gate box. You have made me rethink a position I had on a jury and my argument that I would place before them, as I think I must pay close attention to the jury to see if they have understood what was said and their ability to put it together. Thanks.

[martin II]

William,

IMO, Clark's response to why she put Fuhrman on really makes no sense. She said that it would look like she was hiding him and I think that is just another smoke screen. She could have told the jury why she wasn't introducing the glove and she did not have to denounce MF at all.

What bothers me is that it seems many G's don't understand the significance of what MF said on the tape about the glove and what will happen if he goes down and that Clark knew it. IMO, a strong case can be made for a form of blackmail. If Clark knew the case was over if he went down, well then VA and Lange and the LAPD knew that as well and probably a lot quicker then the DA's knew.

You are right, Fuhrman said what he was and he made no apology-however, the sad fact is, this case was over, IMO, when it became obvious the three other detectives were going to do what they could to save the case. Not only did they do what they had to do but Ito made it pretty obvious that he was going to do what he had to do to let the DA's put on a case. One that was filled with lies and deception from the get go.

When Judge Ito refused to do what Judge Kennedy Powell should have done, the case was over. How can any jury convict a person when the judge makes it pretty clear that he knows they are lying about the search warrant but that is okay, lets just move on and forget about it.Judge powell and ito made a illegal ruling at that point. how is it that a detective can tell 2-3 lies to a judge to get a search warrant and it is brought to their attention and le gets by with the lies and the search warrant stands.everything found at Rockingham should have been tossed.



It isn't so much of the lies that VA wrote/told, but why did he do it? Why such the senseless lies? To me, it was obvious they were willing to cover for MF and MF took full advantage of it. He knew he was untouchable and he was. His "conviction is nothing more then his ticket to millions. I still can't believe the people who support him and will defend him harder then they would themselves, IMO.


right tv?

[martin II]

***************************
There have been periodic reports about misbehavior in the LAPD, and some of this misbehavior has included racism, so I don't totally back either the LAPD police dept, or MF.

The point about MF, and I think Lange and Vannatter being sleepy is that when people are sleepy they are usually aware of it, and likely to behave in a cautious mannter. Regardless of what might have been true about MF, I don't think there was any evidence against Lange, Vannatter or Philips. Since Lange and Vannatter were over 40, nearing retirement, and sleepy that night, they would probably have been behaving cautiously.

I suppose you think that the 4 detectives lied about the reasons for the search warrant, what was on their mind as they went to Rockingham. Maybe so. I read that they got confused about whether they were justified in thinking of Mr. Simpson as a suspect or the suspect. According to Budgliosi, even if they did make mistakes there, whatever they saw would probably have been admitted to the trial because under sometimes evidence is admissable if the DA can convince a judge that the evidence would have been found anyway. In any case if the detectives did lie, they were probably lying about their motives. It is easy for people to convince themselves that motives were more noble and logical than they really were. This isn't good; but it is not a clear cut a lie as a lie about a physical fact. I didn't pay much attention to that part of the case because I am not interested in search warrant discusions.

I don't see why you are concerned that MF thought a watch cap (or whatever you call it) was a ski mask. Did you want him to get a demerit on his next evaluation? I don't see why that mistake matters. It didn't cause any problems in the investigation. If he had trouble understanding what type of hat was there, that might indicate he wasn't observant enough to spot a second glove.

Why do you believe the u.s. Justice Department took over the management of the LAPD after the trial???????

[martin II]

Bobaugust,

This is why I say your constant exhortation of me to look at the Rockingham layout, although I have informed you that I have, is irrelevant, immaterial and superfluous to the issue.

Q: AFTER THAT SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE, DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHERE MR. KAELIN WAS?

"A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBERED, HE WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK."

You have previously agreed that Kato did not open the gate for Park until after Kato had finished his first cursory search. Therefore, all we need do is place the "sidewalk" in context.

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

Hence, Kato walked back up the driveway to the "sidewalk" on the Ashford Path where Park saw him.

What minimizes the possibility that Park could have seen Kato on his commencement of his first cursory search and I ask you to recall that Kato testified he did not stop on his journey to complete his first cursory search?

"04 A He stood 'there' pretty much the whole time.
05 Q Could you see whether he walked over to the
06 garage area at some point while you were waiting for him
07 to open the gate and talking to Mr. Simpson?
08 A Not that I can recall, no."


Where was there? It was on the "sidewalk". Ergo, I have not imagined anything and have supplied actual testimony/evidence to support my inferences. Therefore, the only thing that is incorrect is your claim that there was nothing to support Kato walked back to the Ashford pathway/sidewalk until after Simpson left for the airport. I would also like to point out to you that it was not my statement that Kato said that he walked back there. It was understood by Ms. Clark, Kato, Park, Martin II and probably others who have not commented and me. I have told you that the devil is in the details and sometimes there is an inadvertent statement of phrase that gives meaning to a subject matter that is overlooked by some, who feel that they have formed the correct conclusion and are unwilling to consider other possibilities, as in this case, the word was "sidewalk". You see, Park did not see or, more precisely, did not see Kato walk toward the garage area, while he either waited for Kato to open the gate (20 to 30 seconds) or while Park talked to Simpson, which reinforces that Kato had finished his first cursory search and walked back to the Ashford Sidewalk and then Park said Kato, "PAUSED FOR ANOTHER MINUTE AS HE
2 WAS STILL STANDING IN THE SAME POSITION AS WHERE HE WAS.
3 AT THAT TIME, HE PROCEEDED TO COME OVER AND
4 OPEN THE GATE FOR ME", meaning Kato walked from the "sidewalk" to the gate box. You have made me rethink a position I had on a jury and my argument that I would place before them, as I think I must pay close attention to the jury to see if they have understood what was said and their ability to put it together. Thanks.

William

you have proven your points on this issue many times over. This relates directly to the time Kato said he heard the noise AT 10;45.

we cannot ignore Parks testimony over and over that KATO WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK which means he did not see Kato walk to the s pathway area in the dark.

[martin II]

The jury said they didn't consider the forensics or Mark Fuhrman. That negates the importance of the hair and the blood under Nicole's fingernail, the lab results or possiblility of contamination. How did they come to their decision? Did they base their verdict on Park's testimony? Even if you believe that Park's testimony doesn't incriminate Simpson it certainly doesn't do anything to exonerate him either. Seriously, what convinced them he is not guilty?

After the visit to Rockingham they did not believe some of Parks testimony.
They saw what happened to Mazallos switched envelopes.
They saw that CY sprayed blood near ojs sample.
There was never any proof that oj was in the south walkway at Rockingham where the glove was found.
Vanhatters lies.
The many collection problems and the problems in the lab indicated that something was wrong.
They saw the problems with the glove.
Le never presented a murder weapon, the killers shoes or the killers clothes.
They knew the entering ojs property was a lie and the search warrant a lie.
Katos testimony proves that OJ was in the house when Park arrived.

There were a few more problems but i will stop there.:cool:

[William Anthony]

William

you have proven your points on this issue many times over. This relates directly to the time Kato said he heard the noise AT 10;45.

we cannot ignore Parks testimony over and over that KATO WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK which means he did not see Kato walk to the s pathway area in the dark.

Thank you, Martin

I think bobaugust has not considered all the testimony and relies on the fact that Park said he saw Kato walk down the Ashford path from the back of the house, which all the testimony shows that he could not have. What he saw was Kato standing and still standing on the sidewalk after Kato had completed his first cursory search. I simply wanted bobaugust to understand that there is actual testimony/evidence to support my inferences and considerably more than that which supports his. I have not called his inferences wrong, because I do not feel the need to be always right.

[martin II]

***************************
There have been periodic reports about misbehavior in the LAPD, and some of this misbehavior has included racism, so I don't totally back either the LAPD police dept, or MF.

The point about MF, and I think Lange and Vannatter being sleepy is that when people are sleepy they are usually aware of it, and likely to behave in a cautious mannter. Regardless of what might have been true about MF, I don't think there was any evidence against Lange, Vannatter or Philips. Since Lange and Vannatter were over 40, nearing retirement, and sleepy that night, they would probably have been behaving cautiously.

I suppose you think that the 4 detectives lied about the reasons for the search warrant, what was on their mind as they went to Rockingham. Maybe so. I read that they got confused about whether they were justified in thinking of Mr. Simpson as a suspect or the suspect. According to Budgliosi, even if they did make mistakes there, whatever they saw would probably have been admitted to the trial because under sometimes evidence is admissable if the DA can convince a judge that the evidence would have been found anyway. In any case if the detectives did lie, they were probably lying about their motives. It is easy for people to convince themselves that motives were more noble and logical than they really were. This isn't good; but it is not a clear cut a lie as a lie about a physical fact. I didn't pay much attention to that part of the case because I am not interested in search warrant discusions. Vanhatter told Judge Kennedy a pack of outright lies to get her to issue the search warrant. He told her that blood had been found on the Bronco a lie. He told her that oj had left on a UNSCHEDULED FLIGHT. C R told him ojs flight had been made well in advance when they first arrived at rockingham so that was a outright lie.



I don't see why you are concerned that MF thought a watch cap (or whatever you call it) was a ski mask. Did you want him to get a demerit on his next evaluation? I don't see why that mistake matters. It didn't cause any problems in the investigation. If he had trouble understanding what type of hat was there, that might indicate he wasn't observant enough to spot a second glove.

You think le can tell lies to a judge to search your house and it is not a big
deal????

[William Anthony]

You think le can tell lies to a judge to search your house and it is not a big
deal????

I do not know that Lang and Vannatter or anyone else was sleepy that night. I do know that when I am sleepy it is quite an effort for me to do things that come easily when I am wide awake. I may think that I am behaving cautiously but in fact I am acting sort of erratically due to my sleepy condition. It is interesting how some can summarily dismiss the carelessness, sloppiness, mistakes, human errors and lies committed by some but, at the same time, condemn to the highest degree similar statements or actions of others.

[martin II]

May have been Ron's, may have been someone else's. Proves nothing either way. The blood? We've already been all over the science of that. :)

it proves she scratched someone else and that a blond haired person left his/her hair.

[martin II]

I do not know that Lang and Vannatter or anyone else was sleepy that night. I do know that when I am sleepy it is quite an effort for me to do things that come easily when I am wide awake. I may think that I am behaving cautiously but in fact I am acting sort of erratically due to my sleepy condition. It is interesting how some can summarily dismiss the carelessness, sloppiness, mistakes, human errors and lies committed by some but, at the same time, condemn to the highest degree similar statements or actions of others.

uncontrolled bias?

[William Anthony]

MF-March 13th

"Q: DO YOU KNOW A PHOTOGRAPHER NAMED ROKAHR?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DID YOU SEE HIM ARRIVE ON THE SCENE AT 3:25 THAT DAY?

A: YES. I RECALL HE WAS THERE FAIRLY EARLY.

Q: WERE YOU -- DID YOU OBSERVE HIM TAKING ANY PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: YES. I THINK HE WAS TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS OF SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU GIVE HIM ANY DIRECTION WITH RESPECT TO PHOTOGRAPHS THAT NEEDED TO BE TAKEN?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH HIM AT ALL?

A: NO, I DON'T BELIEVE I DID.

Q: WHEN YOU LEFT FOR ROCKINGHAM DID HE GO WITH YOU?

A: NO. "

Rokhar-September 5th

MR. NEUFELD: Sir, for instance, sequentially, the next five photographs that you took after you took pictures of Mark Fuhrman pointing at the glove, for those five pictures, were you relying on your own professional judgment or were you being instructed by a detective or police officer to take those pictures?

MR. ROKAHR: At that point, I believe Mark Fuhrman said, "Let's go around the front of the building and shoot from there."

"MR. NEUFELD: Sir, when you were interviewed by me yesterday, didn't you tell me that as to the next group of five photographs that you took after Mark Fuhrman pointed out the glove, that as to the next five photographs, they were not taken at the instructions of any detective or police officer, but they were pictures that you simply took using your own professional judgment? Didn't you say that to me yesterday?

MR. ROKAHR: I probably did, meaning--meaning that I do shoot a lot of photographs in my own judgment. The reason I'm saying now that Mark Fuhrman instructed me to go around the front is because I switched from the actual crime scene, and we had to walk all the way around front to do these photographs, and I think I was instructed."

[weezer]

wow -- the photographer was 'instructed' to go to the front of the crime scene by the detective. you don't suppose that was because that's where the EVIDENCE was do you?

[tv]

After the visit to Rockingham they did not believe some of Parks testimony.
They saw what happened to Mazallos switched envelopes.
They saw that CY sprayed blood near ojs sample.
There was never any proof that oj was in the south walkway at Rockingham where the glove was found.
Vanhatters lies.
The many collection problems and the problems in the lab indicated that something was wrong.
They saw the problems with the glove.
Le never presented a murder weapon, the killers shoes or the killers clothes.
They knew the entering ojs property was a lie and the search warrant a lie.
Katos testimony proves that OJ was in the house when Park arrived.

There were a few more problems but i will stop there.:cool:

1. After the visit to Rockingham, seeing Eunice Simpson's picture in the bedroom, the Norman Rockwell print of a civil rights scene (from Johnnie's office) and the trophy room they decided they liked the Juice more than they did Park.

2. No proof that Mazzola's envelopes were switched. Wishful thinking.

3. Colin Yamauchi spilled a tiny amount of blood on the chemwipe he was using. No evidence that it ever came near any evidence.

