Random Discussions On The Case

[tv]

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??No, I wouldn't have because no matter what the outcome there are no winners in this case. I'm not one of those people that believes in cheering at executions and things of that nature.

[martin II]

I 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.

Bad taste according to tv.
you saw the party one way. jury members saw it another way.
No problem. no one is wrong.Period.

[martin II]

tv

I will give you a great example of what some call bad taste.

The First Lady has well defined arms and she sometimes wear sleeveless dresses.Some women complained that the First Lady should not wear sleeveless dresses.Many other women commented that her arms looked great and that she was a modern woman and they went to the gym as they say, to get that flab from under their upper arm.

Which is wrong??

[martin II]

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.

What does the defence have to present other than argument to tell the jury why the prosecutions evidence testimony should not be believed.??

[William Anthony]

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.

bobaugust

You posted quite a bit of testimony but none of it says Kato went directly to the gate box as you claimed. Here is the problem with your inferences and I do not like to repeat myself but here goes. I posted the testimony of where Park said he saw Kato "standing and still standing there". The B on the diagram, which represents Kato shows where Kato was when Park saw him. You have previously agreed that Kato did not go to the gate box to buzz Park in until after he completed his first cursory search. Therefore, according to Park's testimony he did not see Kato walk to the garage area, so Park saw Kato standing and still standing there, meaning Kato had not walked anywhere. So, let's put this in context. Ms. Clark told us where Kato walked after finishing his first cursory search and backing out, which Kato did not deny. She said Kato walked back up the driveway, not that he backed out, crossed the driveway and then walked up the driveway. However, let us not stop there.

At the time Park saw Kato he saw someone, whom you believe to be Simpson walk into the house. Park said this was "almost simultaneous". That would place Kato on the sidewalk at that time. Park waited thirty seconds after he saw, who you believe to be Simpson enter the house. Park then waited 30 seconds and walked to the intercom to be buzzed in and Simpson answered "immediately". Within 20 to 30 seconds after that Kato buzzed Park in, meaning that within the last 20 to 30 seconds Kato had walked to the gate box. IIRC, I posted the testimony where Park said Kato stood there for a minute. Surely, you are not suggesting that Kato was seen by Park behind the house and walked down to the garage area, did a cursory search, backed out, walked up the driveway noticing that the limo had not been buzzed in and walked to the gate box all within a minute and a half. You want to say it was all that time but it would have been only a minute that Kato stood there. Kato also testified that he did not stop before he performed his first cursory search, meaning it was impossible for Park to see him standing. Unless you believe that there was another White Male standing in the location, "there", then we must assume that White male, which Park testified he later learned was Kato was, in fact, Kato and, unless you believe Kato was wrong in that he did not stop before doing his first cursory search, and, unless you believe that Kato did not do a first cursory search before letting the limo in, and unless you believe that Park did not see Kato standing there when he simultaneously saw the figure you believe to have been Simpson, then it is highly unlikely to believe that Park could have possibly have seen Simpson and Kato simultaneously while Kato was standing or, more importantly, imho, saw Simpson entered his house.

[fgump2]

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.
*******************************
If it was me or someone I loved n trial I might think it was OK to bribe the judge or jury, or perhaps dig a tunnel into prison if the wrong person (like me) got convicted even if they were guilty. But that doesn't mean I would be in favor of these techniques if it was a stranger with the legal problems.

My point about sleepiness causing problems is that it would make them be less likely to engage in risky behavior. I think that MF, Lange, and Vannatter were all short on sleep that night. So they would have been less alert than usual, and therefore realized it, and been more cautious than usual.

You have written that MF had a history of doing risky things. Maybe so, I don’t know much about him. What about Lange and Vannatter? Did they have a history of doing risky things? They were both over 40, nearing retirement, and sleepy that night. I have been around people nearing retirement in big organizations, and they behave cautiously. I think that it is unlikely that either one of those guys would have engaged in risky behavior that night.

MF had some harsh words for Lange and Vannatter after the trial, and they had some harsh words for him. I don’t think that they would have behaved in that manner if they had cooperated in a frame-up. There have been a lot of criminals who have been caught because they talked too much, or one of their buddies did. To list some: Michael Skakel, Gary Hirte (a high school murderer and golden boy), Tonya Harding, the cadet couple (David and Diane).In all of these cases people went to prison because someone couldn't keep their mouths shut - they put themselves in jail and sometimes someone else by talking. I have known people who got themselves in trouble because they couldn’t keep a good story to themselves. In one case an acquaintance went to prison.

Any police detective knows that a lot of people get to prison partly because someone talked who should have known better. I realize some people think the blue wall of silence would protect the plotters. I don’t think so. The blue wall of silence wouldn’t keep someone from getting drunk and confessing. Nor would it keep someone from feeling guilty and confessing. Everyone has heard of deathbed confessions. The blue wall of silence couldn’t prevent that.

I have never written or thought that carelessness makes all mistakes OK, but I get the impression that many of the defense supporters think any imperfecton in the evidence processing is enough to enable the accused to walk (free).

[William Anthony]

tv

I will give you a great example of what some call bad taste.

The First Lady has well defined arms and she sometimes wear sleeveless dresses.Some women complained that the First Lady should not wear sleeveless dresses.Many other women commented that her arms looked great and that she was a modern woman and they went to the gym as they say, to get that flab from under their upper arm.

Which is wrong??

I think Ms. Tvdinner must have watched another trial.

[William Anthony]

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

It's up to the jury to determine what they find credible.

[William Anthony]

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

Maybe, the jury wanted to celebrate that justice had been served.

[fgump2]

Fgump2,

Can you please post a link to support your statement as to what the jury did not discuss?
**************************
I think I have written too much about both the jury and the DNA. I will probably post a few more on this Simpson trial, but little if any on the jury or DNA; that is after this posting. I don't think of my words as been the last or best words on the subjects, just the last from me.

I got infomation about the jury not discussing important evidence from the book by Rantala. This said that the foreman, Cooley, said that the jury discussion didn't include either the OJS blood at Bundy, or the issue of Fuhrman. This means they didn't discuss the glove at Rockingham.

I don't have any links to what the jury discussed. Does anybody? A lot of people who know more about it than I do slammed the jury. John Douglas, author and former FBI expert did, as did Vincent Bugliosi.

[weezer]

**************************
I think I have written too much about both the jury and the DNA. I will probably post a few more on this Simpson trial, but little if any on the jury or DNA; that is after this posting. I don't think of my words as been the last or best words on the subjects, just the last from me.

I got infomation about the jury not discussing important evidence from the book by Rantala. This said that the foreman, Cooley, said that the jury discussion didn't include either the OJS blood at Bundy, or the issue of Fuhrman. This means they didn't discuss the glove at Rockingham.

I don't have any links to what the jury discussed. Does anybody? A lot of people who know more about it than I do slammed the jury. John Douglas, author and former FBI expert did, as did Vincent Bugliosi.

fgump, I hope you're not letting the hateful, disrespectful yahoos on this board keep you from posting. you've raised some good points and asked some good questions. The difference in your perspective and that of the solid NG's is that you've at least been willing to accept fault from both sides. I continue to ask the question why the NG's won't take into consideration of all the information/evidence learned since the criminal trial.

[martin II]

*******************************
If it was me or someone I loved n trial I might think it was OK to bribe the judge or jury, or perhaps dig a tunnel into prison if the wrong person (like me) got convicted even if they were guilty. But that doesn't mean I would be in favor of these techniques if it was a stranger with the legal problems.

My point about sleepiness causing problems is that it would make them be less likely to engage in risky behavior. I think that MF, Lange, and Vannatter were all short on sleep that night. So they would have been less alert than usual, and therefore realized it, and been more cautious than usual.

You have written that MF had a history of doing risky things. Maybe so, I don’t know much about him. What about Lange and Vannatter? Did they have a history of doing risky things? They were both over 40, nearing retirement, and sleepy that night. I have been around people nearing retirement in big organizations, and they behave cautiously. I think that it is unlikely that either one of those guys would have engaged in risky behavior that night.

MF had some harsh words for Lange and Vannatter after the trial, and they had some harsh words for him. I don’t think that they would have behaved in that manner if they had cooperated in a frame-up. There have been a lot of criminals who have been caught because they talked too much, or one of their buddies did. To list some: Michael Skakel, Gary Hirte (a high school murderer and golden boy), Tonya Harding, the cadet couple (David and Diane).In all of these cases people went to prison because someone couldn't keep their mouths shut - they put themselves in jail and sometimes someone else by talking. I have known people who got themselves in trouble because they couldn’t keep a good story to themselves. In one case an acquaintance went to prison.

Any police detective knows that a lot of people get to prison partly because someone talked who should have known better. I realize some people think the blue wall of silence would protect the plotters. I don’t think so. The blue wall of silence wouldn’t keep someone from getting drunk and confessing. Nor would it keep someone from feeling guilty and confessing. Everyone has heard of deathbed confessions. The blue wall of silence couldn’t prevent that.

I have never written or thought that carelessness makes all mistakes OK, but I get the impression that many of the defense supporters think any imperfecton in the evidence processing is enough to enable the accused to walk (free).
fgum2

I think you are making a lot of excuses for the prosecutions very weak case.

imo

[martin II]

**************************
I think I have written too much about both the jury and the DNA. I will probably post a few more on this Simpson trial, but little if any on the jury or DNA; that is after this posting. I don't think of my words as been the last or best words on the subjects, just the last from me.

I got infomation about the jury not discussing important evidence from the book by Rantala. This said that the foreman, Cooley, said that the jury discussion didn't include either the OJS blood at Bundy, or the issue of Fuhrman. This means they didn't discuss the glove at Rockingham.

I don't have any links to what the jury discussed. Does anybody? A lot of people who know more about it than I do slammed the jury. John Douglas, author and former FBI expert did, as did Vincent Bugliosi.

Again

The jury discussed what they felt they had questions on.No jury ever discusses every piece of evidence.They discuss the questions that various jurors have on any one or several pices of evidence.
So your source must not know what the cjs required of the jury.
Therefore his point is mute.

[GreenIce]

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,

IMO, I think the DA's dragged out the DNA portion, well really their whole case with the hopes that the shoes, knife and clothes would be found. When these were not found and they had a glove they could not explain and the worst possible person to have found it, they knew they needed these items to make their case.

To me the concept of DNA is simple. In most cases it can tell you exactly who's blood it it is. If the sample is degraded or "old", it can be a bit tricky because you and your children have many of the same of the markers but it is not so evidence when you read the "x-rays" of the blood stain.

Rock Harmon made a complete fool out of himself when he asked the type of questions he asked, like can DNA fly through the air and change into someone else's. The defense never made such claims. IMO, the defense was very clear, when and how did the blood get there? How is it that the amount of blood they have claimed that was missing just happened to be in the same amount range that of the stains that were found so much later?

Of course, from his interviews after trial, he says that EDTA was in those samples and he really couldn't say much after that. After all he was their expert and he said if EDTA was found in the samples, then the case never should have been filed. It never occurred to me just how much he stuck to his guns when he did not cross either Dr. Reiders or Roger Martz. Did Clark do both of them?

If you read Clark book's you can see where she walked a very line line and gave creedence to the defense claims, of "old blood", IMO.

[GreenIce]

Bad taste according to tv.
you saw the party one way. jury members saw it another way.
No problem. no one is wrong.Period.

Martin,

Perhaps TV does not know of the hats the LAPD had made for the Simpson trial. Didn't they do the same to Kobe Bryant? And what did one witness write about attending the DA's victory party?

"Parties" are always thrown and the funny thing, each of these parties have the same name, "Justice". Why shouldn't either side celebrate justice? Which includes the jurors. Did anyone say anything about the bash the jurors attended when they convincted Scott Peterson? These parties are nothing new. IMO, if I only made 5 bucks a day and someone was throwing a party, free food and drink, I would so be there!

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, I think the DA's dragged out the DNA portion, well really their whole case with the hopes that the shoes, knife and clothes would be found. When these were not found and they had a glove they could not explain and the worst possible person to have found it, they knew they needed these items to make their case.

To me the concept of DNA is simple. In most cases it can tell you exactly who's blood it it is. If the sample is degraded or "old", it can be a bit tricky because you and your children have many of the same of the markers but it is not so evidence when you read the "x-rays" of the blood stain.

Rock Harmon made a complete fool out of himself when he asked the type of questions he asked, like can DNA fly through the air and change into someone else's. The defense never made such claims. IMO, the defense was very clear, when and how did the blood get there? How is it that the amount of blood they have claimed that was missing just happened to be in the same amount range that of the stains that were found so much later?

Of course, from his interviews after trial, he says that EDTA was in those samples and he really couldn't say much after that. After all he was their expert and he said if EDTA was found in the samples, then the case never should have been filed. It never occurred to me just how much he stuck to his guns when he did not cross either Dr. Reiders or Roger Martz. Did Clark do both of them?

If you read Clark book's you can see where she walked a very line line and gave creedence to the defense claims, of "old blood", IMO.

Thanks for your most informative post.

[martin II]

Martin,

Perhaps TV does not know of the hats the LAPD had made for the Simpson trial. Didn't they do the same to Kobe Bryant? And what did one witness write about attending the DA's victory party?

"Parties" are always thrown and the funny thing, each of these parties have the same name, "Justice". Why shouldn't either side celebrate justice? Which includes the jurors. Did anyone say anything about the bash the jurors attended when they convincted Scott Peterson? These parties are nothing new. IMO, if I only made 5 bucks a day and someone was throwing a party, free food and drink, I would so be there!

Rubin the prosecutions glove expert had asked for a invite to the prosecutions victory party BEFORE the trial ended.

[GreenIce]

**************************
I think I have written too much about both the jury and the DNA. I will probably post a few more on this Simpson trial, but little if any on the jury or DNA; that is after this posting. I don't think of my words as been the last or best words on the subjects, just the last from me.

I got infomation about the jury not discussing important evidence from the book by Rantala. This said that the foreman, Cooley, said that the jury discussion didn't include either the OJS blood at Bundy, or the issue of Fuhrman. This means they didn't discuss the glove at Rockingham.

I don't have any links to what the jury discussed. Does anybody? A lot of people who know more about it than I do slammed the jury. John Douglas, author and former FBI expert did, as did Vincent Bugliosi.

fgump2,

IMO, I think the jurors first focused on the only neutral evidence of the case and that was the timeline. Which is why, IMO, they wanted a read back of Park's testimony. Don't forget, they went to both crime scenes. They were able to see where the glove was found, they were are able to see Bundy, etc. They had a tremendous amount evidence that was not available to you and I because we weren't able to do a "walk through".

They were able to determine if Park should have hard the Bronco pulling up, if he could see what lights were on inside, etc.

The bottom line is, if he doesn't have the time, then he couldn't have committed the crime--at least not by himself. They had to weigh the timeline on Simpson acting alone, getting rid of the clothes, the shoes, the knife. They had to determine if it was possible for the killer not to be covered in blood. They had to ask where were the fibers inside in the Bronco? In his Bently?

Before the prelim hearing, leaks of the blood tests were making headlines in the media. I remember several legal talking heads already saying that if Simpson's blood was found at the crime scene, then the case is over. It is a slam dunk for the DA's. Well there is more to the evidence then just DNA. There are two sides, at least two sides of every piece of evidence. The DA's responses were just so, so weak. The jury had no choice.

And if you think about it, those jurors had like 9 months to think about this case. They did not spend a majority of this time inside the courtroom listening to evidence. They spend more time in the jury room because of side bars, hearings conducted outside the presence of the jury.

Everyone of the jurors felt the glove was planted, so what is really left to discuss about it? Did the DA's present pictures of the Rockingham glove showing the tiny stain? The only place where I believe his blood was found on either glove? I am not saying that the jurors all felt that it was MF, but they felt it was planted and with CY's testimony, they had to consider that Simpson's blood did get on that glove because of an error.

In regards to the socks, there is no logical explaination for the head of the crime lab not to use the proper equipment to find any blood on the socks. And to be honest, we don't know if this was done and there was no blood found on it. They only thing we do know is that some body in the lab get ambitious 2 months later and I don't even know who found the blood on the sock and how it was found, was it using the proper equipment was it seen with the naked eye?

Like a couple posters have said, the devil is in the details and the DA's just had way too many details, IMO.

[tv]

tv

I will give you a great example of what some call bad taste.

The First Lady has well defined arms and she sometimes wear sleeveless dresses.Some women complained that the First Lady should not wear sleeveless dresses.Many other women commented that her arms looked great and that she was a modern woman and they went to the gym as they say, to get that flab from under their upper arm.

Which is wrong??

Neither one. Michelle Obama is showing off and the women that care have too much time on their hands. :shrug:

[tv]

Again

The jury discussed what they felt they had questions on.No jury ever discusses every piece of evidence.They discuss the questions that various jurors have on any one or several pices of evidence.
So your source must not know what the cjs required of the jury.
Therefore his point is mute.

If the jury didn't discuss or consider the major facts presented in the case by both sides they didn't do what was required them. We know these things about them because Rantala took her information from the juror's statements in Madame Foreman: A Rush To Judgement?

[martin II]

fgump2,

IMO, I think the jurors first focused on the only neutral evidence of the case and that was the timeline. Which is why, IMO, they wanted a read back of Park's testimony. Don't forget, they went to both crime scenes. They were able to see where the glove was found, they were are able to see Bundy, etc. They had a tremendous amount evidence that was not available to you and I because we weren't able to do a "walk through".

They were able to determine if Park should have hard the Bronco pulling up, if he could see what lights were on inside, etc.

The bottom line is, if he doesn't have the time, then he couldn't have committed the crime--at least not by himself. They had to weigh the timeline on Simpson acting alone, getting rid of the clothes, the shoes, the knife. They had to determine if it was possible for the killer not to be covered in blood. They had to ask where were the fibers inside in the Bronco? In his Bently?

Before the prelim hearing, leaks of the blood tests were making headlines in the media. I remember several legal talking heads already saying that if Simpson's blood was found at the crime scene, then the case is over. It is a slam dunk for the DA's. Well there is more to the evidence then just DNA. There are two sides, at least two sides of every piece of evidence. The DA's responses were just so, so weak. The jury had no choice.

And if you think about it, those jurors had like 9 months to think about this case. They did not spend a majority of this time inside the courtroom listening to evidence. They spend more time in the jury room because of side bars, hearings conducted outside the presence of the jury.