4. The proof that Simpson was on the south walkway is the glove with his DNA and the DNA of both victims.

5. No proof of any lying by Vannatter. Just because you'd like it to be so doesn't make it so.

6. According to the defense's guy Dr. John Gerdes all the test results are valid results. No problems caused by collection or contaminination.

7. See #4.

8. The items you mentioned (clothes, shoes, weapon) are often not in evidence in a murder trial. One thing is for sure -- Ron and Nicole were murdered and someone did it. Unless they did it shoeless, naked and with their bare hands all of those items exist somewhere. There have been a number of convictions without those things.

9. Kato's testimony does not prove that Simpson was in the house when Park arrived. More wishful thinking. Even Kato now believes that Simpson killed Ron and Nicole.

Please continue...I'm up for it. :cool:

[tv]

Thank you for this, because it reinforces my opinion that the jury was sophisticated as they realized long before the value of what many are now calling junk science. What convinced them that Simpson was not guilty was, imho, the prosecution's failure to meet its burden of proof.

Considering they were unaware that a major component of the prosecution's case was the blood of OJ Simpson found on the Rockingham glove I'd say they were in daze through much of the trial. How could they sit there through the entire trial and not know this? What that says to me is that their minds were made up and they didn't listen to the prosecution's case. They owed that to their fellow citizens of the state of California.

[tv]

wow -- the photographer was 'instructed' to go to the front of the crime scene by the detective. you don't suppose that was because that's where the EVIDENCE was do you?

The nerve of that Mark Fuhrman to point the photographer to the evidence. Solid proof that he's a racist cop out to frame OJ Simpson. :biggrin:

[tv]

right tv?I'm sorry, I don't respond or comment on GreenIce's crazy posts. If you want to give her rantings and ravings any credibility that's entirely up to you. I'll pass. :)

[martin II]

I'm sorry, I don't respond or comment on GreenIce's crazy posts. If you want to give her rantings and ravings any credibility that's entirely up to you. I'll pass. :)

Well i am surprised as i had thoight that we had left that stuff behind last week.:cool:

[martin II]

1. After the visit to Rockingham, seeing Eunice Simpson's picture in the bedroom, the Norman Rockwell print of a civil rights scene (from Johnnie's office) and the trophy room they decided they liked the Juice more than they did Park. nope Park could not see what he said he saw.from that gate.

2. No proof that Mazzola's envelopes were switched. Wishful thinking. The proof is when she testified that she did not know what happened to the enverlopes she initialed.

3. Colin Yamauchi spilled a tiny amount of blood on the chemwipe he was using. No evidence that it ever came near any evidence. what is tiny?? not true.

4. The proof that Simpson was on the south walkway is the glove with his DNA and the DNA of both victims. not true

5. No proof of any lying by Vannatter. Just because you'd like it to be so doesn't make it so. HE lied to the judge and one juror said he lied at other times. he was testifying to the jury not you.

6. According to the defense's guy Dr. John Gerdes all the test results are valid results. No problems caused by collection or contaminination.Martz as a nut and dissproved his own experiement.

7. See #4.

8. The items you mentioned (clothes, shoes, weapon) are often not in evidence in a murder trial. One thing is for sure -- Ron and Nicole were murdered and someone did it. Unless they did it shoeless, naked and with their bare hands all of those items exist somewhere. There have been a number of convictions without those things. i guess he did it. i think. maby.

9. Kato's testimony does not prove that Simpson was in the house when Park arrived. More wishful thinking. Even Kato now believes that Simpson killed Ron and Nicole. When oj brought thhe two duffle bags down tio the door it proves he was in the house. the two bags that park saw when he drove to the front door. sorry

Please continue...I'm up for it. :cool:


Ask the jury, the prosecution did not show the jury that he was guilty beyond a reasonble dout. so i don't know how i can help you.:cool:

[fgump2]

Yes, you have provided a bunch of maybes and speculations as to whom the unidentified hair may have belonged and to whose clothing. Those are the unanswered questions. Could it have been on the clothing of the killer and did it belong to the murderer of a member of the killer's family or a friend and, if that family member or friend was identified could that have led them to the murderer? Those questions will remain unanswered as long as the hair remains unidentified. The one thing we know is that it was found inside the Rockingham glove and a type B blood drop was found under Ms. NBS's fingernails and Simpson, Ms. NBS and Mr RG were excluded as the source of that blood drop. I could not convict under those circumstances, because I would want to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt before I said guilty and risked sending an innocent man to the penitentiary for life or deprive him of his life. If, on the other hand, the person was guilty and was set free and murdered someone else, I would likewise feel guilty. However, I believe that a thousand guilty should go free before one innocent man is wrongly convicted.
**********
If I ever commit a murder, or any serious felony, I will try to remember to bring some unidentifiable hairs with me. According to WA’s thinking here, it is wrong to convict a person of a crime if we are unsure of whether they did it alone or with some other person’s help.

Maybe the FBI should keep a data bank or some such thing on hairs. Should come in handy for other trials. Shouldn’t cost more than several hundred billion dollars. Maybe we should cut the amount of money we are spending on such non essentials as education, roads, and efforts to reduce pollution, and use it for something useful.
I have read about people being freed from prisons because the authorities decided that the evidence wasn’t as good enough to hold them. In some cases they were proved innocent, in other cases the authorities (DAs and judges I guess) decided that the evidence wasn’t strong enough. I doubt that finding unidentified hair on the evidence has ever been enough to get someone out of jail, or even keep someone from being convicted in the first place.

Sarcasm aside, I don’t see how anyone can give much meaning to unidentified hairs. OJS traveled a lot, was around a lot of different people. A lot of people came to his house. LA is a large city. OJS probably wore the hat in a lot of situations.

The idea that the unidentified blood type B indicators is a reason for acquitting Orenthal is just as bad. In the first place neither the defense nor WA gave an explanation of why there was no fourth person’s DNA in the lab results, If they defense thought the blood under Nicole’s fingernails indicated a fourth person, where was the fourth person’s DNA? I don’t feel like getting much into blood chemistry. I don’t know much about it, and I don’t think WA or the other posters do either. But the lack of a fourth person’s DNA and the fact that Nicole had relatively long and undamaged fingernails on both hands would indicate to me that it is unlikely that Nicole got an assailants blood under her fingernails. Also I believe there was no fourth person’s skin under her fingernails. There was no indication of another person’s foot prints.

The defeinse was able to establish that there were no scientific papers showing that it was possible to BA blood indicators to degrade to B indicators, they didn't show any papers which said it wasn't possible.

I think it would be reasonable for a jury to convict even if the don’t agree with the all the prosecutions theories. In theory it should be possible to prove that a person took part in a crime, and not know if there were other guilty people also. Has anyone ever escaped conviction because the evidence was ambiguous about whether or not they committed the crime alone?

[fgump2]

Yes, you have provided a bunch of maybes and speculations as to whom the unidentified hair may have belonged and to whose clothing. Those are the unanswered questions. Could it have been on the clothing of the killer and did it belong to the murderer of a member of the killer's family or a friend and, if that family member or friend was identified could that have led them to the murderer? Those questions will remain unanswered as long as the hair remains unidentified. The one thing we know is that it was found inside the Rockingham glove and a type B blood drop was found under Ms. NBS's fingernails and Simpson, Ms. NBS and Mr RG were excluded as the source of that blood drop. I could not convict under those circumstances, because I would want to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt before I said guilty and risked sending an innocent man to the penitentiary for life or deprive him of his life. If, on the other hand, the person was guilty and was set free and murdered someone else, I would likewise feel guilty. However, I believe that a thousand guilty should go free before one innocent man is wrongly convicted.
***************
If I ever commit a murder, or any serious felony, I will try to remember to bring some unidentifiable hairs with me. According to WA’s thinking here, it is wrong to convict a person of a crime if we are unsure of whether they did it alone or with some other person’s help.

Maybe the FBI should keep a data bank or some such thing on hairs. Should come in handy for other trials. Shouldn’t cost more than several hundred billion dollars. Maybe we should cut the amount of money we are spending on such non essentials as education, roads, and efforts to reduce pollution, and use it for something useful.
I have read about people being freed from prisons because the authorities decided that the evidence wasn’t as good enough to hold them. In some cases they were proved innocent, in other cases the authorities (DAs and judges I guess) decided that the evidence wasn’t strong enough. I doubt that finding unidentified hair on the evidence has ever been enough to get someone out of jail, or even keep someone from being convicted in the first place.

Sarcasm aside, I don’t see how anyone can give much meaning to unidentified hairs. OJS traveled a lot, was around a lot of different people. A lot of people came to his house. LA is a large city. OJS probably wore the hat in a lot of situations.

The idea that the unidentified blood type B indicators is a reason for acquitting Orenthal is just as bad. In the first place neither the defense nor WA gave an explanation of why there was no fourth person’s DNA in the lab results, If they defense thought the blood under Nicole’s fingernails indicated a fourth person, where was the fourth person’s DNA? I don’t feel like getting much into blood chemistry. I don’t know much about it, and I don’t think WA or the other posters do either. But the lack of a fourth person’s DNA and the fact that Nicole had relatively long and undamaged fingernails on both hands would indicate to me that it is unlikely that Nicole got an assailants blood under her fingernails. Also I believe there was no fourth person’s skin under her fingernails. There was no indication of another person’s foot prints.
I think it would be reasonable for a jury to convict even if they don’t agree with the all the prosecutions theories. In theory it should be possible to prove that a person took part in a crime, without proving whether they acted alone. Has anyone evaded conviction because the evidence was ambiguous about whether or not they committed the crime alone?

[weezer]

***************
If I ever commit a murder, or any serious felony, I will try to remember to bring some unidentifiable hairs with me. According to WA’s thinking here, it is wrong to convict a person of a crime if we are unsure of whether they did it alone or with some other person’s help.

Maybe the FBI should keep a data bank or some such thing on hairs. Should come in handy for other trials. Shouldn’t cost more than several hundred billion dollars. Maybe we should cut the amount of money we are spending on such non essentials as education, roads, and efforts to reduce pollution, and use it for something useful.
I have read about people being freed from prisons because the authorities decided that the evidence wasn’t as good enough to hold them. In some cases they were proved innocent, in other cases the authorities (DAs and judges I guess) decided that the evidence wasn’t strong enough. I doubt that finding unidentified hair on the evidence has ever been enough to get someone out of jail, or even keep someone from being convicted in the first place.

Sarcasm aside, I don’t see how anyone can give much meaning to unidentified hairs. OJS traveled a lot, was around a lot of different people. A lot of people came to his house. LA is a large city. OJS probably wore the hat in a lot of situations.

The idea that the unidentified blood type B indicators is a reason for acquitting Orenthal is just as bad. In the first place neither the defense nor WA gave an explanation of why there was no fourth person’s DNA in the lab results, If they defense thought the blood under Nicole’s fingernails indicated a fourth person, where was the fourth person’s DNA? I don’t feel like getting much into blood chemistry. I don’t know much about it, and I don’t think WA or the other posters do either. But the lack of a fourth person’s DNA and the fact that Nicole had relatively long and undamaged fingernails on both hands would indicate to me that it is unlikely that Nicole got an assailants blood under her fingernails. Also I believe there was no fourth person’s skin under her fingernails. There was no indication of another person’s foot prints.
I think it would be reasonable for a jury to convict even if they don’t agree with the all the prosecutions theories. In theory it should be possible to prove that a person took part in a crime, without proving whether they acted alone. Has anyone evaded conviction because the evidence was ambiguous about whether or not they committed the crime alone?


The dichotomy of the NG's arguments are that it wouldn't have mattered if everything had been collected and identified. They just simply keep up the unsupported mantra: LE planted everything.

[tv]

Well i am surprised as i had thoight that we had left that stuff behind last week.:cool:

I choose to remain cautious about dealing with her instead of just getting over it. I'm surprised you don't understand. :)

[tv]

***************
If I ever commit a murder, or any serious felony, I will try to remember to bring some unidentifiable hairs with me. According to WA’s thinking here, it is wrong to convict a person of a crime if we are unsure of whether they did it alone or with some other person’s help.

Maybe the FBI should keep a data bank or some such thing on hairs. Should come in handy for other trials. Shouldn’t cost more than several hundred billion dollars. Maybe we should cut the amount of money we are spending on such non essentials as education, roads, and efforts to reduce pollution, and use it for something useful.
I have read about people being freed from prisons because the authorities decided that the evidence wasn’t as good enough to hold them. In some cases they were proved innocent, in other cases the authorities (DAs and judges I guess) decided that the evidence wasn’t strong enough. I doubt that finding unidentified hair on the evidence has ever been enough to get someone out of jail, or even keep someone from being convicted in the first place.

Sarcasm aside, I don’t see how anyone can give much meaning to unidentified hairs. OJS traveled a lot, was around a lot of different people. A lot of people came to his house. LA is a large city. OJS probably wore the hat in a lot of situations.

The idea that the unidentified blood type B indicators is a reason for acquitting Orenthal is just as bad. In the first place neither the defense nor WA gave an explanation of why there was no fourth person’s DNA in the lab results, If they defense thought the blood under Nicole’s fingernails indicated a fourth person, where was the fourth person’s DNA? I don’t feel like getting much into blood chemistry. I don’t know much about it, and I don’t think WA or the other posters do either. But the lack of a fourth person’s DNA and the fact that Nicole had relatively long and undamaged fingernails on both hands would indicate to me that it is unlikely that Nicole got an assailants blood under her fingernails. Also I believe there was no fourth person’s skin under her fingernails. There was no indication of another person’s foot prints.
I think it would be reasonable for a jury to convict even if they don’t agree with the all the prosecutions theories. In theory it should be possible to prove that a person took part in a crime, without proving whether they acted alone. Has anyone evaded conviction because the evidence was ambiguous about whether or not they committed the crime alone?