Everyone of the jurors felt the glove was planted, so what is really left to discuss about it? Did the DA's present pictures of the Rockingham glove showing the tiny stain? The only place where I believe his blood was found on either glove? I am not saying that the jurors all felt that it was MF, but they felt it was planted and with CY's testimony, they had to consider that Simpson's blood did get on that glove because of an error.

In regards to the socks, there is no logical explaination for the head of the crime lab not to use the proper equipment to find any blood on the socks. And to be honest, we don't know if this was done and there was no blood found on it. They only thing we do know is that some body in the lab get ambitious 2 months later and I don't even know who found the blood on the sock and how it was found, was it using the proper equipment was it seen with the naked eye?

Like a couple posters have said, the devil is in the details and the DA's just had way too many details, IMO.

in two Cochran speaking engagements that i attended he summed it up in a short sentance, "The timeline did not fit"

[tv]

What does the defence have to present other than argument to tell the jury why the prosecutions evidence testimony should not be believed.??
In this case it certainly wasn't necessary.

[tv]

in two Cochran speaking engagements that i attended he summed it up in a short sentance, "The timeline did not fit" The timeline was more accurate in the civil trial but that's not why the criminal trial was won.

[tv]

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. *snipped*

Perhaps, Martin and I have a better understanding of legal principles than others.

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

I think not. Arrogant much? :rolleyes:

[martin II]

If the jury didn't discuss or consider the major facts presented in the case by both sides they didn't do what was required them. We know these things about them because Rantala took her information from the juror's statements in Madame Foreman: A Rush To Judgement?

Some time after jury deliberations began the jurt took a vote, this is a normal deliberation procedure.The vote was i think 9 for not guilty 3 for guilty.
They then asked each juror to ask questions for discussion. They discussed all of these juror questions. Some requested a read back of Parks testimony because there were questions about him. They had the readback. They discussed it and came to the conclusion that Park could not have seen all that he said he saw and i guess some other issues of his testinmony.There were no more questions by any juror at this point. They then decided to take another vote and it was 12 not guilty.

No jury is required by law to discuss every piece of evidence any anyone that thinks they are is just uninformed.

When a jury reaches 12 in agreement there is no reason to discuss anything.
Deliberations is over.

Can you give me a link to the cjs that dictates that a jury is required to discuss any specific major or minor piece of evidence? imo

[martin II]

The timeline was more accurate in the civil trial but that's not why the criminal trial was won.

The time line in the criminal trial did not allow oj to have commited murder and done the other things the prosecution said he must have done.
So if this is true the blood DNA and everything else goes in the trash bucket.

[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]

If the jury didn't discuss or consider the major facts presented in the case by both sides they didn't do what was required them. We know these things about them because Rantala took her information from the juror's statements in Madame Foreman: A Rush To Judgement?

What Rantala talks about means little as there is no requirement for a jury to do what he says they did not do.

[martin II]

Neither one. Michelle Obama is showing off and the women that care have too much time on their hands. :shrug:

You think all the women that wear sleeveless dresses for Spring are showing off?

[tv]

**************************
I think I have written too much about both the jury and the DNA. I will probably post a few more on this Simpson trial, but little if any on the jury or DNA; that is after this posting. I don't think of my words as been the last or best words on the subjects, just the last from me.

I got infomation about the jury not discussing important evidence from the book by Rantala. This said that the foreman, Cooley, said that the jury discussion didn't include either the OJS blood at Bundy, or the issue of Fuhrman. This means they didn't discuss the glove at Rockingham.

I don't have any links to what the jury discussed. Does anybody? A lot of people who know more about it than I do slammed the jury. John Douglas, author and former FBI expert did, as did Vincent Bugliosi.
fgump2, I hope you won't stop posting. It's been really nice to have another point of view especially from someone that can see both sides of it.

I think to know more about what the jury discussed we'd have to read Armanda Cooley's book. It's on Amazon for $0.1 so it'll fit in my budget. I expect it to be a quick read since they were only got deliberated for a little over three hours.

[tv]

You think all the women that wear sleeveless dresses for Spring are showing off?

Please don't start.

[tv]

What Rantala talks about means little as there is no requirement for a jury to do what he says they did not do.He is a she. They were required to listen to all of the evidence in order to make an informed decision. They didn't do that.

[martin II]

fgump2, I hope you won't stop posting. It's been really nice to have another point of view especially from someone that can see both sides of it.

I think to know more about what the jury discussed we'd have to read Armanda Cooley's book. It's on Amazon for $0.1 so it'll fit in my budget. I expect it to be a quick read since they were only got deliberated for a little over three hours.

In a country like America you will find that not all people speak and use some words the same. Some that call themselves elitest sp do look down on those that don't speak as they do but so what.

[martin II]

He is a she. They were required to listen to all of the evidence in order to make an informed decision. They didn't do that.

The jury listened for 9 months to all of the testimony according to them.And no one knows that they didn't.

[tv]

The time line in the criminal trial did not allow oj to have commited murder and done the other things the prosecution said he must have done.
So if this is true the blood DNA and everything else goes in the trash bucket.It's not the exact times but the sequence of events that matters but you refuse to see this. Just the DNA evidence at the scene is overwhelming not to mention Simpson's blood mixed with the victims blood in the house and the Bronco, the history of violence towards Nicole, the cuts on his hands...the list goes on and on to include his lying testimony in the civil trial.

[tv]

The jury listened for 9 months to all of the testimony according to them.And no one knows that they didn't.

Carrie Bess, and possibly more of the jurors, did not know that OJ Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove. Armanda Cooley thought that Mazzola and Simpson had blood matches. If they were listening it wasn't sinking in. I don't know how much more they got wrong but after I read their book I'll have a better idea.

[tv]

In a country like America you will find that not all people speak and use some words the same. Some that call themselves elitest sp do look down on those that don't speak as they do but so what.

Who's calling themselves elitist?

[tv]

Some time after jury deliberations began the jurt took a vote, this is a normal deliberation procedure.The vote was i think 9 for not guilty 3 for guilty.
They then asked each juror to ask questions for discussion. They discussed all of these juror questions. Some requested a read back of Parks testimony because there were questions about him. They had the readback. They discussed it and came to the conclusion that Park could not have seen all that he said he saw and i guess some other issues of his testinmony.There were no more questions by any juror at this point. They then decided to take another vote and it was 12 not guilty.

No jury is required by law to discuss every piece of evidence any anyone that thinks they are is just uninformed.

When a jury reaches 12 in agreement there is no reason to discuss anything.
Deliberations is over.

Can you give me a link to the cjs that dictates that a jury is required to discuss any specific major or minor piece of evidence? imo

Whether they discussed a piece or evidence or not they should at least know the evidence exists.

[martin II]

Whether they discussed a piece or evidence or not they should at least know the evidence exists.

The jury head all of the evidence for 9 months.If a juror missed a piece of evedence means nothing because there is no proof that any one juror missed the bulk of the testimony/evidence,

What was important to one person does not have to be that important to a juror.If the timeline did not fit then all the blood evidence means nothing.

[martin II]

Carrie Bess, and possibly more of the jurors, did not know that OJ Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove. Armanda Cooley thought that Mazzola and Simpson had blood matches. If they were listening it wasn't sinking in. I don't know how much more they got wrong but after I read their book I'll have a better idea.

The timeline and Parks testimony came in the early part of the trial.
Amanda cooley and all of the others voted not guilty.They knew more about the evidence than anyone other than the prosecution and defence,

[martin II]

Who's calling themselves elitist?

Those that make fun of how that juror spoke of deliberations.imo

[tv]

Those that make fun of how that juror spoke of deliberations.imo It's not my fault it sounded ridiculous.

[tv]

The timeline and Parks testimony came in the early part of the trial.
Amanda cooley and all of the others voted not guilty.They knew more about the evidence than anyone other than the prosecution and defence,

They didn't know more than anyone who was aware of Mazzola and Simpson's blood not matching or that the Rockingham glove had Simpson's blood on it. How about the juror that thought the Bundy blood could have belonged to Sydney or Justin? That wasn't in evidence so why did she think that could be the case?

[weezer]

"Jury Deliberations

After receiving the instructions and hearing the final arguments, the jury retires to the jury room to begin deliberating."

We understand that the jury was not bright enough to deliberate 9 months of evidence and testimony in less than three hours so I'm surprised that the posters who "have a better understanding of legal principles than others" continue to defend the criminal jury's deliberations by saying they had been deliberating the case for nine months. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

I think not. Arrogant much? :rolleyes:

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

I consider that quote offensive rude uncivil and possibly misinformed, which prompted my response. However, I would have had no problem with it, if the poster had stated in his/her opinion. I hope you understand, now as I was offering a reason why Martin and my opinions may differ with the statements of others indicating that we somehow lag behind others in what others think they know the truth to be.

[William Anthony]

Those that make fun of how that juror spoke of deliberations.imo

I think you said the jury had nine months to think about the evidence they heard, IIRC. I don't recall anyone saying that the jury deliberated the evidence prior to being instructed to so do.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deliberation

[William Anthony]

Whether they discussed a piece or evidence or not they should at least know the evidence exists.

I reiterate that it was the prosecution's obligation to present evidence in a fashion that holds the jury's attention and makes the evidence understandable. In the courses I have had, I was taught the value of the concepts of primacy and recentcy. Perhaps, the prosecution in its zeal forgot those concepts.

[William Anthony]

Carrie Bess, and possibly more of the jurors, did not know that OJ Simpson's blood was on the Rockingham glove. Armanda Cooley thought that Mazzola and Simpson had blood matches. If they were listening it wasn't sinking in. I don't know how much more they got wrong but after I read their book I'll have a better idea.

I thought you said you read the book.:shrug:

[martin II]

They didn't know more than anyone who was aware of Mazzola and Simpson's blood not matching or that the Rockingham glove had Simpson's blood on it. How about the juror that thought the Bundy blood could have belonged to Sydney or Justin? That wasn't in evidence so why did she think that could be the case?

I would be willing to bet that juror understood Mazzloas envelopes were switched in that lab.The rockingham glove had a speck of oj blood on it. easy to miss. but it did not matter because that glove was planted by someone other than oj.

[martin II]

I thought you said you read the book.:shrug:

i thought so too.:shrug:

[William Anthony]

He is a she. They were required to listen to all of the evidence in order to make an informed decision. They didn't do that.

He is a she? :shrug:

[martin II]

I think you said the jury had nine months to think about the evidence they heard, IIRC. I don't recall anyone saying that the jury deliberated the evidence prior to being instructed to so do.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/deliberation

correct

[William Anthony]

In this case it certainly wasn't necessary.

Agreed, because the prosecution presented a farce of a case, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

If the jury didn't discuss or consider the major facts presented in the case by both sides they didn't do what was required them. We know these things about them because Rantala took her information from the juror's statements in Madame Foreman: A Rush To Judgement?

Perhaps, they all agreed that they did not give much weight to particular evidence and there was no reason for them to waste valuable time discussing it. Not all put the faith that you have in the DNA or the results.

[martin II]

There has been jury deliberations that lasted 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9- hours and
some a week.
Those that deliberated for the shorter times were not all ignorant or did not deliberate properly.So why was the oj jury wrong for deliberating for 4 hours.

[William Anthony]

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.

It was very disrespectful to the people of California for the prosecution to put on such a farce of a case, IMHO.

[martin II]

Perhaps, they all agreed that they did not give much weight to particular evidence and there was no reason for them to waste valuable time discussing it. Not all put the faith that you have in the DNA or the results.

Correct.
If i had been on the jury and realized that the timeline did not allow oj to do what he was charged with,what else would i discuss??

[martin II]

It's not the exact times but the sequence of events that matters but you refuse to see this. Just the DNA evidence at the scene is overwhelming not to mention Simpson's blood mixed with the victims blood in the house and the Bronco, the history of violence towards Nicole, the cuts on his hands...the list goes on and on to include his lying testimony in the civil trial.

If ojs missing blood was planted in the lab the lab test means nothing and neither would the DNA.

[William Anthony]

**************************
I think I have written too much about both the jury and the DNA. I will probably post a few more on this Simpson trial, but little if any on the jury or DNA; that is after this posting. I don't think of my words as been the last or best words on the subjects, just the last from me.

I got infomation about the jury not discussing important evidence from the book by Rantala. This said that the foreman, Cooley, said that the jury discussion didn't include either the OJS blood at Bundy, or the issue of Fuhrman. This means they didn't discuss the glove at Rockingham.

I don't have any links to what the jury discussed. Does anybody? A lot of people who know more about it than I do slammed the jury. John Douglas, author and former FBI expert did, as did Vincent Bugliosi.

I understand now. You decided to slam the jury due to the fact that others have and have slammed them more strenuously than you did, even though you admit that you do not know what the jury discussed. I don't understand how you could make these statements, "This said that the foreman, Cooley, said that the jury discussion didn't include either the OJS blood at Bundy, or the issue of Fuhrman. This means they didn't discuss the glove at Rockingham." I think the issues surrounding MF, included possible evidence planting and racism and, perhaps scaling the wall without probable cause. I think they would have had to discuss the Rockingham glove as other detectives told them that MF led them to it. I don't think that was an issue. I think that would mean that they conceded the glove was at Rockingham but the glove did not fit.

[William Anthony]

Correct.
If i had been on the jury and realized that the timeline did not allow oj to do what he was charged with,what else would i discuss??

World events. :)

[tv]

If ojs missing blood was planted in the lab the lab test means nothing and neither would the DNA.

You're the one that said old man IF died stiff. :D You have nothing to back up the planting theory or the missing blood theory.

[tv]

World events. :)

I think not. They're supposed to be sequestered and not know what's going on in the world. How about giving a trial of nine months the proper consideration and discussing the facts of the case?

[William Anthony]

I think not. They're supposed to be sequestered and not know what's going on in the world. How about giving a trial of nine months the proper consideration and discussing the facts of the case?

How much consideration is due a farce? I think they gave the prosecution too much consideration.

[William Anthony]

Prosecution's case=we have no murder weapon, no eyewitness, no concrete theory of a motive (which we are not required to give but we tried), no bloody clothes, LE that lied or were talked about as showing a reckless disregard for the truth, searches that went over the nation and in some foreign countries that turned up nothing, criminalists that were mistaken, made human errors and mistakes and didn't know who collected what and when, a nurse that did not know how much blood he drew but changed his testimony as did the criminalist and the photographer, a limo driver that saw someone go into Simpson's house, who we believe was Simpson, a time line that doesn't work, a glove found by a detective that we will call a racists and that would soon be convicted of perjury, a pair of gloves that did not fit the defendant's hands, evidence envelopes that indicate the contents had been switched, an expert that was dead by his own test results, another expert, who denied the results and the reports he relied upon were correct in that he came up with a different manner for type BA blood to degrade. So we, the prosecutors, ask you to deliberate long and hard and come up with a conviction based on this, which is not all we don't have. We don't have a case that we can win.

[tv]

I reiterate that it was the prosecution's obligation to present evidence in a fashion that holds the jury's attention and makes the evidence understandable. In the courses I have had, I was taught the value of the concepts of primacy and recentcy. Perhaps, the prosecution in its zeal forgot those concepts.
Keep making excuses for them. Nothing that they did or didn't do seems to bother you at all but that doesn't surprise me. If they had misstated or ignored the defense and found OJ Simpson guilty then you'd have a different opinion of their attitude toward their obligation to the people of the state of California.

[tv]

How much consideration is due a farce? I think they gave the prosecution too much consideration.

If that's what you think why do you bother with this forum? Your guy won his case and lived free and clear for the next 14 years. It's not up to the jury to decide if the prosecution was a farce. That's called jury nullification for them to render a verdict based on anything but whether or not the case was proven.

[William Anthony]

Keep making excuses for them. Nothing that they did or didn't do seems to bother you at all but that doesn't surprise me. If they had misstated or ignored the defense and found OJ Simpson guilty then you'd have a different opinion of their attitude toward their obligation to the people of the state of California.

I would have accepted the verdict and not spent endless years trying to say that Simpson was not guilty and would not have bashed the jury, even if they went to the prosecution's victory party. If the case was the same, I would have been disappointed with their verdict and discussed the legal issues as I saw them. However, I would not slam, bash the jury, because I realize that they were the triers of fact, even though I may have disagreed with the judge's rulings and called the trial a socio political production to show that no one was above the law.

[William Anthony]

If that's what you think why do you bother with this forum? Your guy won his case and lived free and clear for the next 14 years. It's not up to the jury to decide if the prosecution was a farce. That's called jury nullification for them to render a verdict based on anything but whether or not the case was proven.

The jury did not call the trial a farce. That is my opinion, after watching it. I don't know whether the jury shared my opinion or not. However, the jury stated that the prosecution did not prove its case. I think the jury gave the prosecution too much consideration, as I said, due to the fact that the case was a farce, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

If that's what you think why do you bother with this forum? Your guy won his case and lived free and clear for the next 14 years. It's not up to the jury to decide if the prosecution was a farce. That's called jury nullification for them to render a verdict based on anything but whether or not the case was proven.

I bother with this forum, because it helps me to understand what I will be up against, if God allows me to practice law and how arduous the burden of persuasion may be.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

IMO, I think the jurors first focused on the only neutral evidence of the case and that was the timeline. Which is why, IMO, they wanted a read back of Park's testimony. Don't forget, they went to both crime scenes. They were able to see where the glove was found, they were are able to see Bundy, etc. They had a tremendous amount evidence that was not available to you and I because we weren't able to do a "walk through".

They were able to determine if Park should have hard the Bronco pulling up, if he could see what lights were on inside, etc.

The bottom line is, if he doesn't have the time, then he couldn't have committed the crime--at least not by himself. , IMO.
******************
My understanding is that there were two possible types of time line problems.
The times of nights that witnesses thought someting happened (Kato thought he heard a noiose at 10:45 for example), and the time intervals for something to happen. I don't think either one of these should have helped the defense.

First of all if we take each time of night estimate that various people made (10:45 or whatever), and then, gave each time of night estimate about 10 minutes of slack in either direction, I think all these time line problems disappear. I think the biggest time line problem was that both Kato and the woman he was talking to thought the thump or bump sound occurred at about 10:45, and the prosecution thought the noises would have occurred at about 10:52. That is less than 10 mnutes. If the talk was pleasant for both of them, time would have seemed to pass slower, so it would have been easy to be off. I know that if I look at my watch or clock, the actual time is often more than 30 minutes off. I find it easy to think that both Kato, Heidestra and others could easily be off by more than 10 minutes. If I am wrong here, I would like to know the specific details on why.