I really enjoyed this post. :)

[tv]

The dichotomy of the NG's arguments are that it wouldn't have mattered if everything had been collected and identified. They just simply keep up the unsupported mantra: LE planted everything.

If the lab and LE were so committed to framing OJ Simpson why didn't they just lie about the blood under Nicole's fingernail? Why didn't they plant a lot of Nicole and Ron's blood at Rockingham and in the Bronco? There was certainly enough of it available. Instead, according to the NGs, they choose to take 1.5 ml of OJ Simpson's blood and try to implicate him in the murders. If Vannatter was so intent on spreading his blood around why did he tell Peratis that what he drew was enough? Why not say 'draw up a little more'?

[tv]

Ask the jury, the prosecution did not show the jury that he was guilty beyond a reasonble dout. so i don't know how i can help you.:cool:All you posted was more speculation and wishful thinking. You seem to be hung up on the duffle bags -- just some more of OJ Simpson's faulty alibi. As for the jury, they couldn't know what the prosecution proved or didn't prove if they didn't have an awareness of what evidence the prosecution presented.

[GreenIce]

***************
If I ever commit a murder, or any serious felony, I will try to remember to bring some unidentifiable hairs with me. According to WA’s thinking here, it is wrong to convict a person of a crime if we are unsure of whether they did it alone or with some other person’s help.

Maybe the FBI should keep a data bank or some such thing on hairs. Should come in handy for other trials. Shouldn’t cost more than several hundred billion dollars. Maybe we should cut the amount of money we are spending on such non essentials as education, roads, and efforts to reduce pollution, and use it for something useful.
I have read about people being freed from prisons because the authorities decided that the evidence wasn’t as good enough to hold them. In some cases they were proved innocent, in other cases the authorities (DAs and judges I guess) decided that the evidence wasn’t strong enough. I doubt that finding unidentified hair on the evidence has ever been enough to get someone out of jail, or even keep someone from being convicted in the first place.

Sarcasm aside, I don’t see how anyone can give much meaning to unidentified hairs. OJS traveled a lot, was around a lot of different people. A lot of people came to his house. LA is a large city. OJS probably wore the hat in a lot of situations.

The idea that the unidentified blood type B indicators is a reason for acquitting Orenthal is just as bad. In the first place neither the defense nor WA gave an explanation of why there was no fourth person’s DNA in the lab results, If they defense thought the blood under Nicole’s fingernails indicated a fourth person, where was the fourth person’s DNA? I don’t feel like getting much into blood chemistry. I don’t know much about it, and I don’t think WA or the other posters do either. But the lack of a fourth person’s DNA and the fact that Nicole had relatively long and undamaged fingernails on both hands would indicate to me that it is unlikely that Nicole got an assailants blood under her fingernails. Also I believe there was no fourth person’s skin under her fingernails. There was no indication of another person’s foot prints.
I think it would be reasonable for a jury to convict even if they don’t agree with the all the prosecutions theories. In theory it should be possible to prove that a person took part in a crime, without proving whether they acted alone. Has anyone evaded conviction because the evidence was ambiguous about whether or not they committed the crime alone?

Fgump2,

The problem with your reasoning is that you are taking each piece of evidence and then you base on your opinon on that one piece evidence and then move to the next. However, in this case, you have to look at all the evidence and as much as I hate to use the saying, "see the big picture".

Regarding the unidentified hairs---how can Simpson's hair be indentified proof positive it is his---yet when there is hair that is undentified, that is not consistent with Simpson, Nicole or Ron, it doesn't matter, not big deal, can't identify a person anyway, only their race and if they color their hair or not. Can't determine the sex.

Was there unidentified blood drops found at Bundy? Yes, there was.

Was there unidentified DNA found in the Bronco? Yes, there was.

Were there unidentified fingerprints at Bundy? Yes, there were.

Was Rockingham even dusted for prints? I don't know.

Were there at least two other blood drop trail that could have only come from the killer? Yes, there were at least two others, on Nicole's back and leg. Were these blood drops collected? No, they were not.

Were three bloody fingeprints lost in this case? Yes, there were.

Was there flesh found under Nicole's fingernails? Yes, there was. Was this evidence lost? Yes it was.

Beside the trowel on the tile, were their other similar patterns left at the scene that were consistent from coming from the same object? Yes, there were. If these said impressions were footprints, could they have come from a Bruno Magli shoe? No, they could not.

Was there a sheet of paper found by Nicole's head, (I think) that had this same imprint on it collected? No, it was not.

Were the keys that Ron was carrying tested for blood? Some say yes, some say no, the DA's say no they weren't---how can it be?

Was their evidence that Nicole may have entertained or was going to be entertaining after her children were put down for the night? Yes there was.

Was a men's jean jacket found in Nicole's kitchen? Yes, there was.

What happened to the jacket? No one knows.

Is a "rape kit" only used for the crime of rape? No, they are not. They are also used as an effective time of death tool. Was one performed on Nicole? No.

Was Ron also checked to see if he had sex before he was murdered that night? Don't think this was ever mentioned in the trial.

Isn't the pattern obvious? How many times can so much relevant evidence just be ignored or "missed"? Isn't it obvious the LAPD and the DA's were only interested in the evidence that pointed Simpson rather then get anybody who was involved in the crime?

Don't forget, there were I think two witnesses who did say they saw other people at the condo that night. And I am not talking about the man who was casing the area for robberies or the MAG.

[William Anthony]

Considering they were unaware that a major component of the prosecution's case was the blood of OJ Simpson found on the Rockingham glove I'd say they were in daze through much of the trial. How could they sit there through the entire trial and not know this? What that says to me is that their minds were made up and they didn't listen to the prosecution's case. They owed that to their fellow citizens of the state of California.

It tells me that they paid close attention to the farce of a case that the prosecution put on. They listen to the evidence of the missing blood, poor evidence techniques, missing initial on evidence (lack of chain of custody), a cesspool of contamination and simply did not believe that the blood was Simpson's and could have belonged to anyone.

[GreenIce]

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

I don't see what you are getting at. I doubt all 14 officers who got there before MF searched the fight area, but some of them probably did. What the quotes you put in seem to show is that there was at least one of the 14 who didn't search it. I don't think that shows much.

fgump2,

The point is, because a second glove was not looked for, it is impossible to say that a second glove was found in the Bundy area and it made its way over to Rockingham via someone else and not OJ Simpson.

The other point is that we can't assigned our morals and ethics to police officers, lab people, etc., because we do not know them. We know the oath they take, but we do not know how near and dear to their hearts how they interpet it. IMO.

[William Anthony]

The nerve of that Mark Fuhrman to point the photographer to the evidence. Solid proof that he's a racist cop out to frame OJ Simpson. :biggrin:

According to the convicted perjurer, he did not point out the evidence to the photographer and never talked to him. Wonder why the convicted perjurer would make that claim about the glove?

[weezer]

then we were all right: Those folks were too ignorant and biased to sit on a jury. :shrug:

[GreenIce]

It tells me that they paid close attention to the farce of a case that the prosecution put on. They listen to the evidence of the missing blood, poor evidence techniques, missing initial on evidence (lack of chain of custody), a cesspool of contamination and simply did not believe that the blood was Simpson's and could have belonged to anyone.

William,

They took pictures of the gloves right, where is the picture showing this tiny drop on the wrist lip of the glove?

IMO, the only truly honest mistake that could have been made was this one. I remember reading that most people in CY's position do about 4 or 5 cases a day. He did around 24 that day. Him, I give a honest break to on this issue alone.

[William Anthony]

***************
If I ever commit a murder, or any serious felony, I will try to remember to bring some unidentifiable hairs with me. According to WA’s thinking here, it is wrong to convict a person of a crime if we are unsure of whether they did it alone or with some other person’s help.



Show me where I said that it was wrong to convict a person of a crime if it is unsure the person acted alone?

[William Anthony]

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


Maybe the FBI should keep a data bank or some such thing on hairs. Should come in handy for other trials. Shouldn’t cost more than several hundred billion dollars. Maybe we should cut the amount of money we are spending on such non essentials as education, roads, and efforts to reduce pollution, and use it for something useful.
I have read about people being freed from prisons because the authorities decided that the evidence wasn’t as good enough to hold them. In some cases they were proved innocent, in other cases the authorities (DAs and judges I guess) decided that the evidence wasn’t strong enough. I doubt that finding unidentified hair on the evidence has ever been enough to get someone out of jail, or even keep someone from being convicted in the first place.



Perhaps, you are unaware that there are data banks kept on types of hairs. I sense that some of the money spent on education may be a waste of time. I have never suggested that finding an unidentified hair was enough to get an acquittal but I will take an EDUCATED guess here and say that the unidentified hair when placed in context of the totality of the other evidence was enough to show reasonable doubt.

[William Anthony]

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

Sarcasm aside, I don’t see how anyone can give much meaning to unidentified hairs. OJS traveled a lot, was around a lot of different people. A lot of people came to his house. LA is a large city. OJS probably wore the hat in a lot of situations.



Show me the evidence that Simpson probably wore the hat in a lot of situations? Shoe me the evidence that the hat was worn by Simpson in the prior six months, year, year and a half, two years or two weeks or two days?

[William Anthony]

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

The idea that the unidentified blood type B indicators is a reason for acquitting Orenthal is just as bad. In the first place neither the defense nor WA gave an explanation of why there was no fourth person’s DNA in the lab results, If they defense thought the blood under Nicole’s fingernails indicated a fourth person, where was the fourth person’s DNA? I don’t feel like getting much into blood chemistry. I don’t know much about it, and I don’t think WA or the other posters do either. But the lack of a fourth person’s DNA and the fact that Nicole had relatively long and undamaged fingernails on both hands would indicate to me that it is unlikely that Nicole got an assailants blood under her fingernails. Also I believe there was no fourth person’s skin under her fingernails. There was no indication of another person’s foot prints.
I think it would be reasonable for a jury to convict even if they don’t agree with the all the prosecutions theories. In theory it should be possible to prove that a person took part in a crime, without proving whether they acted alone. Has anyone evaded conviction because the evidence was ambiguous about whether or not they committed the crime alone?

You seem to indicate that Simpson did not act alone based on the evidence. However, it was the prosecution's theory that Simpson acted alone. It was the prosecution's theory that Simpson committed both murders. It is obvious to me that you do not understand significance of the type B blood, you have made an assumption that Ms. NBS scratched the murderer due to the fact that the blood was found under her fingernails. It is entirely possible that the murderer was scratched/cut while struggling with Mr. RG. The prosecution claimed that Simpson could have killed Mr. RG and then went back and killed Ms. NBS. It is possible that the unidentified Caucasian, who left the hair, could have done what the prosecution alleged and when he back to Ms. NBS to finish the job she reached for him and touched the area on his body where he was bleeding. Of course, my speculation differs from yours in one respect, because I happen to believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty and not vice versa and that I believe that it is better to let a thousand guilty go free than to wrongly convict one innocent person. My speculation differs from yours and the significance I place on the totality of the evidence is different, imho, because we start our speculations from a different vantage point and there is no sarcasm in my response.

[tv]

It tells me that they paid close attention to the farce of a case that the prosecution put on. They listen to the evidence of the missing blood, poor evidence techniques, missing initial on evidence (lack of chain of custody), a cesspool of contamination and simply did not believe that the blood was Simpson's and could have belonged to anyone.

No, William. Carrie Bess said if he was guilty you would expect to find his blood on the Rockingham glove. She didn't say that she suspected the blood on the glove was planted. She said it wasn't there. Twist, twist, twist. :)

[William Anthony]

I really enjoyed this post. :)

I am not surprised. :)

[William Anthony]

William,

They took pictures of the gloves right, where is the picture showing this tiny drop on the wrist lip of the glove?

IMO, the only truly honest mistake that could have been made was this one. I remember reading that most people in CY's position do about 4 or 5 cases a day. He did around 24 that day. Him, I give a honest break to on this issue alone.

He should have asked for a raise or assistance. :)

[bobaugust]

Thank you, Martin

I think bobaugust has not considered all the testimony and relies on the fact that Park said he saw Kato walk down the Ashford path from the back of the house, which all the testimony shows that he could not have. What he saw was Kato standing and still standing on the sidewalk after Kato had completed his first cursory search. I simply wanted bobaugust to understand that there is actual testimony/evidence to support my inferences and considerably more than that which supports his. I have not called his inferences wrong, because I do not feel the need to be always right.

You’re wrong William. Nothing Park or Kaelin testified to changes where Park said Kaelin was when he first saw him. Nothing you have posted changes the evidence where Park wrote an X on the prosecution exhibit where Kaelin was when he first saw him. The fact is the only time Kaelin was on that side of the driveway that night was when he came from his room and later when he returned to his room

No defense lawyer in this case has ever claimed Park was mistaken about this. Every lawyer in this case as well as anyone else who is familiar with the Rockingham layout understands that Park first saw Kaelin when Kaelin was coming from his room to investigate the noises he had just heard on his back wall, he was not returning from that first investigation.