I think if a peson tries to remember time of day (or night) 24 hours or so later, they will usuallyl remember an estimae that goes in increments of 15 minutes or greater. In other words they would be far more likely to remeber a time of 10:45 than 10:51 or 10:52.

The second time problem is the time intervals to do things, mainly kill two people. I never tried to analyze this. I think this is hard for anyone to analyze. It is just not possible to get an accurate estimate of knife fights. Lets face it, who knows much about how knife fights usually occur? I doubt there are many serious studies of knife fights. In the criminal trial Henry Lee said the fight 'was not a short time', in the civil trial, he said it could have been as short as a minute.

My understanding of witnesses memory is that most people's memory is less accurate than they realize. Both forensic memory experts and criminologists have come to this conclusion independently. Partly for this reason I give a lot of slack to the time of night estimates of Kato and the rest.

I also don't give much weight to the fact that some witnesses didn't see a bandage on Orenthals hand. Memory experts and criminologists say that people often forget details that seemed important at the time in a matter of minutes. These witnesses probably didn't think it was important at the time, and probably didn't realize it was important untill at least 15 hours later, possibly more than 24.

[William Anthony]

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

I also don't give much weight to the fact that some witnesses didn't see a bandage on Orenthals hand. Memory experts and criminologists say that people often forget details that seemed important at the time in a matter of minutes. These witnesses probably didn't think it was important at the time, and probably didn't realize it was important untill at least 15 hours later, possibly more than 24.

If they gave much thought to whether or not Simpson had a bandage on his hand 15 to 24 hours later or longer and concluded he was bleeding or had a bandage, then they would have so testified nearly a year later.

[tv]

Prosecution's case=we have no murder weapon, no eyewitness, no concrete theory of a motive (which we are not required to give but we tried), no bloody clothes, LE that lied or were talked about as showing a reckless disregard for the truth, searches that went over the nation and in some foreign countries that turned up nothing, criminalists that were mistaken, made human errors and mistakes and didn't know who collected what and when, a nurse that did not know how much blood he drew but changed his testimony as did the criminalist and the photographer, a limo driver that saw someone go into Simpson's house, who we believe was Simpson, a time line that doesn't work, a glove found by a detective that we will call a racists and that would soon be convicted of perjury, a pair of gloves that did not fit the defendant's hands, evidence envelopes that indicate the contents had been switched, an expert that was dead by his own test results, another expert, who denied the results and the reports he relied upon were correct in that he came up with a different manner for type BA blood to degrade. So we, the prosecutors, ask you to deliberate long and hard and come up with a conviction based on this, which is not all we don't have. We don't have a case that we can win.

Defense case = OJ Simpson didn't do it because LE framed a black man. The blood on the glove was planted but we have no evidence that proves this, the Rockingham glove was planted but we have no evidence that proves this, Columbian drug lords killed Ron and Nicole but we have no evidence that proves this, Mark Furhrman planted the Rockingham glove but we have no evidence that proves this, the socks were planted in the bedroom but we have no evidence that proves this, the blood on the socks was planted but we have no evidence that proves this, all of OJ Simpson's blood was planted even though the blood had been collected before his blood was drawn so we have no evidence to prove this, the blood samples were contaminated but we have no evidence to prove this, the lab personnel tampered with the evidence but we have no evidence to prove this, all the officers at the Bundy scene lied about there being two gloves before Fuhrman got there but no one has testified to this so we have no evidence to prove this, OJ Simpson has a deep cut to his finger and numerous abrasions which he cut on his cell phone or cell phone accessories but we have no evidence to prove this, Mark Fuhrman swiped blood in the Bronco but we have no evidence to prove this, Simpson was home the whole time that Park was ringing the house but we have no evidence to prove this, the LAPD has mistreated blacks for years so it's up to you to stop it, if not you, then who??? Like little sheep they did exactly what Johnnie asked them to do.

[tv]

I bother with this forum, because it helps me to understand what I will be up against, if God allows me to practice law and how arduous the burden of persuasion may be.

I thought you weren't interested in criminal law but were going to be a crusader for civil rights.

[fgump2]

I understand now. You decided to slam the jury due to the fact that others have and have slammed them more strenuously than you did, even though you admit that you do not know what the jury discussed. I don't understand how you could make these statements, "This said that the foreman, Cooley, said that the jury discussion didn't include either the OJS blood at Bundy, or the issue of Fuhrman. This means they didn't discuss the glove at Rockingham." I think the issues surrounding MF, included possible evidence planting and racism and, perhaps scaling the wall without probable cause. I think they would have had to discuss the Rockingham glove as other detectives told them that MF led them to it. I don't think that was an issue. I think that would mean that they conceded the glove was at Rockingham but the glove did not fit.

*********************
To pick up on the search issue. I believe that in cases of a trail of blood going into a house, that the search warrant rules are different. I suppose because of the possibililties of either people in need of help inside, and also of a criminal inside who may destroy evidence. In the case of a trail of blood, the judge (or someone) may give the detectives a rap on the knuckles for lying on the earch warrant but still admit the evidence. In any case the evidence would be admitted in a civil trial.

I conitnue to think that it is so easy to convice oneself that one's motives wre more noble than they really were, that lying about one's motives is a more forgiveable lie than lying about a physical fact, although it is still a lie.

As for the gloves don't fit, I don't thnk most people can judge, especially if they aern't up close. If you gave some people practice this type of judgement, they could give a report on it. To do this it would be necessary to get a bunch of people with gloves some just a little to small to put on, others barelly big enough to put on. To make the test accurate it would be nice to have a lot of the gloves like the Simpson gloves. Then have various people try and fail or try and succeed or pretend to fail. I think it would be hard to spot a faker.

If you want to be a good lawyer, I think you should try to be less insulting. I have posted rude comments, and my feelings have never been seriously hurt here, but the manners here could use some improvement, not just yours.

[tv]

I would have accepted the verdict and not spent endless years trying to say that Simpson was not guilty and would not have bashed the jury, even if they went to the prosecution's victory party. If the case was the same, I would have been disappointed with their verdict and discussed the legal issues as I saw them. However, I would not slam, bash the jury, because I realize that they were the triers of fact, even though I may have disagreed with the judge's rulings and called the trial a socio political production to show that no one was above the law.

You've already spent years saying that Simpson's not guilty. If you call criticizing the jury bashing so be it. If my comments were of a personal nature I would agree with you but anything I say about them pertains to the trial.

[William Anthony]

*********************
To pick up on the search issue. I believe that in cases of a trail of blood going into a house, that the search warrant rules are different. I suppose because of the possibililties of either people in need of help inside, and also of a criminal inside who may destroy evidence. In the case of a trail of blood, the judge (or someone) may give the detectives a rap on the knuckles for lying on the earch warrant but still admit the evidence. In any case the evidence would be admitted in a civil trial.

I conitnue to think that it is so easy to convice oneself that one's motives wre more noble than they really were, that lying about one's motives is a more forgiveable lie than lying about a physical fact, although it is still a lie.

As for the gloves don't fit, I don't thnk most people can judge, especially if they aern't up close. If you gave some people practice this type of judgement, they could give a report on it. To do this it would be necessary to get a bunch of people with gloves some just a little to small to put on, others barelly big enough to put on. To make the test accurate it would be nice to have a lot of the gloves like the Simpson gloves. Then have various people try and fail or try and succeed or pretend to fail. I think it would be hard to spot a faker.

If you want to be a good lawyer, I think you should try to be less insulting. I have posted rude comments, and my feelings have never been seriously hurt here, but the manners here could use some improvement, not just yours.

If I have hurt your feelings, then I apologize as I thought you were rather thick skinned, considering some of the comments you have made about GreenIce, Martin and me. I expect that you will not be above apologizing. Please tell me what I said that insulted you and I will be happy to post what you said that insulted me?

I am not being insulting but I think you express a desire to learn, It takes more than a possibility to invade someone's curtilage. It takes probable cause, which the lies, IMHO, of LE turned into exigent circumstances to avoid the necessity of probable cause.

In that same vein of learning, the defense correctly, IMHO, asserted that the other gloves similar to the ones in evidence were irrelevant. The prosecution claimed that Simpson wore the gloves in evidence. Also, it would be irrelevant for others to try on other gloves.

Now that I have addressed this post, let me address another of your posts in regard to the time line. I have saved this for quite some time, because the other poster knows or claims to know and others believe he knows and has a command of the testimony. The time line of when Park first saw Kato has been a subject of contention on this board between that other poster and myself. The one thing that the poster can't deny is that Park testified he saw Kato walking behind the house on the Ashford pathway. In all honesty, the poster has been more insulting to me than you have been. Be that what it may, the sign of a good lawyer is timing, IMHO. Since I want to be a good lawyer, I believe that there is a proper time to introduce evidence and that is when the evidence will have the best effect. Therefore, to prove that Park first saw kato after his first cursory search and to test my future skills as a lawyer, I have decided to hold this portion of the evidence until now. Here is Kato's testimony from the grand jury, when the events were fresher in his mind, as I think all people agree, despite what experts claim. I know that I could tell you better what I did yesterday than I could last week. However, let me not digress to far. Here it is.

Q. LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET YOU TO SHOW US ON THE
24 DIAGRAM THAT WE HAVE MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 3. MAYBE YOU CAN
25 POINT IT OUT TO THE JURY.
26 I WILL GIVE YOU A POINTER.
27 A. OKAY.
28 A. MY ROOM IS OVER HERE, THERE IS A POOL AND I

70

1 WOULD GO THIS WAY AND I FOLLOW A SIDEWALK PATH THAT TAKES
2 ME TO THE FRONT DRIVE WHERE THERE IS THE GATE.
3 Q. WHEN YOU SAY, "THE GATE" --
4 A. OH, THIS IS ASHFORD. THE GATE ON ASHFORD.
5 Q. WHEN YOU SAY, "THE GATE," THAT GATE GOES TO THE
6 STREET?
7 A. THAT GATE GOES TO ASHFORD, CORRECT.
8 Q. SO YOU WENT WHERE?
9 A. OKAY.
10 SO I'M RUNNING DOWN THIS SIDEWALK AND I SEE
11 THAT THERE IS A LIMO OUT IN FRONT. IT'S DARK; I SEE NO ONE
12 IN IT AND THE DOG, CHACHI -- THAT'S A BLACK CHOW -- IS
13 SOMEWHERE HERE IN THE DRIVEWAY.
14 AND I GO WITH THE FLASHLIGHT AND I STARTED
15 WALKING THERE, AS I SAID, AND I GET TO ABOUT HERE. AND THE
16 FLASHLIGHT WAS VERY DIM. IT WAS LIKE ONE OF THOSE SMALL
17 FLASHLIGHTS AND THE BEAM WAS KIND OF BAD ON IT. AND I WAS
18 SCARED.

[William Anthony]

You've already spent years saying that Simpson's not guilty. If you call criticizing the jury bashing so be it. If my comments were of a personal nature I would agree with you but anything I say about them pertains to the trial.

I have spent years saying what the jury said by their verdict, which I happen to agree with their statement and have defended the jury against the accusations that they were ignorant, uneducated and racially biased or that they were bedazzled by Simpson's celebrity status or that they were so gullible that they bought into some nursery rhymes created by the magnificent one. I have pointed to the evidence, which I relied on, to say that I agree that the jury's verdict was the right one.

[William Anthony]

*********************
To pick up on the search issue. I believe that in cases of a trail of blood going into a house, that the search warrant rules are different. I suppose because of the possibililties of either people in need of help inside, and also of a criminal inside who may destroy evidence. In the case of a trail of blood, the judge (or someone) may give the detectives a rap on the knuckles for lying on the earch warrant but still admit the evidence. In any case the evidence would be admitted in a civil trial.



I just wanted to say that, IIRC, the blood drops leading into the house were not discovered until after LE had invaded the curtilage. A person's Constitutional rights are not suspended in a civil trial, according to my understanding.

[tv]

I have spent years saying what the jury said by their verdict, which I happen to agree with their statement and have defended the jury against the accusations that they were ignorant, uneducated and racially biased or that they were bedazzled by Simpson's celebrity status or that the were so gullible that they bought into some nursery rhymes created by the magnificent one. I have pointed to the evidence, which I relied on, to say that I agree that the jury's verdict was the right one.

To paraphrase something you said in an earlier post -- Mr. William Anthony and I must have been watching different trials.

[William Anthony]

To paraphrase something you said in an earlier post -- Mr. William Anthony and I must have been watching different trials.

Ms. Tvdinner,

Maybe so, Lenny. :) I know this is going to break your heart but I begin my celebration tomorrow and have some last minute cleaning to do in the morning before the arrival of guests and will not have much time to devote to the forum until sometime on Sunday. :)

[tv]

Ms. Tvdinner,

Maybe so, Lenny. :) I know this is going to break your heart but I begin my celebration tomorrow and have some last minute cleaning to do in the morning before the arrival of guests and will not have much time to devote to the forum until sometime on Sunday. :)

I'm not sure how I'll hang on until Sunday but I'll try to be brave. Have fun with your celebration and try not to overdo it. I'm sure martin is capable of holding down the fort in your absence. :) Okay, against my better judgement, I'll bite. Who's Lenny?

[William Anthony]

I'm not sure how I'll hang on until Sunday but I'll try to be brave. Have fun with your celebration and try not to overdo it. I'm sure martin is capable of holding down the fort in your absence. :) Okay, against my better judgement, I'll bite. Who's Lenny?

I don't know. It's just a saying. I guess Martin can survive.:) Thanks and I am not allowed to overdo it-darn it. I guess I'd better lay it down, so I can finish cleaning in the AM. None of my friends have an interest compatible to mine in the cases, so I guess the subject of conversation will be small drunken talk but I hope they have fun!!! It's good to be around friends and to have friends around you. I wish the forum could come as the conversation would get lively and 911 might get busy.:) Good night, all.

[martin II]

You're the one that said old man IF died stiff. :D You have nothing to back up the planting theory or the missing blood theory.

Peratis and the blood inventory proved the blood was missing.
So ojs missing blood was used to make new samples in that so called lab imo

[tv]

Peratis and the blood inventory proved the blood was missing.
So ojs missing blood was used to make new samples in that so called lab imo

How do you 'make' new samples? 1.5ml is less than 1/3 teaspoon. How far do you think that would go?

[tv]

I don't know. It's just a saying. I guess Martin can survive.:) Thanks and I am not allowed to overdo it-darn it. I guess I'd better lay it down, so I can finish cleaning in the AM. None of my friends have an interest compatible to mine in the cases, so I guess the subject of conversation will be small drunken talk but I hope they have fun!!! It's good to be around friends and to have friends around you. I wish the forum could come as the conversation would get lively and 911 might get busy.:) Good night, all.

Drunken talk can be fun (at least that's what I've heard) -- enjoy your celebration. :seeya:

[bobaugust]

You posted quite a bit of testimony but none of it says Kato went directly to the gate box as you claimed. Here is the problem with your inferences and I do not like to repeat myself but here goes. I posted the testimony of where Park said he saw Kato "standing and still standing there". The B on the diagram, which represents Kato shows where Kato was when Park saw him. You have previously agreed that Kato did not go to the gate box to buzz Park in until after he completed his first cursory search. Therefore, according to Park's testimony he did not see Kato walk to the garage area, so Park saw Kato standing and still standing there, meaning Kato had not walked anywhere. So, let's put this in context. Ms. Clark told us where Kato walked after finishing his first cursory search and backing out, which Kato did not deny. She said Kato walked back up the driveway, not that he backed out, crossed the driveway and then walked up the driveway. However, let us not stop there.

At the time Park saw Kato he saw someone, whom you believe to be Simpson walk into the house. Park said this was "almost simultaneous". That would place Kato on the sidewalk at that time. Park waited thirty seconds after he saw, who you believe to be Simpson enter the house. Park then waited 30 seconds and walked to the intercom to be buzzed in and Simpson answered "immediately". Within 20 to 30 seconds after that Kato buzzed Park in, meaning that within the last 20 to 30 seconds Kato had walked to the gate box. IIRC, I posted the testimony where Park said Kato stood there for a minute. Surely, you are not suggesting that Kato was seen by Park behind the house and walked down to the garage area, did a cursory search, backed out, walked up the driveway noticing that the limo had not been buzzed in and walked to the gate box all within a minute and a half. You want to say it was all that time but it would have been only a minute that Kato stood there. Kato also testified that he did not stop before he performed his first cursory search, meaning it was impossible for Park to see him standing. Unless you believe that there was another White Male standing in the location, "there", then we must assume that White male, which Park testified he later learned was Kato was, in fact, Kato and, unless you believe Kato was wrong in that he did not stop before doing his first cursory search, and, unless you believe that Kato did not do a first cursory search before letting the limo in, and unless you believe that Park did not see Kato standing there when he simultaneously saw the figure you believe to have been Simpson, then it is highly unlikely to believe that Park could have possibly have seen Simpson and Kato simultaneously while Kato was standing or, more importantly, imho, saw Simpson entered his house.

Of course Kaelin said he went directly to the gate control box. He didn’t say he did anything else. Read his testimony. You also seem to be confused as to what Park said regarding Kaelin standing and when Clark said Kaelin walked back up the driveway.

The evidence in this case is when Park was in the limo and on the phone with his boss his attention was attracted when he saw a white male come from behind the house on the Ashford pathway and stop before he got to the driveway. Park said almost simultaneously he saw a black male walk up into the entranceway of the house from the driveway and enter the front door. That was the last time Park remembered seeing Kaelin until Kaelin opened the gate for him a couple of minutes later.

After seeing Simpson enter his house Park finished his conversation with Dale and then waited to be let in. After a while when no one let him in he got out of the limo and went to the intercom and rang it for the fourth time that night. This time Simpson answered. They had a brief conversation and Park returned to the limo and waited again for someone to let him in. Park never said he saw Kaelin when he went to the intercom and talked with Simpson. Park never said Kaelin was standing on the path at the driveway during the time he was waiting. Park was unaware that Kaelin had gone to the south path. Finally after a while he then saw Kaelin again when Kaelin went to the gate control box and opened the gate for him.