Only you and martin can not accept this reality because you both understand that Park’s testimony is consistent with Simpson making the noises on Kaelin’s back wall. That fact destroys your beliefs in Simpson’s lies. So you have created your own fantasy as to what you imagine happened and Martin of course agrees with you. Park was not mistaken about this, I’m not mistaken about this, and every lawyer in this case was not mistaken about this. You William, and Martin are the ones who are mistaken and wrong.

July 5, 1994 Allan Park

Q What time was it when your boss called you back?
A About 10:55.
Q So you had the -- he called you back at 10:55, you had the conversation with him that you've recounted for us. And after you had that conversation with him, what did you do?
A As before, I was going to hang up, that's when I saw this white male come out from behind the house.
Q You saw a white male step out where, if you can indicate on the diagram.
A He came out from this way. He came out towards the driveway.
MS. CLARK: For the record, the witness is indicating what appears to be a path area to the right of the driveway as it's indicated on the Ashford side.
BY MS. CLARK:
Q Do you have the pen still?
A No.
Q Could you indicate with an 'X' roughly the general area where you first saw that white male.
A Where I first saw him?
Q Yes. Could you make it a little bigger.Thank you.
MS. CLARK: For the record, the witness has done so, placing a blue 'X' in the area previously indicated.

*

Q Okay. Now, when your boss called back at 10:55, during that phone call you said you saw the white male come out on the Ashford side path.
A Correct.
Q And about what time was that?
A In between -- 10:56, 10:57.
Q Can you describe that white male for us?
A Five foot eleven, 170 pounds. Blond hair, medium length.
Q Was he holding anything?
A He had a flashlight.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No, William. Carrie Bess said if he was guilty you would expect to find his blood on the Rockingham glove. She didn't say that she suspected the blood on the glove was planted. She said it wasn't there. Twist, twist, twist. :)

You now speak of one juror but I thought you original post was about the jury and I see that as a twist. :)

[William Anthony]

You’re wrong William. Nothing Park or Kaelin testified to changes where Park said Kaelin was when he first saw him. Nothing you have posted changes the evidence where Park wrote an X on the prosecution exhibit where Kaelin was when he first saw him. The fact is the only time Kaelin was on that side of the driveway that night was when he came from his room and later when he returned to his room

No defense lawyer in this case has ever claimed Park was mistaken about this. Every lawyer in this case as well as anyone else who is familiar with the Rockingham layout understands that Park first saw Kaelin when Kaelin was coming from his room to investigate the noises he had just heard on his back wall, he was not returning from that first investigation.

Only you and martin can not accept this reality because you both understand that Park’s testimony is consistent with Simpson making the noises on Kaelin’s back wall. That fact destroys your beliefs in Simpson’s lies. So you have created your own fantasy as to what you imagine happened and Martin of course agrees with you. Park was not mistaken about this, I’m not mistaken about this, and every lawyer in this case was not mistaken about this. You William, and Martin are the ones who are mistaken and wrong.

July 5, 1994 Allan Park

Q What time was it when your boss called you back?
A About 10:55.
Q So you had the -- he called you back at 10:55, you had the conversation with him that you've recounted for us. And after you had that conversation with him, what did you do?
A As before, I was going to hang up, that's when I saw this white male come out from behind the house.
Q You saw a white male step out where, if you can indicate on the diagram.
A He came out from this way. He came out towards the driveway.
MS. CLARK: For the record, the witness is indicating what appears to be a path area to the right of the driveway as it's indicated on the Ashford side.
BY MS. CLARK:
Q Do you have the pen still?
A No.
Q Could you indicate with an 'X' roughly the general area where you first saw that white male.
A Where I first saw him?
Q Yes. Could you make it a little bigger.Thank you.
MS. CLARK: For the record, the witness has done so, placing a blue 'X' in the area previously indicated.

*

Q Okay. Now, when your boss called back at 10:55, during that phone call you said you saw the white male come out on the Ashford side path.
A Correct.
Q And about what time was that?
A In between -- 10:56, 10:57.
Q Can you describe that white male for us?
A Five foot eleven, 170 pounds. Blond hair, medium length.
Q Was he holding anything?
A He had a flashlight.

bobaugust

I posted the testimony and you may choose to believe what testimony you will, such as the statements of the convicted perjurer. I choose to look at all the testimony on a particular issue and arrive at the reasonable inferences that can be draw from that testimony, which contradicts your claim that Kato never walked back to the "sidewalk" or Park was having hallucinations. I think you need to reread Park's testimony as he was unable to tell from where the six foot, 200 pound possible male of female came from. His testimony only proves that Simpson was asleep, taking a shower and rushing around. You see you rely on one portion of the testimony but fail to consider it all, which is your choice and your choice to draw inferences, which I choose not to draw inferences in that manner but look to the totality of the evidence to see what inferences can be drawn. You have the right to draw inferences from a narrow view of the evidence and I have the right to draw inferences based on a wider view.

[William Anthony]

You’re wrong William. You are severely handicapped by your ignorance of what the Rockingham estate looked like. Kaelin walked “up” the driveway or “down” the driveway based on which way you are looking at the diagram of the estate. There is only one way Kaelin could have gotten from the garage to the gate control box and that way does not include walking to the opposite side of the driveway from where the gate control box was.

Park was sitting in his limousine that he had pulled up to the Ashford gate with his bumper just about touching the gate. From that position if he looked to his left he could see the north side of his house, the Ashford path (the sidewalk). If he looked straight up the driveway he could see the front entrance of Simpson’s house. If he looked to his right he could see the trees where the gate control box was.

You are confusing Park’s limited preliminary hearing testimony with his more detailed criminal trial testimony. It was a couple of minutes or more from the time Park first saw Kaelin on the Ashford path to the time Kaelin returned from his first trip to the south path and opened the gate for Park. The reality is that after Park saw Simpson enter his house his concerns about no one being on the estate were alleviated and he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin and never realized Kaelin had continued on to the south path.

Inform yourself William and end your foolishness. LOOK AT THE DIAGRAM!

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

bobaugust

I have decided to end my foolishness of trying to conduct a civil discussion with you.:seeya:

[William Anthony]

Show me the evidence that Simpson probably wore the hat in a lot of situations? Shoe me the evidence that the hat was worn by Simpson in the prior six months, year, year and a half, two years or two weeks or two days?

Correction-Show me the evidence that the hat was worn by Simpson in the prior six months, year, year and a half, two years or two weeks or two days?

[martin II]

***************
If I ever commit a murder, or any serious felony, I will try to remember to bring some unidentifiable hairs with me. According to WA’s thinking here, it is wrong to convict a person of a crime if we are unsure of whether they did it alone or with some other person’s help.

Maybe the FBI should keep a data bank or some such thing on hairs. Should come in handy for other trials. Shouldn’t cost more than several hundred billion dollars. Maybe we should cut the amount of money we are spending on such non essentials as education, roads, and efforts to reduce pollution, and use it for something useful.
I have read about people being freed from prisons because the authorities decided that the evidence wasn’t as good enough to hold them. In some cases they were proved innocent, in other cases the authorities (DAs and judges I guess) decided that the evidence wasn’t strong enough. I doubt that finding unidentified hair on the evidence has ever been enough to get someone out of jail, or even keep someone from being convicted in the first place.

Sarcasm aside, I don’t see how anyone can give much meaning to unidentified hairs. OJS traveled a lot, was around a lot of different people. A lot of people came to his house. LA is a large city. OJS probably wore the hat in a lot of situations.

The idea that the unidentified blood type B indicators is a reason for acquitting Orenthal is just as bad. In the first place neither the defense nor WA gave an explanation of why there was no fourth person’s DNA in the lab results, If they defense thought the blood under Nicole’s fingernails indicated a fourth person, where was the fourth person’s DNA? I don’t feel like getting much into blood chemistry. I don’t know much about it, and I don’t think WA or the other posters do either. But the lack of a fourth person’s DNA and the fact that Nicole had relatively long and undamaged fingernails on both hands would indicate to me that it is unlikely that Nicole got an assailants blood under her fingernails. Also I believe there was no fourth person’s skin under her fingernails. There was no indication of another person’s foot prints.
I think it would be reasonable for a jury to convict even if they don’t agree with the all the prosecutions theories. In theory it should be possible to prove that a person took part in a crime, without proving whether they acted alone. Has anyone evaded conviction because the evidence was ambiguous about whether or not they committed the crime alone?

The question was not whether someone commited the crime alone. the problem was the prosection did not prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that oj killed the victims. FINI

[tv]

The question was not whether someone commited the crime alone. the problem was the prosection did not prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that oj killed the victims. FINI

I can understand why the prosecution had a hard time. The jury wasn't paying attention to the prosecution's case and didn't have an understanding of what evidence was presented. They sure didn't have any problem memorizing Johnnie's nursery rhymes.

[tv]

You now speak of one juror but I thought you original post was about the jury and I see that as a twist. :)

If you will recall, I said Carrie Bess the first time I discovered this shocking information about this jury. Then when I researched the origin of the comment I found it in Madam Foreman by Armanda Cooley and numerous other jurors. Untwisted. :)

[tv]

I am not surprised. :)
Good, as surpising you wasn't my intention when I responded to fgump2's post. :)

[William Anthony]

Good, as surpising you wasn't my intention when I responded to fgump2's post. :)

Believe me I am aware of that. :)

[William Anthony]

If you will recall, I said Carrie Bess the first time I discovered this shocking information about this jury. Then when I researched the origin of the comment I found it in Madam Foreman by Armanda Cooley and numerous other jurors. Untwisted. :)

You found it in the work of fiction authored by, IIRC, a dismissed juror, correct and were the other jurors named?

[tv]

then we were all right: Those folks were too ignorant and biased to sit on a jury. :shrug:
They were dazzled by Simpson's celebrity and only had ears for his defense. They've proven this by their own words.

[William Anthony]

They were dazzled by Simpson's celebrity and only had ears for his defense. They've proven this by their own words.

That is because the prosecution had nothing worth saying, imho. I am wrong they did say they were sorry. :)

[tv]

You found it in the work of fiction authored by, IIRC, a dismissed juror, correct and were the other jurors named?

Armanda Cooley was the jury foreman and the other jurors were named as authors on the cover of the book. If it matters to you I'll research the names and post them.

[tv]

That is because the prosecution had nothing worth saying, imho. I am wrong they did say they were sorry. :)

This is a very troubling statement for a future attorney to make.

[William Anthony]

For anyone that cares to look at the diagram of the layout, they will see that A is Allan Park and B is Kato. You will see that B is off to the left of A and the intercom is farther off to Park's left, if Park was looking toward the driveway or the entrance way. Park was sitting in the limo, walked to the intercom, talked to Simpson and saw Kato still standing "there" and Kato came over to let him in by the testimony. Therefore, there is no testimony as to the direction Kato walked to let him in. However, kato testified that he backed out from the garage area and Ms. Clark said he walked up the driveway. From the positions of A and B, we see that Kato walked back up the same side of the driveway that he walked down and when he returned is when Park first saw Kato.

[William Anthony]

Armanda Cooley was the jury foreman and the other jurors were named as authors on the cover of the book. If it matters to you I'll research the names and post them.

I am talking about the names of the jurors you claim did not know Simpson's blood was on the glove.

[William Anthony]

This is a very troubling statement for a future attorney to make.

I don't understand why you would say that? If a prosecution puts on a sorry case, then anything they would say in argument would not support that theory and a jury would be left with the feeling they were saying nothing. I respect them for realizing their failure and saying that they were sorry. :)

[William Anthony]

Armanda Cooley was the jury foreman and the other jurors were named as authors on the cover of the book. If it matters to you I'll research the names and post them.

I did some research and none of the three authors were dismissed.

[tv]

I am talking about the names of the jurors you claim did not know Simpson's blood was on the glove.

Carrie Bess actually made the statement. She was a juror throughout the trial. Armanda Cooley and the others put their names on the book which implies approval of the contents. Please don't start blaming it on ghost writers and editors.

[William Anthony]

Carrie Bess actually made the statement. She was a juror throughout the trial. Armanda Cooley and the others put their names on the book which implies approval of the contents. Please don't start blaming it on ghost writers and editors.

It implies they wanted money to me. :)

[tv]

I did some research and none of the three authors were dismissed.
Thank you, William, but there were others that contributed to the book besides those three.

[tv]

I don't understand why you would say that? If a prosecution puts on a sorry case, then anything they would say in argument would not support that theory and a jury would be left with the feeling they were saying nothing. I respect them for realizing their failure and saying that they were sorry. :)

A jury has the obligation to listen to both sides of the case and make their decision based on that. To me it's not acceptable that they didn't know OJ Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove. You say they didn't have to agree that the prosectuion put on a believable case -- that's different than not listening at all.

[tv]

It implies they wanted money to me. :)

No doubt of that.

[martin II]

All you posted was more speculation and wishful thinking. You seem to be hung up on the duffle bags -- just some more of OJ Simpson's faulty alibi. As for the jury, they couldn't know what the prosecution proved or didn't prove if they didn't have an awareness of what evidence the prosecution presented.

That is unfair to the jury and it is not true.

[William Anthony]

A jury has the obligation to listen to both sides of the case and make their decision based on that. To me it's not acceptable that they didn't know OJ Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove. You say they didn't have to agree that the prosectuion put on a believable case -- that's different than not listening at all.