Kaelin said that after hearing the noises on his back wall he left his room and quickly walked around the house and down the Ashford path to the driveway where he saw the limo. Kaelin said he didn’t open the gate then because he thought Simpson would do it. Kaelin said he continued on to the garage and went behind the garage a short distance before turning around and returning to the driveway. He said he then walked down the driveway to the gate control box and opened the gate to let the limo in.

Kaelin never said he returned to the Ashford path. Kaelin never said he stopped anywhere on his way to the gate control box. That short trip Kaelin first took to the south gate and then returned to the gate control box would have only taken him a couple of minutes.

Your claim William, that Park first saw Kaelin and then Simpson when Kaelin returned from that short trip to behind the garage is incorrect is not the evidence in this case. Your claim is completely contradicted by both Park and Kaelin’s testimony.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

I got it! For years I have always heard the notes of a song when reading G's posts. Thats to TV and fump2, I finally figured out what song was and why the G' theme song is---ready----? Are you sure? Can you guess, how about you William? You might not be familiar with the song, but if you are, then you will get it too!

The song is (drum roll is gearing up to the cresendo...) The name of that song is....REO Speedwagon's, "Take It On the Run"! That's right folks, just like the members of the band, "heard from a friend who heard it from a friend" the G's heard it from a friend who heard it from a from a friend who's tales grew taller the further down the line they went.

[GreenIce]

If they gave much thought to whether or not Simpson had a bandage on his hand 15 to 24 hours later or longer and concluded he was bleeding or had a bandage, then they would have so testified nearly a year later.

William,

I often wondered why the detectives did not ask Simpson for permission to take pictures of his body without his shirt and/or pants.

It never made any sense to me they only asked about injuries to his hand.

IMO, only asking about these injuries is another nail in the "Rush To Judgement". It seems to me that all these detectives assumed that the blood trail had to have come from a cut on his hand. Why not see if he had other injuries consistent with being in two death struggles that night?

[GreenIce]

Martin,

Just remember to keep your patience. You have an awesome task this weekend.

Remember you dealing with people who still haven't figured out MF had no reason to even go to the Bronco unless it was to plant to the glove and the stick found by it.

His story of it being parked "askwed" makes no sense. Here he is, according to their lame story of why are at Rockingham, to inform Mr. Simpson of this horrific crime---so why is paying attention to cars parked on the street?

Was the Bronco parked illegally? Was it danger to other cars or people? He is about to shatter a family with this horrific news but he is curious about a car being parked kind of funny?

I help you out as much as I can but I reserve to right to step away when I hear the G Theme Song.

[William Anthony]

Kato' grand jury testimony.

" AND I GO WITH THE FLASHLIGHT AND I STARTED
15 WALKING THERE, AS I SAID, AND I GET TO ABOUT HERE. AND THE
16 FLASHLIGHT WAS VERY DIM. IT WAS LIKE ONE OF THOSE SMALL
17 FLASHLIGHTS AND THE BEAM WAS KIND OF BAD ON IT. AND I WAS
18 SCARED.
19 SO AFTER I STAYED THERE, I WENT BACK OUT THIS
20 WAY, NOTICED THE GATE WAS NOT OPEN FOR THE DRIVER AND I
21 WENT TO THE GATE TO PRESS A BUTTON HERE AND IT OPENS THE
22 GATE UP.
23 Q. YOU OPENED THE GATE UP FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
24 A. TO LET THE LIMO IN.
25 Q. SO YOU DIDN'T INITIALLY LET HIM IN WHEN YOU
26 FIRST SAW HIM?
27 A. NO.
28 Q. NOW, AT THE TIME THAT YOU WALKED AROUND TO THE

71

1 ASHFORD GATE, COULD YOU TELL US WHETHER THE ROLLS ROYCE WAS
2 PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY?
3 A. WHEN I WAS WALKING UP, THERE WAS A ROLLS ROYCE,
4 YES.
5 Q. I'M SORRY TO KEEP GOING BACK AND FORTH LIKE
6 THIS, BUT CAN YOU SHOW US WHERE THE ROLLS ROYCE WAS PARKED
7 WHEN YOU LOOKED AROUND OR CAME AROUND THE ASHFORD SIDE.
8 A. THE ROLLS ROYCE WOULD BE PARKED RIGHT HERE.
9 THERE IS A SPOT TO PARK.
10 MS. CLARK: THE WITNESS IS INDICATING THE DRIVEWAY
11 AREA THAT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DIAGRAM.
12 Q. I'M GOING ASK YOU TO MARK THAT, IF YOU WILL,
13 USING MY PEN.
14 PUT AN "R" WHERE IT WAS.
15 A. (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
16 MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS DONE SO.
17 Q. THAT'S WHERE THE ROLLS ROYCE WAS PARKED WHEN
18 YOU CAME OUT FROM AROUND THE ASHFORD SIDE?
19 A. YES.
20 Q. SO YOU WALKED AROUND THE ASHFORD SIDE, YOU
21 LOOKED DOWN BY THE GARAGE, CAME BACK.
22 WHEN YOU WALKED -- STRIKE THAT.
23 YOU CAME BACK, AND AT THAT POINT WHEN YOU
24 WALKED BACK TOWARDS THE ASHFORD GATE IS WHEN YOU LET THE
25 DRIVER IN?
26 A. AFTER I WENT TO THE GARAGE AREA?
27 Q. YES.
28 A. YES, I WENT TO LET THE DRIVER IN.

72

1 Q. DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHETHER THERE WERE ANY
2 BAGS IN THE DRIVEWAY AT THAT TIME?
3 A. THERE WAS A GOLF BAG AT THE FRONT DOOR AREA.
4 THERE WAS A GOLF BAG.
5 Q. LET'S USE THIS AGAIN.
6 IF YOU WOULD, PUT A "B" FOR BAG WHERE YOU --
7 PUT A "G.B." FOR GOLF BAG WHERE YOU THINK IT WAS.
8 A. THESE ARE THE SEATS?
9 Q. THOSE ARE BENCHES.
10 A. THE BENCHES.
11 Q. GO UP RIGHT LIKE THIS, OR SHALL I LAY IT DOWN?
12 A. I CAN GET IT.
13 Q. GO UP AND PUT A "G" IN FRONT OF THAT FOR GOLF
14 BAG.
15 A. OH.
16 Q. DID YOU SEE ANY OTHER BAGS?
17 A. AT THAT TIME I DIDN'T.
18 BUT THERE WAS -- WHEN I WENT TO CHECK THE
19 SECOND TIME, I NOTICED ANOTHER BAG, YES.
20 Q. WHEN YOU -- OKAY.
21 SO WHEN YOU FIRST WALKED BACK TOWARDS THE LIMO
22 DRIVER TO LET HIM IN, YOU NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A GOLF BAG
23 IN THE FRONT AREA?
24 A. YES.
25 Q. THEN YOU LET THE DRIVER IN?
26 A. YES, I DID."

In anticipation of an argument to the contrary on when Kato was walking, I posted this. Ms. Clark, having had the benefit of talking to Park, realized that she must try to change Kato's testimony but a careful reading of his first testimony reveals that Ms. Clark struck a question, because she realized the Kato had not started walking until he reached the garage area. How can we tell that? He says he started walking "there" and he got scared. How can we tell that she realized this? She posed a question that Kato "looked down to the garage area". She then wanted to strike her own question, where she asked Kato did he walk and she asked you came back but then said you "walked back toward the Ashford gate". She did not want to say you walked back up toward the gate, IMHO. However, Kato told us which way was up as he testified, he saw the limo when he was walking up. Ms. Clark then did a lawyer trick in a question trying to say that Kato saw the RR on his way going down from the Ashford walkway and I ask you to note that she did not say as you were walking down the Ashford walkway but worded the question in a manner typical of lawyers by saying, when you came around the RR would have (not was) been parked there. The point is that Kato never testified to seeing the RR when he was "running" to check on the garage area on his way "down" but did see it as he was walking on his way back up the driveway. Therefore, Park did not see Kato walk from behind the quarters to the Ashford walkway as Kato ran around that area and did not start walking until he came to the garage area, based on the testimony. This will most likely be my last post for the weekend and just wanted to place the testimony in context before the celebration. I know no lawyer ever argued this and no one is perfect. :)

[William Anthony]

Of course Kaelin said he went directly to the gate control box. He didn’t say he did anything else. Read his testimony. You also seem to be confused as to what Park said regarding Kaelin standing and when Clark said Kaelin walked back up the driveway.

The evidence in this case is when Park was in the limo and on the phone with his boss his attention was attracted when he saw a white male come from behind the house on the Ashford pathway and stop before he got to the driveway. Park said almost simultaneously he saw a black male walk up into the entranceway of the house from the driveway and enter the front door. That was the last time Park remembered seeing Kaelin until Kaelin opened the gate for him a couple of minutes later.

After seeing Simpson enter his house Park finished his conversation with Dale and then waited to be let in. After a while when no one let him in he got out of the limo and went to the intercom and rang it for the fourth time that night. This time Simpson answered. They had a brief conversation and Park returned to the limo and waited again for someone to let him in. Park never said he saw Kaelin when he went to the intercom and talked with Simpson. Park never said Kaelin was standing on the path at the driveway during the time he was waiting. Park was unaware that Kaelin had gone to the south path. Finally after a while he then saw Kaelin again when Kaelin went to the gate control box and opened the gate for him.

Kaelin said that after hearing the noises on his back wall he left his room and quickly walked around the house and down the Ashford path to the driveway where he saw the limo. Kaelin said he didn’t open the gate then because he thought Simpson would do it. Kaelin said he continued on to the garage and went behind the garage a short distance before turning around and returning to the driveway. He said he then walked down the driveway to the gate control box and opened the gate to let the limo in.

Kaelin never said he returned to the Ashford path. Kaelin never said he stopped anywhere on his way to the gate control box. That short trip Kaelin first took to the south gate and then returned to the gate control box would have only taken him a couple of minutes.

Your claim William, that Park first saw Kaelin and then Simpson when Kaelin returned from that short trip to behind the garage is incorrect is not the evidence in this case. Your claim is completely contradicted by both Park and Kaelin’s testimony.

bobaugust

I really do not have the time to devote to answering your post in full but the testimony by Park is that he saw Kato "standing and still standing there " "for another minute" before coming to open the gate, which is consistent with his time estimates, which means Park did not see Kato until after Kato had completed his first cursory search.

[William Anthony]

Martin and William,

I got it! For years I have always heard the notes of a song when reading G's posts. Thats to TV and fump2, I finally figured out what song was and why the G' theme song is---ready----? Are you sure? Can you guess, how about you William? You might not be familiar with the song, but if you are, then you will get it too!

The song is (drum roll is gearing up to the cresendo...) The name of that song is....REO Speedwagon's, "Take It On the Run"! That's right folks, just like the members of the band, "heard from a friend who heard it from a friend" the G's heard it from a friend who heard it from a from a friend who's tales grew taller the further down the line they went.

I am unfamiliar with the song but I get your point.

[William Anthony]

William,

I often wondered why the detectives did not ask Simpson for permission to take pictures of his body without his shirt and/or pants.

It never made any sense to me they only asked about injuries to his hand.

IMO, only asking about these injuries is another nail in the "Rush To Judgement". It seems to me that all these detectives assumed that the blood trail had to have come from a cut on his hand. Why not see if he had other injuries consistent with being in two death struggles that night?

IIRC, there was a picture of his upper torso and with this post I really have to run but I thought about it and believe the picture also showed Simpson in his underwear. I might be mistaken but I do not think so.

[GreenIce]

Kato' grand jury testimony.

" AND I GO WITH THE FLASHLIGHT AND I STARTED
15 WALKING THERE, AS I SAID, AND I GET TO ABOUT HERE. AND THE
16 FLASHLIGHT WAS VERY DIM. IT WAS LIKE ONE OF THOSE SMALL
17 FLASHLIGHTS AND THE BEAM WAS KIND OF BAD ON IT. AND I WAS
18 SCARED.
19 SO AFTER I STAYED THERE, I WENT BACK OUT THIS
20 WAY, NOTICED THE GATE WAS NOT OPEN FOR THE DRIVER AND I
21 WENT TO THE GATE TO PRESS A BUTTON HERE AND IT OPENS THE
22 GATE UP.
23 Q. YOU OPENED THE GATE UP FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
24 A. TO LET THE LIMO IN.
25 Q. SO YOU DIDN'T INITIALLY LET HIM IN WHEN YOU
26 FIRST SAW HIM?
27 A. NO.
28 Q. NOW, AT THE TIME THAT YOU WALKED AROUND TO THE

71

1 ASHFORD GATE, COULD YOU TELL US WHETHER THE ROLLS ROYCE WAS
2 PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY?
3 A. WHEN I WAS WALKING UP, THERE WAS A ROLLS ROYCE,
4 YES.
5 Q. I'M SORRY TO KEEP GOING BACK AND FORTH LIKE
6 THIS, BUT CAN YOU SHOW US WHERE THE ROLLS ROYCE WAS PARKED
7 WHEN YOU LOOKED AROUND OR CAME AROUND THE ASHFORD SIDE.
8 A. THE ROLLS ROYCE WOULD BE PARKED RIGHT HERE.
9 THERE IS A SPOT TO PARK.
10 MS. CLARK: THE WITNESS IS INDICATING THE DRIVEWAY
11 AREA THAT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DIAGRAM.
12 Q. I'M GOING ASK YOU TO MARK THAT, IF YOU WILL,
13 USING MY PEN.
14 PUT AN "R" WHERE IT WAS.
15 A. (WITNESS COMPLIES.)
16 MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS DONE SO.
17 Q. THAT'S WHERE THE ROLLS ROYCE WAS PARKED WHEN
18 YOU CAME OUT FROM AROUND THE ASHFORD SIDE?
19 A. YES.
20 Q. SO YOU WALKED AROUND THE ASHFORD SIDE, YOU
21 LOOKED DOWN BY THE GARAGE, CAME BACK.
22 WHEN YOU WALKED -- STRIKE THAT.
23 YOU CAME BACK, AND AT THAT POINT WHEN YOU
24 WALKED BACK TOWARDS THE ASHFORD GATE IS WHEN YOU LET THE
25 DRIVER IN?
26 A. AFTER I WENT TO THE GARAGE AREA?
27 Q. YES.
28 A. YES, I WENT TO LET THE DRIVER IN.

72

1 Q. DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE WHETHER THERE WERE ANY
2 BAGS IN THE DRIVEWAY AT THAT TIME?
3 A. THERE WAS A GOLF BAG AT THE FRONT DOOR AREA.
4 THERE WAS A GOLF BAG.
5 Q. LET'S USE THIS AGAIN.
6 IF YOU WOULD, PUT A "B" FOR BAG WHERE YOU --
7 PUT A "G.B." FOR GOLF BAG WHERE YOU THINK IT WAS.
8 A. THESE ARE THE SEATS?
9 Q. THOSE ARE BENCHES.
10 A. THE BENCHES.
11 Q. GO UP RIGHT LIKE THIS, OR SHALL I LAY IT DOWN?
12 A. I CAN GET IT.
13 Q. GO UP AND PUT A "G" IN FRONT OF THAT FOR GOLF
14 BAG.
15 A. OH.
16 Q. DID YOU SEE ANY OTHER BAGS?
17 A. AT THAT TIME I DIDN'T.
18 BUT THERE WAS -- WHEN I WENT TO CHECK THE
19 SECOND TIME, I NOTICED ANOTHER BAG, YES.
20 Q. WHEN YOU -- OKAY.
21 SO WHEN YOU FIRST WALKED BACK TOWARDS THE LIMO
22 DRIVER TO LET HIM IN, YOU NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A GOLF BAG
23 IN THE FRONT AREA?
24 A. YES.
25 Q. THEN YOU LET THE DRIVER IN?
26 A. YES, I DID."

In anticipation of an argument to the contrary on when Kato was walking, I posted this. Ms. Clark, having had the benefit of talking to Park, realized that she must try to change Kato's testimony but a careful reading of his first testimony reveals that Ms. Clark struck a question, because she realized the Kato had not started walking until he reached the garage area. How can we tell that? He says he started walking "there" and he got scared. How can we tell that she realized this? She posed a question that Kato "looked down to the garage area". She then wanted to strike her own question, where she asked Kato did he walk and she asked you came back but then said you "walked back toward the Ashford gate". She did not want to say you walked back up toward the gate, IMHO. However, Kato told us which way was up as he testified, he saw the limo when he was walking up. Ms. Clark then did a lawyer trick in a question trying to say that Kato saw the RR on his way going down from the Ashford walkway and I ask you to note that she did not say as you were walking down the Ashford walkway but worded the question in a manner typical of lawyers by saying, when you came around the RR would have (not was) been parked there. The point is that Kato never testified to seeing the RR when he was "running" to check on the garage area on his way "down" but did see it as he was walking on his way back up the driveway. Therefore, Park did not see Kato walk from behind the quarters to the Ashford walkway as Kato ran around that area and did not start walking until he came to the garage area, based on the testimony. This will most likely be my last post for the weekend and just wanted to place the testimony in context before the celebration. I know no lawyer ever argued this and no one is perfect. :)

William,

Where was the golf bag and when did Park see it? Are they saying that Simpson left the golf bag out so he could stuff it with the evidence?

[GreenIce]

IIRC, there was a picture of his upper torso and with this post I really have to run but I thought about it and believe the picture also showed Simpson in his underwear. I might be mistaken but I do not think so.

William,

Those pictures were taken by the defense.

[martin II]

I don't know. It's just a saying. I guess Martin can survive.:) Thanks and I am not allowed to overdo it-darn it. I guess I'd better lay it down, so I can finish cleaning in the AM. None of my friends have an interest compatible to mine in the cases, so I guess the subject of conversation will be small drunken talk but I hope they have fun!!! It's good to be around friends and to have friends around you. I wish the forum could come as the conversation would get lively and 911 might get busy.:) Good night, all.

Congratulations William
I hope the celebration last at least until Sunday evening.

[martin II]

William,

Where was the golf bag and when did Park see it? Are they saying that Simpson left the golf bag out so he could stuff it with the evidence?

From testimony Oj came out of his house, dropped two duffle bags at his porch walked over to the golf bag and brought it over to the bench at the front porch and walked back in to the house.
When Kato first passed the front door on his way to the garage no lights were on on the porch . oj was about to come out of his door.He dropped the duffle bags moved the golf bag walked back into the house, Park saw him , turned coach lights on and Kato walking back from the garage, passed the front door and the porch lights were on. He walked to open the Ashford gate. So Kato was not STILL STANDING ON THE SIDE WALK as Park said.

I have always thought that oj and Kato missed crossing paths by a few seconds but did not see each other in the dark.
Eventually Kato put the golf bag in the trunk of the limo.

[martin II]

Martin,

Just remember to keep your patience. You have an awesome task this weekend.

Remember you dealing with people who still haven't figured out MF had no reason to even go to the Bronco unless it was to plant to the glove and the stick found by it.

His story of it being parked "askwed" makes no sense. Here he is, according to their lame story of why are at Rockingham, to inform Mr. Simpson of this horrific crime---so why is paying attention to cars parked on the street?

Was the Bronco parked illegally? Was it danger to other cars or people? He is about to shatter a family with this horrific news but he is curious about a car being parked kind of funny?

I help you out as much as I can but I reserve to right to step away when I hear the G Theme Song.

Furhman interjected himself into the "notification party" to do what he did at Rockingham.
When he left the others at Ashford and just walked to ROCKINGHAM he could have very well put that spot on the Bronco and then called Vanhatter to see it.

Another problem is when Vanhatter, Furhman, Lang were talking to Kato and Arnell in the house, where was Brad ROBERTS and what was he doing?There is not much mention of his activities.

The Bronco front wheels were parked at the curb. The rear wheels were parked about 3-4 inches from the curb. This is exactly how it would be parked when oj drove it out of the driveway, made a sharp turn onto Rockingham and parked.What differance did it make if the rear wheels were 3-4 inches from the curb. Furhman used this as a excuse.


When the others were buzzing the house to see if anyone was home,Furhman was doing his own little investigation.

[martin II]

William,

Where was the golf bag and when did Park see it? Are they saying that Simpson left the golf bag out so he could stuff it with the evidence?

I don't know if park ever saw the gold bag.Kato picked it up and put it in the limo trunk.

Clarke tailored her questions to make up for the holes in some testimony hoping that the jury would not notice.She did this with Kato and Kato maby not understanding what she was doing just kept saying what he had in his head. She got pissed especially when he made that comment about "WOULDN'T YOU"

[martin II]

******************
My understanding is that there were two possible types of time line problems.
The times of nights that witnesses thought someting happened (Kato thought he heard a noiose at 10:45 for example), and the time intervals for something to happen. I don't think either one of these should have helped the defense.

First of all if we take each time of night estimate that various people made (10:45 or whatever), and then, gave each time of night estimate about 10 minutes of slack in either direction, I think all these time line problems disappear. I think the biggest time line problem was that both Kato and the woman he was talking to thought the thump or bump sound occurred at about 10:45, and the prosecution thought the noises would have occurred at about 10:52. Clarke got Kato to agree that he heard thje nopise at 10:45That is less than 10 mnutes. If the talk was pleasant for both of them, time would have seemed to pass slower, so it would have been easy to be off. I know that if I look at my watch or clock, the actual time is often more than 30 minutes off. I find it easy to think that both Kato, Heidestra and others could easily be off by more than 10 minutes. If I am wrong here, I would like to know the specific details on why.There is no evidence to back up what you think about times being off..

I think if a peson tries to remember time of day (or night) 24 hours or so later, they will usuallyl remember an estimae that goes in increments of 15 minutes or greater. In other words they would be far more likely to remeber a time of 10:45 than 10:51 or 10:52.

The second time problem is the time intervals to do things, mainly kill two people. I never tried to analyze this. I think this is hard for anyone to analyze. It is just not possible to get an accurate estimate of knife fights. Lets face it, who knows much about how knife fights usually occur? I doubt there are many serious studies of knife fights. In the criminal trial Henry Lee said the fight 'was not a short time', in the civil trial, he said it could have been as short as a minute.

My understanding of witnesses memory is that most people's memory is less accurate than they realize. Both forensic memory experts and criminologists have come to this conclusion independently. Partly for this reason I give a lot of slack to the time of night estimates of Kato and the rest.

I also don't give much weight to the fact that some witnesses didn't see a bandage on Orenthals hand. Memory experts and criminologists say that people often forget details that seemed important at the time in a matter of minutes. These witnesses probably didn't think it was important at the time, and probably didn't realize it was important untill at least 15 hours later, possibly more than 24.

Are you sugesting that the prosecution timeline was off by 10 minutes.If so then what time did Park talk to Dale and what time was it that He says he arrived at Rockingham?

[Jayme K]

Martin and William,

I got it! For years I have always heard the notes of a song when reading G's posts. Thats to TV and fump2, I finally figured out what song was and why the G' theme song is---ready----? Are you sure? Can you guess, how about you William? You might not be familiar with the song, but if you are, then you will get it too!

The song is (drum roll is gearing up to the cresendo...) The name of that song is....REO Speedwagon's, "Take It On the Run"! That's right folks, just like the members of the band, "heard from a friend who heard it from a friend" the G's heard it from a friend who heard it from a from a friend who's tales grew taller the further down the line they went.

Oh, I love that song ... and it pops on my ipod right after your theme song "Tired of You" by Buckcherry ... "cause I'm tired of you walking on me, time is running out, you've lost your mind and you've lost your self respect ..." la la la la ...:eek:

I LOVE music!

[tv]

I don't know if park ever saw the gold bag.Kato picked it up and put it in the limo trunk.

Clarke tailored her questions to make up for the holes in some testimony hoping that the jury would not notice.She did this with Kato and Kato maby not understanding what she was doing just kept saying what he had in his head. She got pissed especially when he made that comment about "WOULDN'T YOU"

Here are two excerpts from the civil trial concerning Park and the golf bag.


Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When you saw that person going into the house, that person in all dark clothing, at that point -- during that point in time, did you ever see him coming out of the house?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see him pick up a golf bag and hold it up to you?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see him signal to you?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see him nod or gesture to you in any way?

A. No.

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

Q. And can you tell the jury what happened after you first began interacting with Mr. Simpson.

A. I -- from what I remember, he set the Louis Vitton bag down next to the other bag, and he proceeded down the driveway.

I -- I then picked up the Louis Vitton bag, went and put it -- it was around the same time I saw Kato putting the -- the golf clubs into the trunk, and I walked over and put the Louis Vitton bag into the trunk.

[weezer]

Here are two excerpts from the civil trial concerning Park and the golf bag.


Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When you saw that person going into the house, that person in all dark clothing, at that point -- during that point in time, did you ever see him coming out of the house?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see him pick up a golf bag and hold it up to you?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see him signal to you?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see him nod or gesture to you in any way?

A. No.

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

Q. And can you tell the jury what happened after you first began interacting with Mr. Simpson.

A. I -- from what I remember, he set the Louis Vitton bag down next to the other bag, and he proceeded down the driveway.

I -- I then picked up the Louis Vitton bag, went and put it -- it was around the same time I saw Kato putting the -- the golf clubs into the trunk, and I walked over and put the Louis Vitton bag into the trunk.

you're not trying to confuse them with facts again are you? :eek:

[tv]

you're not trying to confuse them with facts again are you? :eek:

LOL, I'm tired of woulda, coulda, shoulda and speculation that Marcia Clark was 'pissed' as meaning anything whatsoever.

[tv]

Furhman interjected himself into the "notification party" to do what he did at Rockingham.
When he left the others at Ashford and just walked to ROCKINGHAM he could have very well put that spot on the Bronco and then called Vanhatter to see it.

Another problem is when Vanhatter, Furhman, Lang were talking to Kato and Arnell in the house, where was Brad ROBERTS and what was he doing?There is not much mention of his activities.

The Bronco front wheels were parked at the curb. The rear wheels were parked about 3-4 inches from the curb. This is exactly how it would be parked when oj drove it out of the driveway, made a sharp turn onto Rockingham and parked.What differance did it make if the rear wheels were 3-4 inches from the curb. Furhman used this as a excuse.


When the others were buzzing the house to see if anyone was home,Furhman was doing his own little investigation.

Brad Roberts stayed at Bundy until after Mark Fuhrman had returned to Bundy and made the second trip to Rockingham. What excuse are you talking about in regard to the way the Bronco was parked?

[weezer]

Brad Roberts stayed at Bundy until after Mark Fuhrman had returned to Bundy and made the second trip to Rockingham. What excuse are you talking about in regard to the way the Bronco was parked?

Girl you know that only martin 'knows' what everyone was thinking and plotting because he's...............I don't know why he would believe that since the NG's continue to post innuendo, fantasies and outright lies to support their claim that orenthal wasn't the murderer. But then of course they also have to ignore evidence learned in both trials that proved orenthal to be a liar and a double murderer. I've never quite understood why the NG's refuse to examine the civil trial evidence. :shrug:

[weezer]

Oh, I love that song ... and it pops on my ipod right after your theme song "Tired of You" by Buckcherry ... "cause I'm tired of you walking on me, time is running out, you've lost your mind and you've lost your self respect ..." la la la la ...:eek:

I LOVE music!

oh me too! I often hum this one when I'm reading this board:

I turn on the tube and what do I see
A whole lotta people cryin' \"Don't blame me\"
They point their crooked little fingers at everbody else

Eagles: Get Over It

[tv]

Girl you know that only martin 'knows' what everyone was thinking and plotting because he's...............I don't know why he would believe that since the NG's continue to post innuendo, fantasies and outright lies to support their claim that orenthal wasn't the murderer. But then of course they also have to ignore evidence learned in both trials that proved orenthal to be a liar and a double murderer. I've never quite understood why the NG's refuse to examine the civil trial evidence. :shrug:

They don't like the civil trial evidence because instead of being full of BS it cuts to the chase and reveals OJ Simpson as the brutal double murderer that he is. They prefer the civil trial where everything but the kitchen sink was allowed to be thrown out in front of the jury. I'm sure Simpson's lying testimony is uncomfortable to them too.

[old_soul]

Martin and William,

I got it! For years I have always heard the notes of a song when reading G's posts. Thats to TV and fump2, I finally figured out what song was and why the G' theme song is---ready----? Are you sure? Can you guess, how about you William? You might not be familiar with the song, but if you are, then you will get it too!

The song is (drum roll is gearing up to the cresendo...) The name of that song is....REO Speedwagon's, "Take It On the Run"! That's right folks, just like the members of the band, "heard from a friend who heard it from a friend" the G's heard it from a friend who heard it from a from a friend who's tales grew taller the further down the line they went.


When people stop making excuses for another who uses violence on others, that's when things will change. Murder is not black or white, and the moral of the story is to stop the viscious cycle....Be part of the solution, not the problem.

I would say "The G's song" is this.....not that.... no drum roll needed. Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojpbOJjrGBQ

WA ~ Have a wonderful Celebration...No 911 calls please ;)

[tv]

:)When people stop making excuses for another who uses violence on others, that's when things will change. Murder is not black or white, and the moral of the story is to stop the viscious cycle....Be part of the solution, not the problem.

I would say "The G's song" is this.....not that.... no drum roll needed. Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojpbOJjrGBQ

WA ~ Have a wonderful Celebration...No 911 calls please ;)

Hi OS! Nice to see you! I wish you'd stop by more often. :)

[old_soul]

They don't like the civil trial evidence because instead of being full of BS it cuts to the chase and reveals OJ Simpson as the brutal double murderer that he is. They prefer the civil trial where everything but the kitchen sink was allowed to be thrown out in front of the jury. I'm sure Simpson's lying testimony is uncomfortable to them too.

Hi tv!

Your post is too true, my dear, too true.:beer:

[martin II]

Here are two excerpts from the civil trial concerning Park and the golf bag.


Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When you saw that person going into the house, that person in all dark clothing, at that point -- during that point in time, did you ever see him coming out of the house?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see him pick up a golf bag and hold it up to you?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see him signal to you?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see him nod or gesture to you in any way?

A. No.

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

Q. And can you tell the jury what happened after you first began interacting with Mr. Simpson.

A. I -- from what I remember, he set the Louis Vitton bag down next to the other bag, and he proceeded down the driveway.

I -- I then picked up the Louis Vitton bag, went and put it -- it was around the same time I saw Kato putting the -- the golf clubs into the trunk, and I walked over and put the Louis Vitton bag into the trunk.

Thats what i call Petrocelli greasing the testimony

The defence never said oj did any of those things.
Park was talking to his mommie and did not see very much.

[tv]

Thats what i call Petrocelli greasing the testimony

The defence never said oj did any of those things.
Park was talking to his mommie and did not see very much.

Call it what you want -- you're uninformed. It's Park's sworn testimony.

[tv]

Hi tv!

Your post is too true, my dear, too true.:beer:Yep, read martin's post above and it's a perfect illustration. :)

[martin II]

Brad Roberts stayed at Bundy until after Mark Fuhrman had returned to Bundy and made the second trip to Rockingham. What excuse are you talking about in regard to the way the Bronco was parked?

v
I thought furhman said Roberts found most of the evidence at Rockingham.

Furhman used the rear wheeks of the bronco 3-4 inches from the curb to say it was parked wrong.

[weezer]

v
I thought furhman said Roberts found most of the evidence at Rockingham.

Furhman used the rear wheeks of the bronco 3-4 inches from the curb to say it was parked wrong.

orenthal said the bronco was parked crooked -- he said that happens when he comes out of the drive and makes the sharp turn. :shrug:

[martin II]

Call it what you want -- you're uninformed. It's Park's sworn testimony.

As soon as i have time i will post parks testimony where he says something different.

[martin II]

TV

If you drove a car our of the driveway and made a sharp right turn on to rockingham and stopped, your car would be parked just as the bronco was.

[martin II]

Yep, read martin's post above and it's a perfect illustration. :)

tv

why would petrocelli ask park some questions about what oj did when oj never said he did those things.
To plant the idea in the jurors mind that oj did say that.

[weezer]

TV

If you drove a car our of the driveway and made a sharp right turn on to rockingham and stopped, your car would be parked just as the bronco was.

or you could have been in a hurry and pull up to the curb and the car be parked just as the bronco was. :eek:

[bobaugust]

In anticipation of an argument to the contrary on when Kato was walking, I posted this. Ms. Clark, having had the benefit of talking to Park, realized that she must try to change Kato's testimony but a careful reading of his first testimony reveals that Ms. Clark struck a question, because she realized the Kato had not started walking until he reached the garage area. How can we tell that? He says he started walking "there" and he got scared. How can we tell that she realized this? She posed a question that Kato "looked down to the garage area". She then wanted to strike her own question, where she asked Kato did he walk and she asked you came back but then said you "walked back toward the Ashford gate". She did not want to say you walked back up toward the gate, IMHO. However, Kato told us which way was up as he testified, he saw the limo when he was walking up. Ms. Clark then did a lawyer trick in a question trying to say that Kato saw the RR on his way going down from the Ashford walkway and I ask you to note that she did not say as you were walking down the Ashford walkway but worded the question in a manner typical of lawyers by saying, when you came around the RR would have (not was) been parked there. The point is that Kato never testified to seeing the RR when he was "running" to check on the garage area on his way "down" but did see it as he was walking on his way back up the driveway. Therefore, Park did not see Kato walk from behind the quarters to the Ashford walkway as Kato ran around that area and did not start walking until he came to the garage area, based on the testimony. This will most likely be my last post for the weekend and just wanted to place the testimony in context before the celebration. I know no lawyer ever argued this and no one is perfect. :)

Running or walking briskly (as Kaelin later testified to) should help you understand how short a time Kaelin was gone after Park last saw him on the Ashford path. Park thought that Kaelin stopped before he got to the driveway and that’s when Park then saw Simpson walk up and enter his house. Could Kaelin have simply slowed down or even paused when he got to the driveway? Of course, but Park perceived it as stopping. The important fact is that was the last time Park was aware of Kaelin until Kaelin opened the gate a couple of minutes later when he returned to the gate control box from going behind the garage.

Kaelin consistently testified when he returned from the garage he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. He never said he went back to the Ashford path. He never said he stopped and stood around for about two minutes. Your claim that he did is incorrect and you are wrong.

I explained to you before that “up” or “down” is a relative term based on how you look at the diagram. Where Kaelin was walking from and going to is what is important. Look at the diagram; North is at the top like most maps so Kaelin was walking up the driveway when he went from the garage to the gate control box.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Running or walking briskly (as Kaelin later testified to) should help you understand how short a time Kaelin was gone after Park last saw him on the Ashford path. Park thought that Kaelin stopped before he got to the driveway and that’s when Park then saw Simpson walk up and enter his house. Could Kaelin have simply slowed down or even paused when he got to the driveway? Of course, but Park perceived it as stopping. The important fact is that was the last time Park was aware of Kaelin until Kaelin opened the gate a couple of minutes later when he returned to the gate control box from going behind the garage.

Kaelin consistently testified when he returned from the garage he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. He never said he went back to the Ashford path. He never said he stopped and stood around for about two minutes. Your claim that he did is incorrect and you are wrong.

I explained to you before that “up” or “down” is a relative term based on how you look at the diagram. Where Kaelin was walking from and going to is what is important. Look at the diagram; North is at the top like most maps so Kaelin was walking up the driveway when he went from the garage to the gate control box.

bobaugust

BOB
kATO walked out of his quarters north to the Ashford sidewalk then west to the driveway and ,south to the garage. He returned north to the Ashford gate.
The problem is Park said that he first saw Kato standing on the Ashford walkway.Then he said Kato was STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK
just before Kato opened the gate.

Obviously Park did not see Kato walk to the garage.

[martin II]

oj drove the bronco form his driveway to rockingham and left it there before anyone was killed at bundy.

[martin II]

if one drove the bronco north on rockingham and pulled over to the curb pass the address numbers, the front and back wheels would both be next to the curb.

[martin II]

tv

Park says he was on the cell talking to dale when he first saw Kato standing
at the Ashford sidewalk.He then saw oj and he got out of the limo buzzed oj and talked to him.Then he looked at Kato and he Kato Was still standing on the Ashford sidewalk He is saying Kato was still standing where he was standing when he first saw him.

Why would he say that?

[old_soul]

Oh, I love that song ... and it pops on my ipod right after your theme song "Tired of You" by Buckcherry ... "cause I'm tired of you walking on me, time is running out, you've lost your mind and you've lost your self respect ..." la la la la ...:eek:

I LOVE music!

oh me too! I often hum this one when I'm reading this board:

I turn on the tube and what do I see
A whole lotta people cryin' \"Don't blame me\"
They point their crooked little fingers at everbody else

Eagles: Get Over It



LMAO :beer:

[GreenIce]

When people stop making excuses for another who uses violence on others, that's when things will change. Murder is not black or white, and the moral of the story is to stop the viscious cycle....Be part of the solution, not the problem.