To say maybe they thought the prosecution had nothing to say does not mean that the jury did not listen to all the evidence, as they were required. They are not required to listen to what the prosecution says, as that is not evidence. I did not say that the jury was not required to listen to the questions and answers of the witnesses of pay attention to other evidence.

[martin II]

Carrie Bess actually made the statement. She was a juror throughout the trial. Armanda Cooley and the others put their names on the book which implies approval of the contents. Please don't start blaming it on ghost writers and editors.

individual jurors may have had different opinions on some evidence/testimony but all 12 voted not guilty.All twelve looked at the case as a whole and decided he was not guilty because the prosecution did not prove their case.

[William Anthony]

Thank you, William, but there were others that contributed to the book besides those three.

I simply asked did they mentioned the names of other jurors, other than Ms. Bess, who did not know the blood on the glove was Simpson's.

[bobaugust]

I posted the testimony and you may choose to believe what testimony you will, such as the statements of the convicted perjurer. I choose to look at all the testimony on a particular issue and arrive at the reasonable inferences that can be draw from that testimony, which contradicts your claim that Kato never walked back to the "sidewalk" or Park was having hallucinations. I think you need to reread Park's testimony as he was unable to tell from where the six foot, 200 pound possible male of female came from. His testimony only proves that Simpson was asleep, taking a shower and rushing around. You see you rely on one portion of the testimony but fail to consider it all, which is your choice and your choice to draw inferences, which I choose not to draw inferences in that manner but look to the totality of the evidence to see what inferences can be drawn. You have the right to draw inferences from a narrow view of the evidence and I have the right to draw inferences based on a wider view.

Kaelin never said he walked back to the sidewalk when he returned from his first trip to the south path, he testified he walked to the gate control box on the other side of the driveway of the Ashford path. I agree Park did not say he knew where Simpson had come from only that Park saw Simpson come from the driveway into the front entrance, enter his front door, and lights come on downstairs in the house.

Your claim of looking at the totality of the evidence is contradicted by your continued ignorance of the Rockingham estate so you evidently are not capable of understanding what Kaelin testified to or where Park marked on the diagram he first saw Kaelin and then saw Simpson.

You have the perfect right to post your foolish fantasy and continue to embarrass yourself by intentionally keeping yourself uninformed.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have decided to end my foolishness of trying to conduct a civil discussion with you.:seeya:

I understand, William. As long as you refuse to look at the diagrams of the Rockingham estate you can continue to post your foolish claims and avoid admitting you are wrong. Ignorance is bliss.

bobaugust

[tv]

To say maybe they thought the prosecution had nothing to say does not mean that the jury did not listen to all the evidence, as they were required. They are not required to listen to what the prosecution says, as that is not evidence. I did not say that the jury was not required to listen to the questions and answers of the witnesses of pay attention to other evidence.

If they had listened to the evidence, as required, they would have known the Rockingham glove had blood on it.

[tv]

I simply asked did they mentioned the names of other jurors, other than Ms. Bess, who did not know the blood on the glove was Simpson's.

If she's the only one it's too many. I do know that when an author signs off on a book it implies approval with the end product.

[tv]

individual jurors may have had different opinions on some evidence/testimony but all 12 voted not guilty.All twelve looked at the case as a whole and decided he was not guilty because the prosecution did not prove their case.

We know that at least one, Carrie Bess, and perhaps other jurors as well didn't know about one of the most important aspects of the case. There is no way to come to a fair conclusion without knowing all the evidence. You always say that the prosecution didn't prove their case but their hands were tied if the jurors didn't listen to the evidence. Don't forget, they also thought Mazzola and Simpson have the same alleles.

[tv]

That is unfair to the jury and it is not true.

It's not unfair and it's not untrue. If they didn't know OJ Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove then they weren't paying attention.

[fgump2]

It tells me that they paid close attention to the farce of a case that the prosecution put on. They listen to the evidence of the missing blood, poor evidence techniques, missing initial on evidence (lack of chain of custody), a cesspool of contamination and simply did not believe that the blood was Simpson's and could have belonged to anyone.

******************
I don't say that the prosecution did an outstanding job; but it wasn't a farce.

The jury ignored the fact that Orenthal’s blood was at the crime scene, the foreman (forewoman?) Amanda Cooley as asked about OJS blood at the scene of the crime she answered: We can’t explain it away. I don’t think anybody has really tried to explain it away at all. That was not one of the issues and that was definitely not the reasonable doubt that we abased our decision on”. In other words it didn’t matter to them. They disobeyed the judge’s instruction to consider all evidence.

I think the thing the jury focused on the most was that Vannatter or another detective didn’t book the blood immediately. I give the jury credit for the fact afterwards some of them said they would probably have convicted if the prosecutors had included more evidence. I think they were refereeing to the low speed chase, the farewell note, and the statement to the police. That makes them a few steps closer to the truth than Martin or WA.

One of the jury members said this after the trial: I didn’t understand the DNA stuff at all. To me it was just a waste of time”. At least one of the other jurors thought the DNA credited to Orenthal could have come from Mazzola or one of Nicole’s two children.

One question I have for anyone who read the book called "Madame Foreman" is this. Is it really true that the jury gave a lot of weight to the fact that Anrelle said she saw no drops of blood at the Rockingham home? I thought pathetic. For one thing, Arnelle had more motives to lie about it than the cops did. She had both her financial interests and family connnections as motivations to lie and say she saw no blood. If she was convicted of perjury, as the daughter of the accused, she probably wouldn''t get much prison time; the police would face a bigger punishment. Arnelle might have overlooked the blood because she was tired and upset.

If the blood was planted, it would have been planted while there were members of the press there. That is the way I understand it.

[GreenIce]

Ms. Clark's hands were tied. She had to introduce MF. If she had not introduced the glove, the defense would and MF, which would have been more devastating, imho.

I agree with the rest of your post.

William,

IMO, the real questions are who tied Clark's hands and why were they tied? Again, IMO, I think Clark-DA's used MF as their scapegoat. We saw what they did to their own witnesses when they pissed her off.

Have you ever noticed, not one media member, that I can remember ever asked any DA to explain what MF meant about the glove and his going down and why Clark knew it? Isn't that really how some people insistence on seeing this case? MF going down and there goes the case?

[GreenIce]

It tells me that they paid close attention to the farce of a case that the prosecution put on. They listen to the evidence of the missing blood, poor evidence techniques, missing initial on evidence (lack of chain of custody), a cesspool of contamination and simply did not believe that the blood was Simpson's and could have belonged to anyone.

Willliam,

Isn't it fair to say that when the judge gives the instruction if you find that a witness has lied you can discount all of his testimony or consider how much credibility to attach to it?

Well isn't only common sense that this would apply to the evidence? IMO, it didn't matter what was found on the glove if the jurors believed it was planted. I have not heard one juror go public where they believe the glove was not planted. They disagreed with one another on the fit of the gloves. They disagreed with each other on if they thought he was not guilty vs innocent.

One the determined the glove was planted, then this had to call into question all the othe evidence, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Originally Posted by tvdinner
They were dazzled by Simpson's celebrity and only had ears for his defense. They've proven this by their own words.

William and Martin,

Again, I ask your opinons. It seems to me that white people have automatically attached "celebrity" to OJ Simpson where I didn't get that same impression from a majority of black people. Yes, Simpson did open some doors--but to a very select few. What I am trying to say is that Simpson's abilities in sports and his transistion into the corporate world is not considered as monumental say as black doctors, scientists, pilots, etc. I would think these other professions opened more doors to all blacks, as in both male and females. Simpson did not open any doors to black women and I am not talking about relationships. In fact, I believe Clark was hoping that his choice of a wife was going to be held against him in the jury room. What did his choice of a wife have do with his guilt or innocence?

I do give Simpson credit for making sure that all pro football players were prepared or at least given the materials to know that all the money and fame can be gone in heartbeat and you can't play the game until you hit 65.

I never got one feeling from any of the jurors that Simpson's celebrity had anything to do with their verdict. His money to afford a great defense team, yes. But his celebrity, I just don't see it.

[fgump2]

Fgump2,

The problem with your reasoning is that you are taking each piece of evidence and then you base on your opinon on that one piece evidence and then move to the next. However, in this case, you have to look at all the evidence and as much as I hate to use the saying, "see the big picture".

Regarding the unidentified hairs---how can Simpson's hair be indentified proof positive it is his---yet when there is hair that is undentified, that is not consistent with Simpson, Nicole or Ron, it doesn't matter, not big deal, can't identify a person anyway, only their race and if they color their hair or not. Can't determine the sex. I don't think the prosecution said they had unshakable proof that the hat was his. The Simpson hair, and the fibers that matched the bronco eere indications of a connection to OJS, not ironclad proof, that is the nature of most evidence"

Was there unidentified blood drops found at Bundy? Yes, there was.

Was there unidentified DNA found in the Bronco? Yes, there was.

Were there unidentified fingerprints at Bundy? Yes, there were.

Was Rockingham even dusted for prints? I don't know.

Were there at least two other blood drop trail that could have only come from the killer? Yes, there were at least two others, on Nicole's back and leg. Were these blood drops collected? No, they were not.

My understanding is that in most police depts they don't collect all the blood if there is a lot of blood, just a representative sample.

Were three bloody fingeprints lost in this case? Yes, there were.

Was there flesh found under Nicole's fingernails? Yes, there was. Was this evidence lost? Yes it was.

Beside the trowel on the tile, were their other similar patterns left at the scene that were consistent from coming from the same object? Yes, there were. If these said impressions were footprints, could they have come from a Bruno Magli shoe? No, they could not.

Was there a sheet of paper found by Nicole's head, (I think) that had this same imprint on it collected? No, it was not.

Were the keys that Ron was carrying tested for blood? Some say yes, some say no, the DA's say no they weren't---how can it be?

Was their evidence that Nicole may have entertained or was going to be entertaining after her children were put down for the night? Yes there was.

Was a men's jean jacket found in Nicole's kitchen? Yes, there was.

What happened to the jacket? No one knows.

Is a "rape kit" only used for the crime of rape? No, they are not. They are also used as an effective time of death tool. Was one performed on Nicole? No.

Was Ron also checked to see if he had sex before he was murdered that night? Don't think this was ever mentioned in the trial.

Isn't the pattern obvious? How many times can so much relevant evidence just be ignored or "missed"? Isn't it obvious the LAPD and the DA's were only interested in the evidence that pointed Simpson rather then get anybody who was involved in the crime?

Don't forget, there were I think two witnesses who did say they saw other people at the condo that night. And I am not talking about the man who was casing the area for robberies or the MAG.
****************************
There are details I don't know about on this case. I think I know enough to feel sure that Orenthal Simpson was guilty and should have been convicted. To answer another post you made about the planted glove and the jury, the foreman (woman) Amanda Cooley said or wrote afterwards: Fuhrman was not tbe main reason we came to our decison. He was not one of the reasonalbe doubts for us". In other words the jurors didn't discuss the glove and Rockingham or the OJS blood at Bundy. I can think of people more foolish that that: the people who endorse the jury and the decison they made. At least some of the jurors had the sense to say afterwards that if they had seen all lthe evidence, they would have been convicted. So the jury wasn't all bad.

[GreenIce]

******************
I don't say that the prosecution did an outstanding job; but it wasn't a farce.

The jury ignored the fact that Orenthal’s blood was at the crime scene, the foreman (forewoman?) Amanda Cooley as asked about OJS blood at the scene of the crime she answered: We can’t explain it away. I don’t think anybody has really tried to explain it away at all. That was not one of the issues and that was definitely not the reasonable doubt that we abased our decision on”. In other words it didn’t matter to them. They disobeyed the judge’s instruction to consider all evidence.

I think the thing the jury focused on the most was that Vannatter or another detective didn’t book the blood immediately. I give the jury credit for the fact afterwards some of them said they would probably have convicted if the prosecutors had included more evidence. I think they were refereeing to the low speed chase, the farewell note, and the statement to the police. That makes them a few steps closer to the truth than Martin or WA.

One of the jury members said this after the trial: I didn’t understand the DNA stuff at all. To me it was just a waste of time”. At least one of the other jurors thought the DNA credited to Orenthal could have come from Mazzola or one of Nicole’s two children.

One question I have for anyone who read the book called "Madame Foreman" is this. Is it really true that the jury gave a lot of weight to the fact that Anrelle said she saw no drops of blood at the Rockingham home? I thought pathetic. For one thing, Arnelle had more motives to lie about it than the cops did. She had both her financial interests and family connnections as motivations to lie and say she saw no blood. If she was convicted of perjury, as the daughter of the accused, she probably wouldn''t get much prison time; the police would face a bigger punishment. Arnelle might have overlooked the blood because she was tired and upset.

If the blood was planted, it would have been planted while there were members of the press there. That is the way I understand it.

fgump2,

The DA's didn't turn their case into a farce---the LAPD and the crime lab did. To see these two agencies engage in professional pissing contests was anything but comical but that is what happened. However, what is often forgotten is how these two agencies also attached their issues to Judge Ito and to the DA's.

Did you read the jurors' book? Did you see all their interviews? There was never a question of who's blood it was (accept on a couple of drops of blood) it was when and how did it get there. Their excuses were the true farce of this case.

They did not disobey the judge's instructions, in fact, they followed them as they were told to them. When presented with two reasonable explainations, they MUST find in favor of the defendant. The defense matched each piece of evidence with alternatives that were plausable and reasonable. In fact, if you review the testimony, the defense won this case on science and the DA's lost it on speculation and theories.