I would say "The G's song" is this.....not that.... no drum roll needed. Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojpbOJjrGBQ

WA ~ Have a wonderful Celebration...No 911 calls please ;)

Old Soul,

I couldn't agree with you more regarding making excuses for another who uses violence on others. Which is why it is so import not excuse Nicole's violence on others.

I also agree with you that moral of the story is to stop the cycle. However, there are many more people who contribute this cycle then the person who actually commits the violence.

However, before you can make judgement on DV in this case, there are too many questions that have never been answered to make a fair one, IMO. Much of the DV in this case was not proven and was only alleged and because of that, IMO, a fair judgement can't be made on this issue.

In this case, we had a police officer who said that Simpson said the police were at his home 8 times before, yet there is no proof of this.

In Faye's depo, she says that Nicole called 911 around 30 times, yet there is no proof of this.

The only proof we have is from Nicole's own voice that this only happened once. Yet, there are people who are convinced she is lying. So is Nicole lying about it only happening once or about the 30 times she called 911?

[GreenIce]

******************
My understanding is that there were two possible types of time line problems.
The times of nights that witnesses thought someting happened (Kato thought he heard a noiose at 10:45 for example), and the time intervals for something to happen. I don't think either one of these should have helped the defense.

First of all if we take each time of night estimate that various people made (10:45 or whatever), and then, gave each time of night estimate about 10 minutes of slack in either direction, I think all these time line problems disappear. I think the biggest time line problem was that both Kato and the woman he was talking to thought the thump or bump sound occurred at about 10:45, and the prosecution thought the noises would have occurred at about 10:52. That is less than 10 mnutes. If the talk was pleasant for both of them, time would have seemed to pass slower, so it would have been easy to be off. I know that if I look at my watch or clock, the actual time is often more than 30 minutes off. I find it easy to think that both Kato, Heidestra and others could easily be off by more than 10 minutes. If I am wrong here, I would like to know the specific details on why.

I think if a peson tries to remember time of day (or night) 24 hours or so later, they will usuallyl remember an estimae that goes in increments of 15 minutes or greater. In other words they would be far more likely to remeber a time of 10:45 than 10:51 or 10:52.

The second time problem is the time intervals to do things, mainly kill two people. I never tried to analyze this. I think this is hard for anyone to analyze. It is just not possible to get an accurate estimate of knife fights. Lets face it, who knows much about how knife fights usually occur? I doubt there are many serious studies of knife fights. In the criminal trial Henry Lee said the fight 'was not a short time', in the civil trial, he said it could have been as short as a minute.

My understanding of witnesses memory is that most people's memory is less accurate than they realize. Both forensic memory experts and criminologists have come to this conclusion independently. Partly for this reason I give a lot of slack to the time of night estimates of Kato and the rest.

I also don't give much weight to the fact that some witnesses didn't see a bandage on Orenthals hand. Memory experts and criminologists say that people often forget details that seemed important at the time in a matter of minutes. These witnesses probably didn't think it was important at the time, and probably didn't realize it was important untill at least 15 hours later, possibly more than 24.

Fgump2,

The problem is there have been millions of serious studies on knife fights--which is how experts come to their opinons on how long a struggle could have last as well as narrow down the time of death. Any expert who takes the stand and has examined the wounds, the bleeding, etc., is doing a serious study of a knife fight, IMO.

There have also been millions of serious studies regarding a human ability to remember events under many, many different circumstances. Which is why forms and checklists have been prepared to address these issues. If a criminalist used their checklist, then they would not have to rely on their memory when they are called to testify.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Baden gave their opinons on why they did not feel it was short struggle and I believe they explained how they arrived at their conclusion. Just like the DA's expert, while his opinon that it was short struggle, he could not rule out that a longer or a prolonged struggle did happen. I don't remember if he explained why he felt it was short a struggle or only asked what his opinon was.

Mrs. Brown told at least three people she was looking at clock when she spoken to Nicole the last time. I find it difficult to believe that she could have been so far off on the time when actually looking at clock.

In regards to your comments about people not remembering details because they just weren't important at the time of them is completely valid, however, if you apply this Kato and other witnesses, then you must also apply it OJ Simpson. He was expected to provide each and every detail that he did that night and what time he did them, when a detail was forgotten, then right away he was lying because he should know exactly what he is doing every minute of his day.

Mr. Simpson did not have a bandage on this hand when he left for Chicago and people were looking right at his hands. This can't be ignored.

However, don't you find it odd that the only injury Simpson could have gotten that night had to be knife cut that bled? How could the police assume that he only had one injury from the blood bath at Bundy?

[GreenIce]

*********************
To pick up on the search issue. I believe that in cases of a trail of blood going into a house, that the search warrant rules are different. I suppose because of the possibililties of either people in need of help inside, and also of a criminal inside who may destroy evidence. In the case of a trail of blood, the judge (or someone) may give the detectives a rap on the knuckles for lying on the earch warrant but still admit the evidence. In any case the evidence would be admitted in a civil trial.

I conitnue to think that it is so easy to convice oneself that one's motives wre more noble than they really were, that lying about one's motives is a more forgiveable lie than lying about a physical fact, although it is still a lie.

As for the gloves don't fit, I don't thnk most people can judge, especially if they aern't up close. If you gave some people practice this type of judgement, they could give a report on it. To do this it would be necessary to get a bunch of people with gloves some just a little to small to put on, others barelly big enough to put on. To make the test accurate it would be nice to have a lot of the gloves like the Simpson gloves. Then have various people try and fail or try and succeed or pretend to fail. I think it would be hard to spot a faker.

If you want to be a good lawyer, I think you should try to be less insulting. I have posted rude comments, and my feelings have never been seriously hurt here, but the manners here could use some improvement, not just yours.

fgump2,

The problem with the warrant is that there was no need to lie about it.

Did the MF have every reason to suspect OJ of the murders---yes, he did.

Did he have every reason to go to Rockingham long before 5:30 a.m.--yes he did.

Did he have every reason to believe that Simpson may have been inside his home getting rid of evidence---yes he did.

Did he have every reason to believe that Simpson may have been planning to take flight (not a flight) yes he did.

He or any other LAPD detective or cop was covered had they done this. It would have been a legal search. However, they elected to tell lies that were so unbelieveable, it was the first serious blow to the DA's case that they were never going to recover from.

Another issue is as lame as their excuse was to go over the wall, not one of their actions matched up to this. They showed no concern for the maid nor any other other possible victims either in the main house or on the estate.

The blood trail from the Bronco to the front door is much more consistent with Simpson's explaination then the LAPD's. And if I remember correctly, the blood trail was not seen until later. VA made his call after seeing one tiny speck of blood that was found on the door of the Bronco.

Speaking about the blood trail, was the whole estate searched for other blood drops? For another trail of blood drops? I really don't know, do you?

I agree with you it would be hard to spot a faker--however, "fake" excuses, such as the latex gloves can't be used as an excuse. They would not impact the fit of the glove. Make it more difficult to put on, perhaps, not would not impact the fit of the glove so significantly where it would appear the gloves did not fit.

You bring up an excellent point about the detectives getting a rap on the knuckles---which is why there is such distrust regarding police departments. The PD are the core of our legal system and IMO, they hold everybody hostage when pull stunts like they did in the Simpson case.

Do you really think the jurors thought Judge Ito believe the detectives? Or that the DAs believed the detectives? By Ito and the DA's accepting the lies of the detectives? If the judge and the DA's don't believe the detectives, then how can a juror?

Just because evidence is admitted by the judge, that does not mean all the problems surrounding it go away or protected against a vigor of the defense team.

IMO, Ito allowing the warrant to stand hurt the DA's case more then it helped. Again, IMO.

[martin II]

fgump2,

The problem with the warrant is that there was no need to lie about it.

Did the MF have every reason to suspect OJ of the murders---yes, he did.

Did he have every reason to go to Rockingham long before 5:30 a.m.--yes he did.

Did he have every reason to believe that Simpson may have been inside his home getting rid of evidence---yes he did.

Did he have every reason to believe that Simpson may have been planning to take flight (not a flight) yes he did.

He or any other LAPD detective or cop was covered had they done this. It would have been a legal search. However, they elected to tell lies that were so unbelieveable, it was the first serious blow to the DA's case that they were never going to recover from.

Another issue is as lame as their excuse was to go over the wall, not one of their actions matched up to this. They showed no concern for the maid nor any other other possible victims either in the main house or on the estate.

The blood trail from the Bronco to the front door is much more consistent with Simpson's explaination then the LAPD's. And if I remember correctly, the blood trail was not seen until later. VA made his call after seeing one tiny speck of blood that was found on the door of the Bronco.

Speaking about the blood trail, was the whole estate searched for other blood drops? For another trail of blood drops? I really don't know, do you?

I agree with you it would be hard to spot a faker--however, "fake" excuses, such as the latex gloves can't be used as an excuse. They would not impact the fit of the glove. Make it more difficult to put on, perhaps, not would not impact the fit of the glove so significantly where it would appear the gloves did not fit.

You bring up an excellent point about the detectives getting a rap on the knuckles---which is why there is such distrust regarding police departments. The PD are the core of our legal system and IMO, they hold everybody hostage when pull stunts like they did in the Simpson case.

Do you really think the jurors thought Judge Ito believe the detectives? Or that the DAs believed the detectives? By Ito and the DA's accepting the lies of the detectives? If the judge and the DA's don't believe the detectives, then how can a juror?

Just because evidence is admitted by the judge, that does not mean all the problems surrounding it go away or protected against a vigor of the defense team.

IMO, Ito allowing the warrant to stand hurt the DA's case more then it helped. Again, IMO.

FGUMP2

I read about cases where evidence is tossed from a case because le lied to get a search warrant frequently.Some times because of a minor tech. in what they told the judge.
I think in a place like LA the jury members have read about many cases where evidence was tossed because of untruths told to a judge.

So if i am a juror and hear the untruths Vanhatter told that judge and then hear Ito tell the court that Vanhaatter played fast and loose with the truth
i am saying to myself the search warrant was illegal and should be tossed. But
when i see Ito just agreeing to let the lies go and admit the evidence i say Ito
decided it was better to hurt ojs case than to cause the DA some serious loss of evidence.

From that point on i may have serious negative feelings about the DAS evidence because i felt they got it in illegally.

After the glove demo turned out bad for the prosecution the only think they could claim is that oj was faking.They did this and then told Rubin to create a argument that the glove had shrinkage and that is why the glove did not fit.

So my question is, is it that the glove did no fit because oj was faking or is it that the glove did not fit because it had shrinkage. If the prosecution knew the glove had shrinkage of 10-15% then they knew the glove would not fit before they tried the demo.So what was the reason for the demo??????
If i am a juror i am asking myself which story does the DA want me to believe.

Shaperio sp had very large hands like oj and he tried the gloves on the night before the demo and they knew the gloves would not fit ojs hands but they did not tell Darden this. Now the DA had Rubin make some measurements and calculation/assumptions about the size of ojs hands.His calculation like some of his testimony was dead wrong.

Then there is the testimony of the captain and the sky caps that said they were surprised at the size of ojs very large hands.OJ sat at the defence table every day writing notes on a pad and the jury had plenty of time to observe his hands before the demo and i am sure after. After the size of his hands became such a issue(after the demo) i believe juror members would have just paid more attention to those clubs attatched to his arms in plain view.

If a murder took place in a house next to yours and a blood drop was found on a car parked in front of your house and le did not get a response from knocking on your door,would they just break in your house?

It seems that in your post you use some type of logic that creates excuses for much of LES questionable behavior and i will not list them, but you seem to believe that the defendant should be able to have instant recall to account for every activitty of his after the McDonalds trip to his return from Chicago. If oj gives a response to a question and after more questioning he makes correction to his previous statement immediately he lied.

What is behind this kind of thinking? or logic ??

[bobaugust]

BOB
kATO walked out of his quarters north to the Ashford sidewalk then west to the driveway and ,south to the garage. He returned north to the Ashford gate.
The problem is Park said that he first saw Kato standing on the Ashford walkway.Then he said Kato was STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK
just before Kato opened the gate.

Obviously Park did not see Kato walk to the garage.

Park never said that he saw Kaelin standing on the sidewalk just before Kaelin opened the gate. Based on Park’s detailed testimony in the criminal trial it was about 2 minutes between the time he saw Kaelin on the sidewalk to when he saw Kaelin go to the gate control box.

What you can’t seem to understand Martin, is that when Clark asked Park if he noticed where Kaelin was after Simpson entered his house and Park answered from what he remembered Kaelin was still standing on the sidewalk, Park was talking about the exact same time he said when Kaelin got to the driveway he stopped and then Simpson entered the house.

Park perceived Kaelin stopping when Kaelin got to the driveway after seeing him come from behind the house and down the Ashford path. Kaelin said he didn’t stop. Kaelin said he was running or walking briskly down that path. What could very well have happened is that when Kaelin got to the driveway and saw the limo he may very well have slowed down or paused and Park perceived that as stopping. Park’s attention was then immediately diverted to Simpson when he said that almost simultaneously he saw Simpson walk up into the entranceway and enter his house.

The point here is that this all happened in a matter of seconds and when Simpson entered the house Kaelin was in no position to see him. When Park said that after Simpson entered the house and saw lights come on downstairs in the house Park was still on the phone with his boss. Park told Dale someone was here and then proceeded to finish his conversation. Its evident Park wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin when he finished that call since Kaelin said he continued on to the garage yet Park never saw it.

After hanging up the phone Park sat and waited for someone to let him in but no one did. So after a while he got out of the limo and went to the intercom and rang it for the fourth time that night. This time Simpson answered. Since I have no doubt that you are familiar with the diagrams of the Rockingham estate you should be able to understand that if Kaelin was still standing on the sidewalk when Park was at the intercom Kaelin would have been right in front of Park. Park wouldn’t have had to call Simpson he could have simply asked Kaelin to open the gate. But that never happened because Kaelin was no longer there he was already at the garage. Park didn’t know that.

After Park finished speaking with Simpson he went back to the limo and waited some more time until finally he saw Kaelin go the gate control box and open the gate. Once again since you are familiar with the diagram you should know that the gate control box was near some trees on the other side of the driveway from the Ashford sidewalk. Kaelin testified when he came from behind the garage to the driveway he saw the limo was still outside the gate. Park testified he had left his parking lights on and looking at the diagram you should be able to see that Kaelin could have clearly seen the limo as he walked north on the driveway. Kaelin testified he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. Kaelin never said he went back to the Ashford path or even to that side of the driveway. He never said he stopped and stood there. He said he went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

bobaugust

[martin II]

GI

At Bundy when Vanhatter realized that OJ was the ex of Nicole the next logical question was Where is oj? Since was known to be a very frequent traveler the watch comander could have easily called control at LAX had them run ojs name throught flight computers and be told he left on a 11:30 flight and there would have been no reason to cause the lead detectives to leave a live crime scene to go to Rockingham looking for him.
But that was not their objective. Their cops way of thinking was that odds are that he is home tending to wounds from this bloody murder or getting rid of evidence. The visit to Rockingham also gave them the opportunity to do whatever they may have wanted to do at Rockingham.Remember the detective that had been released from his duties, the one that had been accused on planting evidence in another case, Furhman, some how hung around and was included in the 'NOTIFICATION" party.

[martin II]

Previously a poster posted opinions about the state of affairs of ojs children
and the situation surrounding custody.
i found this in a file.

Judge Stock wrote, ''Psychological testing, clinical observations and review of Mr. Simpson's history with the children does not yield a picture of a man who has in the past, or is likely in the future, to lose control of himself in such a manner as to emotionally or physically harm the children.''

Her ruling noted that there was no evidence Mr. Simpson had ever abused his children.



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E1D81531F932A15751C1A9609582 60



The children's court-appointed lawyer, Marjorie Fuller, said the children would probably stay with their father until appeals were exhausted.

''My reaction on behalf of my clients is that they are very disappointed with the result,'' Ms. Fuller said.

Ms. Fuller said either she or Mr. Simpson could request a hearing within 30 days or appeal directly to the State Supreme Court.

In 1996, Judge Nancy Wieben Stock granted Mr. Simpson's petition to terminate the Browns' guardianship, giving him custody. The Browns appealed. In August, the children wrote the appeal court judges an emotional letter asking to stay with their father.



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400EFD61F3EF932A25752C1A96E9582 60&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/S/Simpson,%20O.%20J.

[tv]

GI

At Bundy when Vanhatter realized that OJ was the ex of Nicole the next logical question was Where is oj? Since was known to be a very frequent traveler the watch comander could have easily called control at LAX had them run ojs name throught flight computers and be told he left on a 11:30 flight and there would have been no reason to cause the lead detectives to leave a live crime scene to go to Rockingham looking for him.
But that was not their objective. Their cops way of thinking was that odds are that he is home tending to wounds from this bloody murder or getting rid of evidence. The visit to Rockingham also gave them the opportunity to do whatever they may have wanted to do at Rockingham.Remember the detective that had been released from his duties, the one that had been accused on planting evidence in another case, Furhman, some how hung around and was included in the 'NOTIFICATION" party.

Fuhrman had been released from being lead detective but he was asked to stay and assist. I can't believe you think that they should have checked with the airlines before going to Rockingham. Good grief, martin, that makes no sense.

[tv]

GI

At Bundy when Vanhatter realized that OJ was the ex of Nicole the next logical question was Where is oj? Since was known to be a very frequent traveler the watch comander could have easily called control at LAX had them run ojs name throught flight computers and be told he left on a 11:30 flight and there would have been no reason to cause the lead detectives to leave a live crime scene to go to Rockingham looking for him.
But that was not their objective. Their cops way of thinking was that odds are that he is home tending to wounds from this bloody murder or getting rid of evidence. The visit to Rockingham also gave them the opportunity to do whatever they may have wanted to do at Rockingham.Remember the detective that had been released from his duties, the one that had been accused on planting evidence in another case, Furhman, some how hung around and was included in the 'NOTIFICATION" party.
When you post this kind of stuff you need to add IMO because you have no way of knowing what the detectives were thinking.

[tv]

BOB
kATO walked out of his quarters north to the Ashford sidewalk then west to the driveway and ,south to the garage. He returned north to the Ashford gate.
The problem is Park said that he first saw Kato standing on the Ashford walkway.Then he said Kato was STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK
just before Kato opened the gate.

Obviously Park did not see Kato walk to the garage.

If there wasn't so much damning evidence against Simpson you wouldn't have to nitpick Park and Kato's testimony because there would be other evidence that exonerates him. It wouldn't be unusual for an innocent person to have a few suspicious behaviors or circumstances but no innocent person has so much evidence that points to their guilt and not one thing that points to their innocence. Not one single thing.

[martin II]

If there wasn't so much damning evidence against Simpson you wouldn't have to nitpick Park and Kato's testimony because there would be other evidence that exonerates him. It wouldn't be unusual for an innocent person to have a few suspicious behaviors or circumstances but no innocent person has so much evidence that points to their guilt and not one thing that points to their innocence. Not one single thing.

I and others have posted much information about the faults in the prosecutions case that would cause most fair observers to understand that the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.If you choose to ignore this situation thats your choice.imo:cool:

[tv]

I and others have posted much information about the faults in the prosecutions case that would cause most fair observers to understand that the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.If you choose to ignore this situation thats your choice.imo:cool:
The situation is that OJ Simpson is a double murderer who had the money to hire lawyers that were determined to win no matter what it took and who understood their jury. The civil trial was another matter -- without all the nonsense that the defense made up and with Simpson's lying testimony the truth of what happened to Ron and Nicole was clear.

[GreenIce]

GI

At Bundy when Vanhatter realized that OJ was the ex of Nicole the next logical question was Where is oj? Since was known to be a very frequent traveler the watch comander could have easily called control at LAX had them run ojs name throught flight computers and be told he left on a 11:30 flight and there would have been no reason to cause the lead detectives to leave a live crime scene to go to Rockingham looking for him.
But that was not their objective. Their cops way of thinking was that odds are that he is home tending to wounds from this bloody murder or getting rid of evidence. The visit to Rockingham also gave them the opportunity to do whatever they may have wanted to do at Rockingham.Remember the detective that had been released from his duties, the one that had been accused on planting evidence in another case, Furhman, some how hung around and was included in the 'NOTIFICATION" party.

Martin,

VA knew where Simpson was before he ever arrived at Rockingham. The LAPD knew within an hour of finding the bodies where Simpson was and when he left LA.

Not only was Fuhrman released from his duties, wasn't he also at Simpson's home during the 2nd search warrant?

[martin II]

The situation is that OJ Simpson is a double murderer who had the money to hire lawyers that were determined to win no matter what it took and who understood their jury. The civil trial was another matter -- without all the nonsense that the defense made up and with Simpson's lying testimony the truth of what happened to Ron and Nicole was clear.

TV

OJS defence lawyers did what ALL defence lawyers are requierd by law and their oath to do 'DO EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO GET THEIR CLIENT FOUND NOT GUILTY.So your anger at his lawyers is misdirected imo.

[fgump2]

Are you sugesting that the prosecution timeline was off by 10 minutes.If so then what time did Park talk to Dale and what time was it that He says he arrived at Rockingham?

I wasn't referring to specific time estimates as being exactly 10 minutes off. I meant that we can consider the phone call times as being completely accurate (electronically recorded), and the times that people remembered as being up to 10 minutes off in either direction. For example if Kato thought he heard the bumps or thumps at 10:45, we can consider them made between 10:35 and 10:55. Or if Heidestra thought he heard 'hey hey hey' at 10:40, we could consider it being between 10:30 an 10:50.

I could be wrong, but I think that if we do this, the problems with the prosecution time line disappear.

[fgump2]

The 1995 defense is that they seem to have contradicted themselves on when the blood in the bronco.
First they said that Fuhrman planted the blood in the Bronco, some accidentaly (foot print), some deliberately (glove).

They also said that at least one person, maybe two, said later that there was no blood on the Bronco. William Blasini testified that he saw no blood in the Bronco on June 21. He knew he wasn't supposed to be looking at it, so he would have been rushed. Also looking at things he had no business looking at shows a lack of integrity.

Does anyone really think that the police would publically cliaim there was blood in the bronco (I think they did) and then wait weeks before actually planting it?

I may be overlooking things here.

Also another point about whether or not Arnelle lied on th stand about which door she let the detectives in. Some NGs said that the detectives could have been lying since they had Arnelle outnumbered 4 to 1. Maybe so, I iknow detectives and other people lie. But

Kato backed up the detectives on this one. I can think of two reasons why the detectives wouldn't have tried to get Kato in on a conspiricy. First of all, Kato lived with Orenthal, so they would be afraid he might blow the whistle on them. Secondly Kato looked and acked like a flake, an erratic person to some people. Originally at least one of the detectives thought he might have been on drugs. Also detectives are often conservative people who would distrust a man with long shaggy hair.

[tv]

TV

OJS defence lawyers did what ALL defence lawyers are requierd by law and their oath to do 'DO EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO GET THEIR CLIENT FOUND NOT GUILTY.So your anger at his lawyers is misdirected imo.

martin, I'm not angry at Simpson's attorneys. :shrug:

[tv]

Well i will be off the thread for some days as i have to make a trip.So i will allow my friend to continue to be misguided by her friend.

You and William are quite capable of continuing to educate them.
No one has been able to understand the meaning of Parks testimony that KATO WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK before he opened the gate which means that Park did not see Kato on his first walk to the garage and that it was 10:45 when Kato heard the noise.imo

martin, I hope wherever you're going you have a safe trip and watch out for the flu! :)

[martin II]

I wasn't referring to specific time estimates as being exactly 10 minutes off. I meant that we can consider the phone call times as being completely accurate (electronically recorded), and the times that people remembered as being up to 10 minutes off in either direction. For example if Kato thought he heard the bumps or thumps at 10:45, we can consider them made between 10:35 and 10:55. Or if Heidestra thought he heard 'hey hey hey' at 10:40, we could consider it being between 10:30 an 10:50.

I could be wrong, but I think that if we do this, the problems with the prosecution time line disappear.

Heidstras time was measured by his clock when he left home and by his clock and tv when he returned. Steins time was measured by the time her husband arrived at home.If you make Katos time at 10;55 of hearing the noise you have a conflick of Park being on the phone talking to dale when he saw Kato and that was on the clock.So the non clock times would conflict with events
that were on clock.

There is no way to get around Kato hearing the noise at 10:45 because we know what he did afterwards and we know what time Park said he saw hin on the clock.If you back up the time parks phone says he first saw Kato we then know it was 10:45 when he heard the noise.The prosecutions problem does not dissapear.But we have to believe what PARK said is actually true.imo

[bobaugust]

Martin,

VA knew where Simpson was before he ever arrived at Rockingham. The LAPD knew within an hour of finding the bodies where Simpson was and when he left LA.

Not only was Fuhrman released from his duties, wasn't he also at Simpson's home during the 2nd search warrant?

GreenIce, you’ve made this claim before yet you have never supported it. I’m asking you again what evidence do you know of that Vannatter or any of the police officers who were at Bundy knew that Simpson had left town before the detectives went to Rockingham?

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin, I hope wherever you're going you have a safe trip and watch out for the flu! :)

Thanks tv.
I purchased 8 mask and i have a box of latex gloves.

[tv]

Thanks tv.
I purchased 8 mask and i have a box of latex gloves.That's a great idea. It's always good to be prepared. Are you leaving the country?

[martin II]

martin, i'm not angry at simpson's attorneys. :shrug:


ok very good.

[martin II]

That's a great idea. It's always good to be prepared. Are you leaving the country?

Just to Montreal,Work and fun.

[tv]

Just to Montreal,Work and fun.

I hope you have good weather and lots of fun! :)

[martin II]

I hope you have good weather and lots of fun! :)

I work to pay for the fun but i really like the life style of Montreal and the people.

[martin II]

The 1995 defense is that they seem to have contradicted themselves on when the blood in the bronco.
First they said that Fuhrman planted the blood in the Bronco,When did the defence say there was no blood in the Bronco and who said it? some accidentaly (foot print),There was no foot print in the Bronco only a smudge. some deliberately (glove).After the big bloody fight at Bundy there was a small spot of blood found on the inside of the glove near the notch.

They also said that at least one person, maybe two, said later that there was no blood on the Bronco. William Blasini testified that he saw no blood in the Bronco on June 21. He knew he wasn't supposed to be looking at it, so he would have been rushed. Also looking at things he had no business looking at shows a lack of integrity.

Does anyone really think that the police would publically cliaim there was blood in the bronco (I think they did) and then wait weeks before actually planting it?

I may be overlooking things here.

Also another point about whether or not Arnelle lied on th stand about which door she let the detectives in. Some NGs said that the detectives could have been lying since they had Arnelle outnumbered 4 to 1. Maybe so, I iknow detectives and other people lie. But

Kato backed up the detectives on this one. I can think of two reasons why the detectives wouldn't have tried to get Kato in on a conspiricy. First of all, Kato lived with Orenthal, so they would be afraid he might blow the whistle on them. Secondly Kato looked and acked like a flake, an erratic person to some people. Originally at least one of the detectives thought he might have been on drugs. Also detectives are often conservative people who would distrust a man with long shaggy hair.

When one makes wide sweeping accusations against one side it can be easy to become confused or get the facts confused or make statements that are not true.imo

[martin II]

I wasn't referring to specific time estimates as being exactly 10 minutes off. I meant that we can consider the phone call times as being completely accurate (electronically recorded), and the times that people remembered as being up to 10 minutes off in either direction. For example if Kato thought he heard the bumps or thumps at 10:45, we can consider them made between 10:35 and 10:55. Or if Heidestra thought he heard 'hey hey hey' at 10:40, we could consider it being between 10:30 an 10:50.

I could be wrong, but I think that if we do this, the problems with the prosecution time line disappear.

ps

If we set the time Kato heard the noise at 10:35 that would be before the murders.

If we set it at 10:55 then Parks testimony has to be tossed out,

Fgump2

My question to you is:

If oj made the noise at 10:45 on Katos wall then the person driving the white car at Dorothy and Bundy was not oj. So the question becomes where was oj?

[tv]

If you count back from the time Park was on the phone with his boss it's proven that Kato heard and felt the the thumps at 10:51 or 10:52. OJ was behind Kato's room when Kato heard the thumps -- no mystery about that. :)

[tv]

When one makes wide sweeping accusations against one side it can be easy to become confused or get the facts confused or make statements that are not true.imo

The blood of OJ Simpson was found on the Rockingham glove in three places, not one.

[weezer]

Previously a poster posted opinions about the state of affairs of ojs children
and the situation surrounding custody.
i found this in a file.

Judge Stock wrote, ''Psychological testing, clinical observations and review of Mr. Simpson's history with the children does not yield a picture of a man who has in the past, or is likely in the future, to lose control of himself in such a manner as to emotionally or physically harm the children.''

Her ruling noted that there was no evidence Mr. Simpson had ever abused his children.



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E1D81531F932A15751C1A9609582 60



The children's court-appointed lawyer, Marjorie Fuller, said the children would probably stay with their father until appeals were exhausted.

''My reaction on behalf of my clients is that they are very disappointed with the result,'' Ms. Fuller said.

Ms. Fuller said either she or Mr. Simpson could request a hearing within 30 days or appeal directly to the State Supreme Court.

In 1996, Judge Nancy Wieben Stock granted Mr. Simpson's petition to terminate the Browns' guardianship, giving him custody. The Browns appealed. In August, the children wrote the appeal court judges an emotional letter asking to stay with their father.



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400EFD61F3EF932A25752C1A96E9582 60&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/S/Simpson,%20O.%20J.

I guess Sydney's 911 call and arnelle's smack-down proved that judge wrong, huh? ;)

[weezer]

I wasn't referring to specific time estimates as being exactly 10 minutes off. I meant that we can consider the phone call times as being completely accurate (electronically recorded), and the times that people remembered as being up to 10 minutes off in either direction. For example if Kato thought he heard the bumps or thumps at 10:45, we can consider them made between 10:35 and 10:55. Or if Heidestra thought he heard 'hey hey hey' at 10:40, we could consider it being between 10:30 an 10:50.

I could be wrong, but I think that if we do this, the problems with the prosecution time line disappear.

fgump, you may be way too optimistic for this board. the NG's have to drink from the criminal defense kool-aid pitcher or they might just have to admit to orenthal's guilt.

I'm giving you rep points for your patience and trying to have an open discussion. :beer:

[martin II]

If you count back from the time Park was on the phone with his boss it's proven that Kato heard and felt the the thumps at 10:51 or 10:52. OJ was behind Kato's room when Kato heard the thumps -- no mystery about that. :)

please post what physical evidence to prove your claim. the glove is not enough as that could have been placed there by any number of people.

[martin II]

The blood of OJ Simpson was found on the Rockingham glove in three places, not one.

ok
them the three spots were put there at one time.

[martin II]

If you count back from the time Park was on the phone with his boss it's proven that Kato heard and felt the the thumps at 10:51 or 10:52. OJ was behind Kato's room when Kato heard the thumps -- no mystery about that. :)

i don't think so.See how Clarke moved Kato to say 10:45

[weezer]

using the criminal defense timeline is what made Petrocelli's arguments/presentation in the civil trial so brilliant! :beer:

[martin II]

If you count back from the time Park was on the phone with his boss it's proven that Kato heard and felt the the thumps at 10:51 or 10:52. OJ was behind Kato's room when Kato heard the thumps -- no mystery about that. :)

Three detectives investigated and testified that no one jumped the fence,There was no evidence found that oj specifically was in the path.
So it seems your clain is based on he must have, i think he was or maby he was.

[weezer]

Three detectives investigated and testified that no one jumped the fence,There was no evidence found that oj specifically was in the path.
So it seems your clain is based on he must have, i think he was or maby he was.

they tell me the look on orenthal's face when he walked to the fence and saw the bent top wire -- right where he put his foot -- was priceless! :tongue:

[martin II]

There has never been any claim or evidence that oj abused or mistreated any of his children.

[martin II]

Three detectives investigated and testified that no one jumped the fence,There was no evidence found that oj specifically was in the path.
So it seems your clain is based on he must have, i think he was or maby he was.

[martin II]

tv
As much as i enjoy posting to you it seems that trouble has arrived so i will take a break.See you later or tomorrow moring.

[weezer]

tv
As much as i enjoy posting to you it seems that trouble has arrived so i will take a break.See you later or tomorrow moring.

martin, I'm wondering why you don't call your friend greenice down for her disrespectful and hateful posts to tv?

[weezer]

Three detectives investigated and testified that no one jumped the fence,There was no evidence found that oj specifically was in the path.
So it seems your clain is based on he must have, i think he was or maby he was.

I know you've been asked for the link to your statement about the three detectives investigating and testifying but I can't find where you've ever posted it. Link please to your statement.

[weezer]

There has never been any claim or evidence that oj abused or mistreated any of his children.

now martin, you know this statement isn't true or maybe you have an explanation of why Jason would take a baseball bat and destroy a statute of orenthal or Sydney would call 911 crying or why arnelle had to knock orenthal to the ground?

[martin II]

If you count back from the time Park was on the phone with his boss it's proven that Kato heard and felt the the thumps at 10:51 or 10:52. OJ was behind Kato's room when Kato heard the thumps -- no mystery about that. :)

Please refer to Williams count back.He did a outstanding job.

[martin II]

I have not read any hateful post by anyone but i do think that anyone that makes such claim is just trying to start usual trouble against posters that they don't agree with.
However it is so easy to follow the moderators directive to ignore post that one does not like instead of creating issues that don't exist.imo

[tv]

I have not read any hateful post by anyone but i do think that anyone that makes such claim is just trying to start usual trouble against posters that they don't agree with.
However it is so easy to follow the moderators directive to ignore post that one does not like instead of creating issues that don't exist.imo

martin, if you think weezer is out of line for disagreeing with the last hateful comment made about me by GreenIce then I'll just assume that you agree with it. Have a lovely time in Montreal and I won't trouble you with my lack of character when you return. :seeya:

[tv]

Please refer to Williams count back.He did a outstanding job.

I also had an outstanding countback which William agreed with at one point until he realized it implicated OJ Simpson and then he backed off.

[tv]

now martin, you know this statement isn't true or maybe you have an explanation of why Jason would take a baseball bat and destroy a statute of orenthal or Sydney would call 911 crying or why arnelle had to knock orenthal to the ground?
I agree -- that was an extreme act on the part of a child toward his father. Slamming doors and stomping feet I can see but destroying a statue with a baseball bat tells me something was very wrong between father and son. For all accounts I have read Jason is a kind and gentle person.

[tv]

your post is offensive and uncalled for. :punch: :cuss:
Thanks, weezer. :) I'm not sure what I did to provoke it but apparently she doesn't need provoking. :shrug:

[martin II]

Thanks, weezer. :) I'm not sure what I did to provoke it but apparently she doesn't need provoking. :shrug:

Lets move on.We have had a great day.this time i am calling it a night.

[tv]

Lets move on.We have had a great day.this time i am calling it a night.:seeya:

[tv]

using the criminal defense timeline is what made Petrocelli's arguments/presentation in the civil trial so brilliant! :beer:

Exactly. The not guilty supporters keep saying that the prosecution timeline is wrong -- so what's wrong with the plaintiff's timeline in the civil trial? If you don't agree with it then you don't agree with the magnificent defense timeline in the criminal trial.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, you’ve made this claim before yet you have never supported it. I’m asking you again what evidence do you know of that Vannatter or any of the police officers who were at Bundy knew that Simpson had left town before the detectives went to Rockingham?

bobaugust

Sydney Simpson knew where her father was and when he left. The blacked out telephone records of the police's cell phones and also common sense. It is clear that when they went to Rockingham they knew that Simpson was not home. Their actions do not add up---even if they thought he was injured and needed medical help.

[GreenIce]

I wasn't referring to specific time estimates as being exactly 10 minutes off. I meant that we can consider the phone call times as being completely accurate (electronically recorded), and the times that people remembered as being up to 10 minutes off in either direction. For example if Kato thought he heard the bumps or thumps at 10:45, we can consider them made between 10:35 and 10:55. Or if Heidestra thought he heard 'hey hey hey' at 10:40, we could consider it being between 10:30 an 10:50.