Think about it, what were the jurors suppose to think on drama Friday when MF and Clark put on their show with the shovel and the bag? What a sinister picture they painted for the jurors to take with them for the weekend. Only to come back on Monday and find this bag was standard issue in the Bronco.
Did they really expect the jury to believe Simpson planned to tag-bag-&-bury Nicole in 5 minutes?

AM never said that she was mistaken about the bindles, only she didn't know what happened to the one's she put her initials on.

Gary Sims said he could not say how or when the blood got on the sock but he did say he couldn't understand why no one saw it and I don't think he was even asked for his opinon about not using the proper equipment.

You have given the excuse of the state's witnesses as being too old, too tired, too overworked, too careless to care but that does not mean the defense experts had the same work ethics.

I am sure the jury was waiting for the DA's to introduce those items, like the Bronco chase, we all were, so when they didn't introduce them, that told me because it would hurt their case more then help their case.

I remember the talking heads being outraged that the DA's didn't use the Bronco chase, saying that Simpson should have been screaming he was being framed, etc. Well he did express these very thoughts, but not to the police, he did it in other phone conversations. If DA's introduce the Bronco Chase then everything was going to come in and the Defense must have had all the cards to trump the DA's cards.

There were questions regarding the aleles on a couple of the blood stains. They were not clear enough to determine if they were Simpson's. They were not presented with slides of Simpson's childrens so they could be ruled out as donors of the stain. Again, that is not the jury's fault, that is the DA's.

At any time during the case they DA's could have introduced evidence that Simpson did not act alone. They refused to do so. Even after the trial, when they could not re-try Simpson, they still could have gone after his help.
I am sure there will be one name that will come up in this but Petrocelli was roundly hammered, even by Geraldo R. for bringing this person into it. He had no proof.

Do you think the lawyers and the judge were experts in DNA? They weren't. But you didn't need expert to understand that all the key blood evidence in this case was found weeks and months later. Don't need an expert to understand.

You don't need an expert to explain that you can't climb over vegitiation, grab onto a tree, balance yourself self on thin wire and fence, do a body plant into a wall and not even leave a broken blade of grass. That is an impossible feat--even for a black man. IMO.

[GreenIce]

****************************
There are details I don't know about on this case. I think I know enough to feel sure that Orenthal Simpson was guilty and should have been convicted. To answer another post you made about the planted glove and the jury, the foreman (woman) Amanda Cooley said or wrote afterwards: Fuhrman was not tbe main reason we came to our decison. He was not one of the reasonalbe doubts for us". In other words the jurors didn't discuss the glove and Rockingham or the OJS blood at Bundy. I can think of people more foolish that that: the people who endorse the jury and the decison they made. At least some of the jurors had the sense to say afterwards that if they had seen all lthe evidence, they would have been convicted. So the jury wasn't all bad.

fgump2,

I'll ask you again, but your son in the defendant's seat. Put yourself in the defendant's seat and review the evidence from that position. If you can't put yourself in the defendant's seat, then it is completely wrong of you to put yourself in a juror's seat.

In all fairness to the NG's you have come up with the most horrific excuses known to man kind for the problems of evidence in this case. Do you really think if you were in the jury room you would have used the "Sleep Abuse Excuse"? The "Old Eye Abuse" Excuse? The "Careless Excuse"?

IMO, if you were the one on trial in this case, you would not be so forgiving of the state's experts, IMO. You would be thrilled to have a jury who did listen to both sides, who did follow the judge's instructions and did come back with the only legal verdict.

[bobaugust]

For anyone that cares to look at the diagram of the layout, they will see that A is Allan Park and B is Kato. You will see that B is off to the left of A and the intercom is farther off to Park's left, if Park was looking toward the driveway or the entrance way. Park was sitting in the limo, walked to the intercom, talked to Simpson and saw Kato still standing "there" and Kato came over to let him in by the testimony. Therefore, there is no testimony as to the direction Kato walked to let him in. However, kato testified that he backed out from the garage area and Ms. Clark said he walked up the driveway. From the positions of A and B, we see that Kato walked back up the same side of the driveway that he walked down and when he returned is when Park first saw Kato.

Unbelievable, you’re having as much trouble understanding the diagram as you are having understanding what Kaelin said he did. Kaelin testified when he returned from his first trip he went directly to the gate control box and opened the gate. He did not stop on the Ashford path, he never saw Simpson on the driveway and he never waited while Park spoke to Simpson on the intercom as Park testified he did before Kaelin opened the gate.

Instead of simply admitting you are wrong William, you just keep digging your hole deeper. What an embarrassment for you.

bobaugust

[tv]

****************************
There are details I don't know about on this case. I think I know enough to feel sure that Orenthal Simpson was guilty and should have been convicted. To answer another post you made about the planted glove and the jury, the foreman (woman) Amanda Cooley said or wrote afterwards: Fuhrman was not tbe main reason we came to our decison. He was not one of the reasonalbe doubts for us". In other words the jurors didn't discuss the glove and Rockingham or the OJS blood at Bundy. I can think of people more foolish that that: the people who endorse the jury and the decison they made. At least some of the jurors had the sense to say afterwards that if they had seen all lthe evidence, they would have been convicted. So the jury wasn't all bad.

It's also hard to forget that the jury had the unbelievable bad taste to attend a victory party at Rockingham.

[William Anthony]

Unbelievable, you’re having as much trouble understanding the diagram as you are having understanding what Kaelin said he did. Kaelin testified when he returned from his first trip he went directly to the gate control box and opened the gate. He did not stop on the Ashford path, he never saw Simpson on the driveway and he never waited while Park spoke to Simpson on the intercom as Park testified he did before Kaelin opened the gate.

Instead of simply admitting you are wrong William, you just keep digging your hole deeper. What an embarrassment for you.

bobaugust

Please, provide the testimony where Kato testified he went directly to the gate box? Kato said he backed out from the garage area, saw the limo had not been buzzed in. Tell me where Kato was by his testimony when he made the observation that the limo had not been buzzed in? Ms. Clark, Martin II, and others, I believe, understand what Kato was saying. However, Ms. Clark, who had spoken to Kato before her examination of him, supplied the missing details in her question in which she said you walked back up the driveway. You now want to discredit Park on his observation, with that hole digging shovel, but want to credit him on other of his observations so long as the square with what you want to believe. I understand that you have to discredit Park's testimony or your inferences are questionable but thank you for admitting that you understand the significance of Park's testimony. No matter how embarrassing Park's testimony is or, should I say, damaging to your inferences, the testimony is what it is and thank you for admitting that my inferences are based on the totality of the evidence, keeping in mind that memories can be suggested. :)

[William Anthony]

It's also hard to forget that the jury had the unbelievable bad taste to attend a victory party at Rockingham.

Bad taste does not make the verdict wrong. :)

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by tvdinner
They were dazzled by Simpson's celebrity and only had ears for his defense. They've proven this by their own words.

William and Martin,

Again, I ask your opinons. It seems to me that white people have automatically attached "celebrity" to OJ Simpson where I didn't get that same impression from a majority of black people. Yes, Simpson did open some doors--but to a very select few. What I am trying to say is that Simpson's abilities in sports and his transistion into the corporate world is not considered as monumental say as black doctors, scientists, pilots, etc. I would think these other professions opened more doors to all blacks, as in both male and females. Simpson did not open any doors to black women and I am not talking about relationships. In fact, I believe Clark was hoping that his choice of a wife was going to be held against him in the jury room. What did his choice of a wife have do with his guilt or innocence?

I do give Simpson credit for making sure that all pro football players were prepared or at least given the materials to know that all the money and fame can be gone in heartbeat and you can't play the game until you hit 65.

I never got one feeling from any of the jurors that Simpson's celebrity had anything to do with their verdict. His money to afford a great defense team, yes. But his celebrity, I just don't see it.

I understand your post and it almost seems that his celebrity status, was considered more of a detriment by some people be they Black or White. I consider the first sin that mankind committed was the sin of envy. Eve and Adam's sin was the result of that envy. Did not the snake tell Eve that they would become like gods if they ate the fruit?

[William Anthony]

Willliam,

Isn't it fair to say that when the judge gives the instruction if you find that a witness has lied you can discount all of his testimony or consider how much credibility to attach to it?

Well isn't only common sense that this would apply to the evidence? IMO, it didn't matter what was found on the glove if the jurors believed it was planted. I have not heard one juror go public where they believe the glove was not planted. They disagreed with one another on the fit of the gloves. They disagreed with each other on if they thought he was not guilty vs innocent.

One the determined the glove was planted, then this had to call into question all the othe evidence, IMO.

You are correct about the legal principle and the jury is allowed to determine what if any parts of the testimony they find credible.

Smile, testimony is evidence and the failed glove demonstration was a climatic cataclysmic catastrophe piece of demonstrative evidence that opened the creative genius of the magnificent one and led to his famous saying, if it does not fit..., imho.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, the real questions are who tied Clark's hands and why were they tied? Again, IMO, I think Clark-DA's used MF as their scapegoat. We saw what they did to their own witnesses when they pissed her off.

Have you ever noticed, not one media member, that I can remember ever asked any DA to explain what MF meant about the glove and his going down and why Clark knew it? Isn't that really how some people insistence on seeing this case? MF going down and there goes the case?

That is one thing we can say MF was truthful about. :) MF made himself the scapegoat, imho, and Ms. Clark was mad at the disability board for not allowing his disability some years before, imho.

[William Anthony]

******************
I don't say that the prosecution did an outstanding job; but it wasn't a farce.

The jury ignored the fact that Orenthal’s blood was at the crime scene, the foreman (forewoman?) Amanda Cooley as asked about OJS blood at the scene of the crime she answered: We can’t explain it away. I don’t think anybody has really tried to explain it away at all. That was not one of the issues and that was definitely not the reasonable doubt that we abased our decision on”. In other words it didn’t matter to them. They disobeyed the judge’s instruction to consider all evidence.

I think the thing the jury focused on the most was that Vannatter or another detective didn’t book the blood immediately. I give the jury credit for the fact afterwards some of them said they would probably have convicted if the prosecutors had included more evidence. I think they were refereeing to the low speed chase, the farewell note, and the statement to the police. That makes them a few steps closer to the truth than Martin or WA.

One of the jury members said this after the trial: I didn’t understand the DNA stuff at all. To me it was just a waste of time”. At least one of the other jurors thought the DNA credited to Orenthal could have come from Mazzola or one of Nicole’s two children.

One question I have for anyone who read the book called "Madame Foreman" is this. Is it really true that the jury gave a lot of weight to the fact that Anrelle said she saw no drops of blood at the Rockingham home? I thought pathetic. For one thing, Arnelle had more motives to lie about it than the cops did. She had both her financial interests and family connnections as motivations to lie and say she saw no blood. If she was convicted of perjury, as the daughter of the accused, she probably wouldn''t get much prison time; the police would face a bigger punishment. Arnelle might have overlooked the blood because she was tired and upset.

If the blood was planted, it would have been planted while there were members of the press there. That is the way I understand it.

I think it was a farce and I do not demand that others think the same as I do.:) However, through this post, let me explain to you why I think so.

I do not read the statements that the part of the jury's verdict on reasonable doubt was that they did not consider Simpson's blood evidence as an issue to automatically assume that they did not consider it. Perhaps, they, like me, did not find it unusual to that a defendant's blood would be found at the home of his former wife, where he visited and played with his young children but considered it more important (gave more weight to the facts that a defendant would eat shortly before going to murder someone and
allow himself such limited time to commit murders and who not use such a silly disguise not to mention the things I have previously mentioned). I think they did listen to all the evidence and determined what fit and what didn't (credibility).

Perhaps, Martin and I have a better understanding of legal principles than others. The prosecution must supply the evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and should keep these things in mind when deciding to bring charges and how to try their case and to fail to consider those things will usually end in a farce of a case, imho. There are certain documents that have an inherent sense of trustworthiness and therefore are an exception to the hearsay rules. One reason other documents are not allowed is, because the defendant has the Constitutional right to confrontation and, because a document that is not an exception to the hearsay rule, the defendant has the right to cross examine the person who made the statements in those documents. Simpson did not take the stand and, consequently, he could not be crossed on the letter he wrote. Simply put, the prosecution should have considered what items would likely be excluded in order to avoid a farce of a trial.

Another thing that would make the trial a farce is to put on scientific evidence and not make it understandable to the jury. I doubt seriously if any of us, absent those with degrees in science understand DNA. I think most of us understand that it is a science that can identify or exclude an individual and we believe from all other individuals but do not understand all the underlying premises of DNA, other than unless there are identical twins no one has the same DNA or how it should be attained, tested and evaluated to minimize contamination and cross contamination.

Your last paragraph explains why I do not read many books of fiction.

[William Anthony]

If she's the only one it's too many. I do know that when an author signs off on a book it implies approval with the end product.

I think it is not quite correct to lump all people into the same basket because of one.:) However, we have all signed off on things that might imply incorrectly our approval. I once signed an alleged employment contract that said I was allegedly an independent contractor. However, I proved that I was in fact an employee but in order to get hired (get money), I had to sign the contract. I consider that an adhesion contract (offered on a take it or leave it basis in which the parties are not on equal footing). This was the one employment discrimination case I lost, because the company was permitted legally to refile my case in federal court and when I took my copy of the file to federal court, a young Black female clerk whispered to me that we don't win over here. While I lost the discrimination basis of the lawsuit, I was able to prove that I was an employee and the money I had been paid was placed into my social security account. So, you see my signature on the alleged employment contract was not my approval of the end result. When I told other employees that they were employees, they did not want to pursue their legal remedies but were content in making money. Money will often cause people to compromise their principles but I have not as of yet earned enough to so do. :)

[GreenIce]

I think it is not quite correct to lump all people into the same basket because of one.:) However, we have all signed off on things that might imply incorrectly our approval. I once signed an alleged employment contract that said I was allegedly an independent contractor. However, I proved that I was in fact an employee but in order to get hired (get money), I had to sign the contract. I consider that an adhesion contract (offered on a take it or leave it basis in which the parties are not on equal footing). This was the one employment discrimination case I lost, because the company was permitted legally to refile my case in federal court and when I took my copy of the file to federal court, a young Black female clerk whispered to me that we don't win over here. While I lost the discrimination basis of the lawsuit, I was able to prove that I was an employee and the money I had been paid was placed into my social security account. So, you see my signature on the alleged employment contract was not my approval of the end result. When I told other employees that they were employees, they did not want to pursue their legal remedies but were content in making money. Money will often cause people to compromise their principles but I have not as of yet earned enough to so do. :)

William,

I don't understand where you get the patience. Those type of posts are so demeaning and cruel and they are written by the type of people of who relish the words, "well everybody knows". Each time this type of low ball trailer trash is posted, it just sends streaks of shame across the laws of this country not to mention the laws of common sense. I truly think you do have a true heart and the patience of a saint--most of the time!

[GreenIce]

That is one thing we can say MF was truthful about. :) MF made himself the scapegoat, imho, and Ms. Clark was mad at the disability board for not allowing his disability some years before, imho.

William,

I never looked at it that way, that MF allowed himself to be made into the scapegoat. Good point. I personally don't think Clark gave a darn about any board. IMO, she knows that MF is not the lone solider in the racist army. She did not act surprise about the tapes, she acted more pissed about the glove demo then the tapes, IMO.

I often wondered if Clark came down so hard on Kato because she could not do it to MF. I would love to know if her was her choice to treat MF like a hero on the stand or if she was ordered to. Either way, it was sickening.

[William Anthony]

William,

I never looked at it that way, that MF allowed himself to be made into the scapegoat. Good point. I personally don't think Clark gave a darn about any board. IMO, she knows that MF is not the lone solider in the racist army. She did not act surprise about the tapes, she acted more pissed about the glove demo then the tapes, IMO.

I often wondered if Clark came down so hard on Kato because she could not do it to MF. I would love to know if her was her choice to treat MF like a hero on the stand or if she was ordered to. Either way, it was sickening.

The board remark was tongue-in-cheek. I think it was MF's arrogance made him into the scapegoat. Yes, you are correct that MF was part of a larger group, which, imho, was protected by people who looked the other way when they committed such conduct until exposed to the public. She and Darden argued vehemently against the admission of the tapes. The tapes, the glove demonstration and the missing blood put nails in the coffin of the prosecution's case that were not removable, imho. I think she got progressively madder and madder and lost focus. Her treatment of MF backfired and sounded like a cannon exploding, imho.

[William Anthony]

William,

I don't understand where you get the patience. Those type of posts are so demeaning and cruel and they are written by the type of people of who relish the words, "well everybody knows". Each time this type of low ball trailer trash is posted, it just sends streaks of shame across the laws of this country not to mention the laws of common sense. I truly think you do have a true heart and the patience of a saint--most of the time!

I once had a vile temper. I liked to fight more than I liked to dance, besides I was better at fighting. I learned that I was hurting myself more by being unable to control my temper. There are times when the old William peeks through but I try to avoid that as much as possible. I have a cousin that is coming for my celebration and I am six months older than he. We should have been brothers. We laugh a lot at things and think how time has changed us. We have another cousin, who is three years younger, and was not like us when he was younger. He made me laugh as he tells us how he sometimes felt when the three of us were together. He says he was constantly in fear, saying why don't people shut up and leave them alone. :) They use to say that my cousin and I had fits.:) Thank you for your kind words.

[martin II]

Thank you, William, but there were others that contributed to the book besides those three.

tv

Books
The oj trial was a cash cow for all who could find a publisher and those that had to publish their own books.For lawyers with handson faces that became
tv personalities and paid talking heads.

Some wrote about the facts and others made up facts. All for the money.

IMO the jury and the defence and prosecution were in a better position to
write books because of their inside information.

I think it is disrespectful of the jury to say that they sat for the trial for 9 mo and paid no attention to the evidence.Looking at the brief bio of the jurors they were not ignorant or not able to understand the evidence based on their education or work activities and age. The civil trial jurors were no more eucated than the criminal trial jurors.

12 people hearing many witnesses and evidence presentations will have different opinions of what each piece means to them.Two believe the glove fit 10 believe it didn't. maby 6 believe Mazzola lied and 6 believe she didn't.
But in deliberations the leader ask people what they haver quesitons on and all jurors discuss these questions seeking a agrement.In this case the three holdouts had questions about PARKS testimony as major issues for them. They had a readback and the holdouts then agreed with the majority that he could not have seen all that he testified to from the ashford gate.This was based on their visit to the gate looking at the house.The read back confirmed what all had thought that there was something wrong with his testimony.
Now Parks testimony was import to where oj was at what time.If he was proven wrong then there was something wrong with the other evidence.It was not imposible for a jury to believe that someone had done something wrong.They did not have to have proof that a specific le or lab person had
done something wrong but that the DA witnesses and story just did not prove beyond a reasonable dount that it was true.It is like there is something wrong with what these people are telling us. It is like all their life experiences
is telling them this stuff does not fit right.There is something wrong with it.This is when their common sense comes into play.

At closing when the prosecution had their last chance to tell the jury a COMPLETE STORY of how everything happened they talked about abuse and Clarke told these grown people to believe it because i said it is true.They were not there to believe anything SHE said they were there to examine the evidence and have her tell them why it made sense.
On the other hand at closing, the defence walked the jury through all the witnesses and evidence and showed them why it could not be believed and why the prosecution did not prove their total case beyond a reasonable doubt.

There was no other verdict the jury could have come to but Not Guilty.
imo

[William Anthony]

At least some of the jurors had the sense to say afterwards that if they had seen all lthe evidence, they would have been convicted. So the jury wasn't all bad.

Fgump2,

Please tell me of what the charges were against the jury?:)

[martin II]

****************************
There are details I don't know about on this case. I think I know enough to feel sure that Orenthal Simpson was guilty and should have been convicted. To answer another post you made about the planted glove and the jury, the foreman (woman) Amanda Cooley said or wrote afterwards: Fuhrman was not tbe main reason we came to our decison. He was not one of the reasonalbe doubts for us". In other words the jurors didn't discuss the glove and Rockingham or the OJS blood at Bundy. I can think of people more foolish that that: the people who endorse the jury and the decison they made. At least some of the jurors had the sense to say afterwards that if they had seen all lthe evidence, they would have been convicted. So the jury wasn't all bad.

FGUMP2

Question:
Do you understand the underlining details of DNA testing?

[William Anthony]

In other words the jurors didn't discuss the glove and Rockingham or the OJS blood at Bundy.

Fgump2,

Can you please post a link to support your statement as to what the jury did not discuss?

[William Anthony]

That makes them a few steps closer to the truth than Martin or WA.

Fgump2,

Does this mean that you are a few steps farther from the truth than Martin of WA?

[martin II]

William GI

IMO The most complicated science subject can be explained in 2-3 simple worded paragraphs.The prosecution took the jury and everyone else down into the basement level of the science. Trying to explain where every molecule sp was standing and what it had to say, what it looked like and how big or small it was AND THEY LOST EVERYONE IN THE COURT ROOM AND ON TV. I remember some tv stations went to commercial during Dr Cottons testimony.
I believe they were afraid of Barry Scheck waiting to rip it up so they just went into all of these and then said Well since this is the latest thing and we have this Dr Cotton telling us about things most people INCLUDING US had never ever heard of i guess we must act like sheep and just believe what ever they say because i have no idea as to what they are talking about.

Yet someone post here that the jury said they did not understand the DNA
and use that as a right to bash and call them ignorant.

If the prosecution could not explain the DNA in understandable language i might come to the conclusion that they did not want me to understand just be dumb and believe what they say the results were. BS.

[martin II]

Fgump2,

Can you please post a link to support your statement as to what the jury did not discuss?

William i hope you get a link

[William Anthony]

William GI

IMO The most complicated science subject can be explained in 2-3 simple worded paragraphs.The prosecution took the jury and everyone else down into the basement level of the science. Trying to explain where every molecule sp was standing and what it had to say, what it looked like and how big or small it was AND THEY LOST EVERYONE IN THE COURT ROOM AND ON TV. I remember some tv stations went to commercial during Dr Cottons testimony.
I believe they were afraid of Barry Scheck waiting to rip it up so they just went into all of these and then said Well since this is the latest thing and we have this Dr Cotton telling us about things most people INCLUDING US had never ever heard of i guess we must act like sheep and just believe what ever they say because i have no idea as to what they are talking about.

Yet someone post here that the jury said they did not understand the DNA
and use that as a right to bash and call them ignorant.

If the prosecution could not explain the DNA in understandable language i might come to the conclusion that they did not want me to understand just be dumb and believe what they say the results were. BS.

I had not yet gone back to college but watching some of the DNA evidence I fully expected one of the prosecution's witnesses to say, alright class take out your pencils and a piece of paper it time for a test; and afterward say you all flunked.

[martin II]

Another source.

In Kato's Walk you'll see what adding "just seconds" does to the interval between Park's first sighting of Kato and when he first saw O.J. A fifteen or twenty seconds interval confirms O.J.'s story of coming from the house, dropping off some bags and going right back in. Two or three seconds creates a conflict between the testimony of Park and Kato -- two witnesses to the same event. View Kato's Walk and Two Witness alternately to see how they compare in different views. The two cars in Kato's Walk driving up and down Rockingham are shown only to indicate traffic. Rockingham, like Bundy, was a major thoroughfare so some Rockingham traffic was normal. Any proposed scenario of what happened on the night of June 12, 1994 must therefore take this fact into account.

Two Witnesses shows you what the scene looked like from Allan Park's point of view if you accept the idea that he saw O.J. going into the house "immediately" after he spotted Kato. You will see that Park's view was obscured by the bars of the Ashford gates but Kato's was not. If Park saw O.J. almost immediately after he saw Kato it would have been impossible for Kato not to have seen O.J. In each of Park's appearance on the witness stand O.J. appears out of nowhere on his walkway leading to his front door and walks right inside. He could have gone right inside only if the door was open. An open door agrees with O.J.'s story of coming out of that door to drop off some bags. By the same token, much has been made of Park not seeing O.J. come out of the house as O.J. claims he did although Park did not recall seeing Kato go to the south path, either. Yet, his own testimony confirms that Kato did not stand in the same place before he opened the Ashford gates. He said that after he saw O.J. enter the house he got out of the limo and talked to O.J. on the speaker phone. He got back into the vehicle and waited for 30 seconds or more for the gates to open. O.J. did not buzz him in; Kato did. Park only recalls Kato standing where he first saw him stop before he opened the gates.

[martin II]

I had not yet gone back to college but watching some of the DNA evidence I fully expected one of the prosecution's witnesses to say, alright class take out your pencils and a piece of paper it time for a test; and afterward say you all flunked.

Everyone here that understands all of the details of DNA raise your hands.

[weezer]

William GI

IMO The most complicated science subject can be explained in 2-3 simple worded paragraphs.The prosecution took the jury and everyone else down into the basement level of the science. Trying to explain where every molecule sp was standing and what it had to say, what it looked like and how big or small it was AND THEY LOST EVERYONE IN THE COURT ROOM AND ON TV. I remember some tv stations went to commercial during Dr Cottons testimony.
I believe they were afraid of Barry Scheck waiting to rip it up so they just went into all of these and then said Well since this is the latest thing and we have this Dr Cotton telling us about things most people INCLUDING US had never ever heard of i guess we must act like sheep and just believe what ever they say because i have no idea as to what they are talking about.

Yet someone post here that the jury said they did not understand the DNA
and use that as a right to bash and call them ignorant.

If the prosecution could not explain the DNA in understandable language i might come to the conclusion that they did not want me to understand just be dumb and believe what they say the results were. BS.

then one of those bright lightbulbs should have called a time out and sent the judge a note saying they did not understand. Instead they sat there for hours/days/weeks and then issued a verdict on what they didn't comprehend? :shrug:

[tv]

Everyone here that understands all of the details of DNA raise your hands.

I know enough to know that contamination won't turn one person's DNA into someone else's and that the chance that the blood at Bundy belonged to anyone other than OJ Simpson was between 1 in 170 million to 1 in 2.2 billion. Not complicated at all.

[tv]

then one of those bright lightbulbs should have called a time out and sent the judge a note saying they did not understand. Instead they sat there for hours/days/weeks and then issued a verdict on what they didn't comprehend? :shrug:

Didn't they say they didn't consider the DNA? Didn't they also say they thought Mazzola's blood was a match for Simpson? They didn't seem to have a problem sending notes to the Judge about anything else they thought was an issue.

[tv]

tv

Books
The oj trial was a cash cow for all who could find a publisher and those that had to publish their own books.For lawyers with handson faces that became
tv personalities and paid talking heads.

Some wrote about the facts and others made up facts. All for the money.

IMO the jury and the defence and prosecution were in a better position to
write books because of their inside information.

I think it is disrespectful of the jury to say that they sat for the trial for 9 mo and paid no attention to the evidence.Looking at the brief bio of the jurors they were not ignorant or not able to understand the evidence based on their education or work activities and age. The civil trial jurors were no more eucated than the criminal trial jurors.

12 people hearing many witnesses and evidence presentations will have different opinions of what each piece means to them.Two believe the glove fit 10 believe it didn't. maby 6 believe Mazzola lied and 6 believe she didn't.
But in deliberations the leader ask people what they haver quesitons on and all jurors discuss these questions seeking a agrement.In this case the three holdouts had questions about PARKS testimony as major issues for them. They had a readback and the holdouts then agreed with the majority that he could not have seen all that he testified to from the ashford gate.This was based on their visit to the gate looking at the house.The read back confirmed what all had thought that there was something wrong with his testimony.
Now Parks testimony was import to where oj was at what time.If he was proven wrong then there was something wrong with the other evidence.It was not imposible for a jury to believe that someone had done something wrong.They did not have to have proof that a specific le or lab person had
done something wrong but that the DA witnesses and story just did not prove beyond a reasonable dount that it was true.It is like there is something wrong with what these people are telling us. It is like all their life experiences
is telling them this stuff does not fit right.There is something wrong with it.This is when their common sense comes into play.

At closing when the prosecution had their last chance to tell the jury a COMPLETE STORY of how everything happened they talked about abuse and Clarke told these grown people to believe it because i said it is true.They were not there to believe anything SHE said they were there to examine the evidence and have her tell them why it made sense.
On the other hand at closing, the defence walked the jury through all the witnesses and evidence and showed them why it could not be believed and why the prosecution did not prove their total case beyond a reasonable doubt.

There was no other verdict the jury could have come to but Not Guilty.
imo

martin, you say I'm being disrepectful to say the jury paid no attention. IMO, it was very disrepectful to the people of the state of California for the jury to not have a firm grasp of the main components of the State's case. They didn't have to believe what SHE said but they were obligated to listen and try to absorb what she said. If they felt they couldn't do that they should have asked to be relieved of their duty.

[weezer]

martin, you say I'm being disrepectful to say the jury paid no attention. IMO, it was very disrepectful to the people of the state of California for the jury to not have a firm grasp of the main components of the State's case. They didn't have to believe what SHE said but they were obligated to listen and try to absorb what she said. If they felt they couldn't do that they should have asked to be relieved of their duty.

you know, the criminal jury and/or the NG's have never discussed cockroach's lies in the opening statements. I guess they didn't understand that he said he was going to produce witnesses that he couldn't/didn't produce. I guess they also didn't understand flee's and douglas's lies/sanctions for hiding evidence. Maybe the NG's are right. It was just too much to comprehend/understand.

[tv]

Bad taste does not make the verdict wrong. :)
No, but it demonstrates that the jury was possibly influenced by OJ Simpson's celebrity.

[tv]

you know, the criminal jury and/or the NG's have never discussed cockroach's lies in the opening statements. I guess they didn't understand that he said he was going to produce witnesses that he couldn't/didn't produce. I guess they also didn't understand flee's and douglas's lies/sanctions for hiding evidence. Maybe the NG's are right. It was just too much to comprehend/understand.Selective listening and understanding.

[weezer]

No, but it demonstrates that the jury was possibly influenced by OJ Simpson's celebrity.

especially when the NG's slam a defense witness who talked about a victory party and hells bells, the witness wasn't the one with the power to set that butcher free. but the jury who attended a party at orenthal's after they let him walk, gets a ride on this for 'bad taste'? I don't think so.

[weezer]

Selective listening and understanding.

I don't know if it was even that. I believe that if the speaker (attorney and/or witness) was for the prosecution, they couldn't see nor hear the evidence through the color of the defendant.

[tv]

especially when the NG's slam a defense witness who talked about a victory party and hells bells, the witness wasn't the one with the power to set that butcher free. but the jury who attended a party at orenthal's after they let him walk, gets a ride on this for 'bad taste'? I don't think so.

Even if I really thought OJ Simpson was not guilty I wouldn't have been able to attend a celebration party at his house. The jury saw much more graphic pictures than any of us. I wouldn't be able to get them out of my mind and after nine months I think I'd just want to go home. I saw a picture of Nicole on the internet with the gaping wound in her neck before they started censoring it and it has stayed with me a long time.

[weezer]

Even if I really thought OJ Simpson was not guilty I wouldn't have been able to attend a celebration party at his house. The jury saw much more graphic pictures than any of us. I wouldn't be able to get them out of my mind and after nine months I think I'd just want to go home. I saw a picture of Nicole on the internet with the gaping wound in her neck before they started censoring it and it has stayed with me a long time.

I just think it's obscene for the jury to 'party' for either side.

[tv]

It tells me that they paid close attention to the farce of a case that the prosecution put on. They listen to the evidence of the missing blood, poor evidence techniques, missing initial on evidence (lack of chain of custody), a cesspool of contamination and simply did not believe that the blood was Simpson's and could have belonged to anyone.

Even the defense never denied the blood belonged to OJ Simpson. It's not up to the jury to invent evidence.

[tv]

I just think it's obscene for the jury to 'party' for either side.I agree. I would have thought it every bit as disgusting if the jury had voted guilty and partied with the prosecution.

[bobaugust]

Please, provide the testimony where Kato testified he went directly to the gate box? Kato said he backed out from the garage area, saw the limo had not been buzzed in. Tell me where Kato was by his testimony when he made the observation that the limo had not been buzzed in? Ms. Clark, Martin II, and others, I believe, understand what Kato was saying. However, Ms. Clark, who had spoken to Kato before her examination of him, supplied the missing details in her question in which she said you walked back up the driveway. You now want to discredit Park on his observation, with that hole digging shovel, but want to credit him on other of his observations so long as the square with what you want to believe. I understand that you have to discredit Park's testimony or your inferences are questionable but thank you for admitting that you understand the significance of Park's testimony. No matter how embarrassing Park's testimony is or, should I say, damaging to your inferences, the testimony is what it is and thank you for admitting that my inferences are based on the totality of the evidence, keeping in mind that memories can be suggested. :)

William, you claim that Park was mistaken when he said he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house on the Ashford path with a flashlight and then saw Simpson enter his house. You claim that Park really first saw Kaelin come down the driveway returning from his first trip to the south path and then Kaelin went back to the Ashford path and stood there and waited when Simpson entered his house. Stood there when Park finished his phone call and then waited to be let in. Stood there when Park got out of his limo and rang the intercom. Stood there when Park spoke with Simpson. Stood there when Park went back to the limo. Stood there when Park continued to wait to be let in. And then after all that time Kaelin walked across the driveway and went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

Post the testimony where Kaelin said he did that please.

June 17, 1994 Grand Jury Kaelin

A. OKAY.
SO I'M RUNNING DOWN THIS SIDEWALK AND I SEE THAT THERE IS A LIMO OUT IN FRONT. IT'S DARK; I SEE NO ONE IN IT AND THE DOG, CHACHI -- THAT'S A BLACK CHOW – IS SOMEWHERE HERE IN THE DRIVEWAY. AND I GO WITH THE FLASHLIGHT AND I STARTED WALKING THERE, AS I SAID, AND I GET TO ABOUT HERE. AND THE FLASHLIGHT WAS VERY DIM. IT WAS LIKE ONE OF THOSE SMALL FLASHLIGHTS AND THE BEAM WAS KIND OF BAD ON IT. AND I WAS SCARED. SO AFTER I STAYED THERE, I WENT BACK OUT THIS WAY, NOTICED THE GATE WAS NOT OPEN FOR THE DRIVER AND I WENT TO THE GATE TO PRESS A BUTTON HERE AND IT OPENS THE GATE UP.
Q. YOU OPENED THE GATE UP FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
A. TO LET THE LIMO IN.
Q. SO YOU DIDN'T INITIALLY LET HIM IN WHEN YOU
FIRST SAW HIM?
A. NO.

July 5, 1994 Preliminary Hearing Kaelin

Q You walked down to the portion of the garage that you indicated with K-1?
A Yes.
Q Why did you stop there?
A I was -- my light wasn't working very well and I was scared and I decided to come back.
Q Okay. Was it very dark back there?
A Yes.
Q So you came back out.
What happened next?
A Well, then I noticed the limo was still parked there and I went, "geez, I should let this guy in, I guess, he's waiting." So I pressed the button and the gate opened up and he drove up.


March 22, 1995 Criminal trial Kaelin

Q OKAY. AND SO YOU BACKED OUT AGAIN?
A YES, I DID.
Q WHERE DID YOU GO THEN?
A I WENT BACK OUT.
Q OKAY.
A AND THE LIMO WAS STILL THERE AND I THOUGHT MAYBE I SHOULD LET THIS GUY IN,
SO I WENT TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX, THERE IS A BUTTON, PRESSED AND IT OPENS UP.
Q OKAY.
SO YOU WALKED DOWN THE DRIVEWAY AROUND THE GARAGE TO THE SOUTH PATHWAY, CAME BACK OUT, WALKED BACK UP THE DRIVEWAY AND THE LIMO DRIVER -- THE LIMOUSINE WAS STILL OUTSIDE THE ASHFORD GATE?
A YES.
Q WHEN YOU SAID YOU WENT TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX, YOU POINTED TO AN AREA ON PEOPLE'S 66. IS THAT WHERE IT IS INDICATED BY THAT TREE?
A YES.
Q AND THEN DID THE GATE OPEN?
A YES, IT DID.
Q AND WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
A OKAY.
THE GATE OPENED AND HE DROVE IN AND THERE WAS A DOG AND I TOLD HIM TO WATCH IT, AND CHACHI, THE DOG, WENT HERE, (INDICATING), AND THE LIMO DRIVER PARKED HERE, (INDICATING).


Kaelin Deposition February 14, 1996

Q: Were you frightened?
A: Yes.
Q: And you believed somebody had been back there and might still be back there?
A: Yes. I just had an eerie feeling that night, so it was just adding up.
Q: And you turned around.
A: I turned around.
Q: And did what?
A: So I turned around. put the gate up, and I walked and I noticed the limo guy was still
out there. And so when I saw the limo guy still out there, I went, huh, I probably
should let him in. So I went to this gate control box (Indicating), and it's a button--
Q: You are pointing to the gate control box inside the Ashford gate?
A: Correct.
Q: What did do you?
Q: So I pressed the box--the button, and the doors opened up on the gate. And Chachi
was right there, the dog, and the guy started the car, pulled up, and I saw Chachi
crossing. Chachi went in front of the limo and laid down in this one spot that he lays.
Q: Now, the spot where Chachi lays is on the east side of the driveway north of the
entranceway. Right?
A: Correct.
Q: On the grass?
A: Yes, it's on the grass.
Q: Okay. And then the limo driver pulled in after Chachi walked by, and he stopped where?
A: He went up to the driveway right here (Indicating) where the two park benches are.


November 19, 1995 Civil Trial Kaelin

Q. Okay. After you came back from your trip from behind the garage, or your partial trip I should say, you said you saw the limo driver was out there?
A. I saw the limo was back there.
Q. Was the car in a different or the same place than when you saw
it the first time?
A. Same place.
Q. What did you do?
A. I went to this gate control box.
Q. Yes.
A. And I opened it up, I pressed the button, and the gates opened.
Q. What gates opened?
A. The Ashford Street gate. So the limo could get in.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Even if I really thought OJ Simpson was not guilty I wouldn't have been able to attend a celebration party at his house. The jury saw much more graphic pictures than any of us. I wouldn't be able to get them out of my mind and after nine months I think I'd just want to go home. I saw a picture of Nicole on the internet with the gaping wound in her neck before they started censoring it and it has stayed with me a long time.

tv

If a jury member thought that they had prevented a not guilty man from going to jail that would be reason to celebrate.

If oj had been found guilty and Fred had given you a ionvite to the victory party would you have gone??

[martin II]

No, but it demonstrates that the jury was possibly influenced by OJ Simpson's celebrity.

It is always difficult when one person tries to impose their way of thinking on
another person and say the other person is wrong because they have different opinion on what is the RIGHT thing to do is.imo

[martin II]

martin, you say I'm being disrepectful to say the jury paid no attention. IMO, it was very disrepectful to the people of the state of California for the jury to not have a firm grasp of the main components of the State's case. They didn't have to believe what SHE said but they were obligated to listen and try to absorb what she said. If they felt they couldn't do that they should have asked to be relieved of their duty.

my point is she used her closing to talk about something that oj was not charged with and she lost the opportunity to paint a clear picture of all of her evidence in a MURDER TRIAL.

The defence painted a clear picture as to why the evidence could not be trusted or believed.

[tv]

my point is she used her closing to talk about something that oj was not charged with and she lost the opportunity to paint a clear picture of all of her evidence in a MURDER TRIAL.

The defence painted a clear picture as to why the evidence could not be trusted or believed.They just made a lot of allegations and hoped the jury would buy it which they did. They offered nothing to back up what they alleged.

[tv]

It is always difficult when one person tries to impose their way of thinking on
another person and say the other person is wrong because they have different opinion on what is the RIGHT thing to do is.imoI know bad taste and inappropriate behavior when I see it. Are you saying you've never had an opinion that someone else is wrong? If you're saying that I'd be happy to provide some examples.