I could be wrong, but I think that if we do this, the problems with the prosecution time line disappear.

fgump2,

There were more then one timeline witness. The two who walked past Nicole's condo saw nothing and heard nothing.

The "hey, hey, hey" has never been linked to the murders. It has only been assumed that this was Ron Goldman, there is no proof of this. There is much more to the timeline when people try to recount the details that night.

However, if you do believe that the "hey, hey, hey" is connected to the murders, then, IMO, the murders happened much later. In one book, "Killing Time", it says that Sydney also heard the "hey, hey, hey" and the men fighting. She did not identify any of the voices to be her father's.

Also, if Sydney did hear this, was she up or was she sleeping? And if she heard this, then how could not have gone to try to find out what was wrong? Either way, the murders had to have happened after Sydney fell back a sleep. If the time the dog walker gave was accurate, and by accurate I mean 5 minutes either way, then it is more likely the murders happened, IMO, 11:00 p.m. or later.

If I am reading Kato's testimony correctly, he can't recall if he ever said three thumps or bumps. He only described it as a noise. It wasn't until later the thump-bump description emerged.

What did the DA's base their timeline on? They gave him so many minutes to get Nicole's, so many minutes to kill her and Ron, so many minutes to get rid of the evidence then get back to Rockingham and cleaned up. There simply was not enough time for one person to have committed these crimes.

One man could not have controlled two adults and one dog. One man could not have been watching for the children while killing two adults. One man could not have been his own lookout for people walking their dogs, driving by or whatever.

Sydney and Justin should have been the logical witnesses to start the time line, not a barking dog. IMO.

[GreenIce]

The 1995 defense is that they seem to have contradicted themselves on when the blood in the bronco.
First they said that Fuhrman planted the blood in the Bronco, some accidentaly (foot print), some deliberately (glove).

They also said that at least one person, maybe two, said later that there was no blood on the Bronco. William Blasini testified that he saw no blood in the Bronco on June 21. He knew he wasn't supposed to be looking at it, so he would have been rushed. Also looking at things he had no business looking at shows a lack of integrity.

Does anyone really think that the police would publically cliaim there was blood in the bronco (I think they did) and then wait weeks before actually planting it?

I may be overlooking things here.

Also another point about whether or not Arnelle lied on th stand about which door she let the detectives in. Some NGs said that the detectives could have been lying since they had Arnelle outnumbered 4 to 1. Maybe so, I iknow detectives and other people lie. But

Kato backed up the detectives on this one. I can think of two reasons why the detectives wouldn't have tried to get Kato in on a conspiricy. First of all, Kato lived with Orenthal, so they would be afraid he might blow the whistle on them. Secondly Kato looked and acked like a flake, an erratic person to some people. Originally at least one of the detectives thought he might have been on drugs. Also detectives are often conservative people who would distrust a man with long shaggy hair.

2fgump,

The point is, he is one of at least three witnesses who said they did not see blood in the bronco on the same location that the LAPD later testified they took blood samples form on Sept 1,--I think that was the date.

The Bronco was impounded, the security of vehicle was the job the LAPD. The fact that the Bronco was left open is very telling.

I have no clue why people are drawn to places or situations I would call morbid. In fact, I still don't get the people who chopped of parts of Bonnie and Clyde when they were mowed down nor do I get people who dipped their hanky's in John Dillinger's blood. Some people just do some very, very bizzare stuff. How many paintings has Mason sold while he was in prison?

There is no proof that Arnelle lied about anything, but there is proof that the 4 lead detectives lied. However, other witnesses have been given a lot of leeway because of the circumstances they were asked to recall. If Kato, Alan Park are given this leeway, then so should Arnelle.

However, it doesn't matter what door they went in, the only thing that matters is what they learned from Arnelle inside the home as well as never looking for a perp or another victim. Just checking her bedroom just doesn't cut it. Not looking for a dead or injuried Simpson doesn't cut it. IMO.

The defense never claimed the bloody shoe print in the Bronco was planted. They theory was it was left there by accident by a police officer. Where some blood was found, like the wisps that could not be seen unless thedoor ws open, which MF saw, is perfectly consistent with Simpson's saying he was bleeding or was cut while getting his cell phone from the Bronco.

The amount of the blood in the Bronco and where the blood wasn't found in the Bronco is consistent with the glove being wiped in it on purpose. There is no other explaintion for it. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Three detectives investigated and testified that no one jumped the fence,There was no evidence found that oj specifically was in the path.
So it seems your clain is based on he must have, i think he was or maby he was.

Martin,

The bottom line with the glove is that a noise, a loud noise could in fact cause many objects to move, to include a picture hanging on the wall. But there is no way a loud noise could cause a glove to drop out of mid air or make it hop a fence or just some rise out of the vegitiation. It is just impossible.

Did you know that Greg Matheson also did a "Nurse" in this case? He too made the wrong estimate on how much of Simpson's blood was in a vial. I am pretty sure he even the amount down, like Colin Y. Be very interesting to know when he realized he was wrong as well.

Also, Fung, Matheson, Kestler and Colin Y never saw blood on the sock. And if I am reading the testimony right, there were no fibers ever found on the socks until the blood was found on them. Or maybe it just wasn't one of the socks?

But if those fibers were so precious, I wonder why this was never hightlighted? If it was, I missed it.

[martin II]

Exactly. The not guilty supporters keep saying that the prosecution timeline is wrong -- so what's wrong with the plaintiff's timeline in the civil trial? If you don't agree with it then you don't agree with the magnificent defense timeline in the criminal trial.

i don't know the details of the plaintiffs civil timeline.So i cannot compare it to the criminal trial.

[martin II]

I agree -- that was an extreme act on the part of a child toward his father. Slamming doors and stomping feet I can see but destroying a statue with a baseball bat tells me something was very wrong between father and son. For all accounts I have read Jason is a kind and gentle person.

Jason and the statue was long ago and understandable. Jason had some serious medical issues that casused him to act out in some very negative ways.They are outlined in details in William Dears book.

[GreenIce]

i don't know the details of the plaintiffs civil timeline.So i cannot compare it to the criminal trial.

Martin,

The plaintiff's basically adopted the defense's timeline. I think this was brilliant on Petrocelli's part. I just read a list of witnesses for civil trial and it is very interesting. Petrocelli turned the some of the defense witnesses into their own while the defense took many of the state's witnesses as their own.

What I do think it is interesting is that Petrocelli obviously does believe Simpson had help.

I don't think the civil trial introduced any "new evidence". IMO, if it was wasn't used in the criminal trial, it was because it did not meet the evidence requirements.

I am not impressed with the photos because I simply do not believe the peopole who testified about them. And, with today's equipment, it can be impossible to tell a "fake" photo from a real one.

[martin II]

martin, if you think weezer is out of line for disagreeing with the last hateful comment made about me by GreenIce then I'll just assume that you agree with it. Have a lovely time in Montreal and I won't trouble you with my lack of character when you return. :seeya:

i have not said there was a lack of character on your part or GI as that would not be correct.i know where the lack is but will not comment on it.:cool:

[bobaugust]

please post what physical evidence to prove your claim. the glove is not enough as that could have been placed there by any number of people.

The evidence has been posted many times. The evidence in this case is that Park first saw both Kaelin and then Simpson for the first time that night almost simultaneously at the front of the house about three minutes after Kaelin heard the noises. Kaelin testified that he believed the noises and vibrations he felt on his back wall were caused by someone behind his room. There were only three people on Simpson’s estate at that time; Kaelin, Simpson, and Allan Park. The only one who could have made those noises was Simpson.

After hearing the noises Kaelin left his room and made his way around the north side of the house and after causing the noises Simpson made his way around the south side of the house. It took both Kaelin and Simpson the same amount of time to make it around the house to the front of the house each going their own way.

The killer’s right hand glove was found on the south path right behind the back wall of Kaelin’s room where Kaelin said the noises occurred. Blood and fiber evidence later found on that glove all pointed only to Simpson as the person who handled the glove.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

i don't think so.See how Clarke moved Kato to say 10:45

Clark summarized the evidence in her closing argument. September 26, 1995

“Kato said that he hung up from his call with Rachel pretty quickly after he heard the thumping. He estimated for you two to three minutes. Now, with Allan's cell phone call bill we can be very, very precise when that was. He indicated that he went out to investigate the noises, hung up with Rachel, went out to investigate two to three minutes after he heard the thumping. And he hung up thirty seconds after seeing him walk in the house and after seeing Kato on the side yard, so at 10:54 Kato was out in the side yard. Hearing the thumping noises two to three minutes before, that means that he heard the thumping on his wall at 10:51 to 10:52.”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Please refer to Williams count back.He did a outstanding job.

William Anthony created an imaginary scenario that is incorrect and wrong, contradicted by both Park and Kaelin’s testimony. It seems the only one who actually thinks it has any credibility is you Martin. Maybe that’s because you helped him create it, right?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Sydney Simpson knew where her father was and when he left. The blacked out telephone records of the police's cell phones and also common sense. It is clear that when they went to Rockingham they knew that Simpson was not home. Their actions do not add up---even if they thought he was injured and needed medical help.

GreenIce, what evidence do you know of that tells you Sydney knew where her father was and when he left? The blacked out records of the police cell phones? Where did you get that information from and even if true how do you know what information was conveyed and to who?

The detectives entered Simpson’s estate based on several concerns one being information they received from Westec, Simpson’s home security company, that a live in housekeeper should have been in the house yet no one was answering the gate bell or the telephone.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Martin,

The plaintiff's basically adopted the defense's timeline. I think this was brilliant on Petrocelli's part. I just read a list of witnesses for civil trial and it is very interesting. Petrocelli turned the some of the defense witnesses into their own while the defense took many of the state's witnesses as their own.

What I do think it is interesting is that Petrocelli obviously does believe Simpson had help.

I don't think the civil trial introduced any "new evidence". IMO, if it was wasn't used in the criminal trial, it was because it did not meet the evidence requirements.

I am not impressed with the photos because I simply do not believe the peopole who testified about them. And, with today's equipment, it can be impossible to tell a "fake" photo from a real one.


GI
Wagner wrote a lot about Petrocellis GOOFY IDEA and it relates to how Petro tried to interject the idea that oj jumped the fence by climbing on top of the sallingers garage to get to his property.This was proven to be impossible.
If he used this idea then his timeline was not the SAME as the defence criminal trial timeline. i can post wagner if anyone needs it.

i agree with your comment about the photos.

[GreenIce]

Jason and the statue was long ago and understandable. Jason had some serious medical issues that casused him to act out in some very negative ways.They are outlined in details in William Dears book.

Martin,

I read the book and it was very interesting. However, I don't think Jason's actions are all that different from any child of famous person, it doesn't matter if their parent is male or female nor does the profession really matter.

I think Simpson's treatment of their mother is a pain that will never go away. As much as they may have loved Nicole, I find it very difficult they could forget how pain Nicole brought their mother, especially when they were younger.

Also, Jason was sent to live with his father because his mother couldn't handle him---again, I can't imagine any child being sent to live with one parent because of their behavior made them unwelcomed in a parent's home, has got to hurt.

IMO, for so long in our country, when a child was behaving in a manner that was unacceptable, the cure all was a good kick in the butt and that will solve matters. From some kids it does work, however, if the kid does have legimate issues to do heath, there is not enough kick in the butts that is ever going to fix it.

The above comments are just about Jason and his father.

However, his other behavior toward authority figures that we all have in life, he does have serious issues. I always found it interesting that Simpson hired a lawyer for Jason before he hired one for himself, even knowing he was the prime suspect. Because of this, I do not believe Simpson would have covered or taken the blame for him. I do think he thought that perhaps Jason might have something to do with but he became convinced that he had nothing to do with it.

While I believe Jason at times hate his father, I don't think he would have left evidence to point it at his father.

Another point to consider, IMO, many times when we make choices for our children they can only find resentment or don't understand all the reasons behind it---and they never will until they become partents themselves. IMO.

[martin II]

GreenIce, what evidence do you know of that tells you Sydney knew where her father was and when he left? The blacked out records of the police cell phones? Where did you get that information from and even if true how do you know what information was conveyed and to who?

The detectives entered Simpson’s estate based on several concerns one being information they received from Westec, Simpson’s home security company, that a live in housekeeper should have been in the house yet no one was answering the gate bell or the telephone.

bobaugust


When the detectives collected Arnell and Kato in the kitchen did they search all the rooms for injured or dead people? i don't think so.

[GreenIce]

GI
Wagner wrote a lot about Petrocellis GOOFY IDEA and it relates to how Petro tried to interject the idea that oj jumped the fence by climbing on top of the sallingers garage to get to his property.This was proven to be impossible.
If he used this idea then his timeline was not the SAME as the defence criminal trial timeline. i can post wagner if anyone needs it.

i agree with your comment about the photos.

Martin,

IMO, Petrocelli's "goofy idea" is evidence that he had no clue how the glove go back there anymore then the defense or the DA's. However, the DA's never attempted to explain it and Petrocelli knew he had to come up with some other way he could have gotten back there without leaving any trace evidence.

I didn't follow the civil trial but didn't Petrocelli stipulate several points on the timeline--and IMO, he did it to avoid an on site visit to Bundy. Petrocelli was not going to give the defense anything to work with.

[martin II]

Martin,

I read the book and it was very interesting. However, I don't think Jason's actions are all that different from any child of famous person, it doesn't matter if their parent is male or female nor does the profession really matter.

I think Simpson's treatment of their mother is a pain that will never go away. As much as they may have loved Nicole, I find it very difficult they could forget how pain Nicole brought their mother, especially when they were younger.

Also, Jason was sent to live with his father because his mother couldn't handle him---again, I can't imagine any child being sent to live with one parent because of their behavior made them unwelcomed in a parent's home, has got to hurt.

IMO, for so long in our country, when a child was behaving in a manner that was unacceptable, the cure all was a good kick in the butt and that will solve matters. From some kids it does work, however, if the kid does have legimate issues to do heath, there is not enough kick in the butts that is ever going to fix it.

The above comments are just about Jason and his father.

However, his other behavior toward authority figures that we all have in life, he does have serious issues. I always found it interesting that Simpson hired a lawyer for Jason before he hired one for himself, even knowing he was the prime suspect. Because of this, I do not believe Simpson would have covered or taken the blame for him. I do think he thought that perhaps Jason might have something to do with but he became convinced that he had nothing to do with it.

While I believe Jason at times hate his father, I don't think he would have left evidence to point it at his father.

Another point to consider, IMO, many times when we make choices for our children they can only find resentment or don't understand all the reasons behind it---and they never will until they become partents themselves. IMO.

Mr Dear collected all of Jasons medical records and if true Jason had some serious problems whenever he got off his meds. But since the murders he seemed to be ok. He is a chef in a Miami restutant and i assume is living a healthy life style.Children of celebrities always have it a little harder.

I always found it interesting that Arnell and Jason accepted Nicole after the way she destroyed their mothers like with oj playing that other womans role.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, Petrocelli's "goofy idea" is evidence that he had no clue how the glove go back there anymore then the defense or the DA's. However, the DA's never attempted to explain it and Petrocelli knew he had to come up with some other way he could have gotten back there without leaving any trace evidence.

I didn't follow the civil trial but didn't Petrocelli stipulate several points on the timeline--and IMO, he did it to avoid an on site visit to Bundy. Petrocelli was not going to give the defense anything to work with.

I agree.Petro had no solution as to how the glove got back there and that is why HE tossed out silly ideas hoping the jury would just accept one of them on their own and not require proof.
Personally i believe someone jumped the wall as Furhman did, walked to the second gate and just tossed the glove to where it was found this is why there was no blood, footprints or distrubed ground leaves found.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, what evidence do you know of that tells you Sydney knew where her father was and when he left? The blacked out records of the police cell phones? Where did you get that information from and even if true how do you know what information was conveyed and to who?

The detectives entered Simpson’s estate based on several concerns one being information they received from Westec, Simpson’s home security company, that a live in housekeeper should have been in the house yet no one was answering the gate bell or the telephone.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Simpson called Sydney that night, before she went to bed and before he left town. Mr. Simpson was always on the road for his jobs--why would he not tell his children when he was going out of town, where he was going and when he would back? In fact, if you do believe that Simpson planned these murders, then of course he would tell Sydney not only where he was going but what time he was leaving. The blackend out entries of the cell phones came out in the criminal trial.

I don't remember which book but one of them claims that Phillips and MF called the police station for them to find out where their father was.

Sydney did talk the police that night, I don't know if was ever made into a statement or not but she did tell that her parents were at her recital that night. Which means Simpson did see Nicole 24 hours before her death.

She was observed several times calling her mother's home, don't you find odd that according what has been reported, she never tried to call her father to come and get her? She told the police about her mother fighting and crying. However, the more I think of this, we don't know if was one or two phones and if both of these phone calls were only from Faye.

I don't remember if the two officers who were in charge of the kids ever testified in the trials.

If they were concerned about any victims on the inside, they would have entered Simpson's home long before they went to the area where Kato and Arnelle were. They would have broke down the front door.

They let Arnelle enter the house first. Arnelle only showed them were the maid's room and they left it at that. They did not search the house for Simpson. There is no rule that if the maid was a victim, she has to die in her own bedroom.

While Simpson was supposed to be Chicago, "supposed" however, does not mean that Simpson did not kill himself after he realized what he did and the evidence he knew he left behind.

It makes no sense MF would go to the Bronco in the first place.

Also, at that time, they had no way of knowing if the maid was involved in the clean up process. What if she was "cleaning up".

BTW, the fact that the maid was suppose to be there and was not, doesn't mean she did not have anything to do with the murders. IMO. Of course I don't think she had anything to do with it but the cops couldn't know that then. IMO.

[martin II]

William Anthony created an imaginary scenario that is incorrect and wrong, contradicted by both Park and Kaelin’s testimony. It seems the only one who actually thinks it has any credibility is you Martin. Maybe that’s because you helped him create it, right?

bobaugust

KATO WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK that is testimony that you have tried to ignore or twist to save your argument but it will not go away.imo

[GreenIce]

I agree.Petro had no solution as to how the glove got back there and that is why HE tossed out silly ideas hoping the jury would just accept one of them on their own and not require proof.
Personally i believe someone jumped the wall as Furhman did, walked to the second gate and just tossed the glove to where it was found this is why there was no blood, footprints or distrubed ground leaves found.

Martin,

IMO, there is only evidence to support that the glove was placed there on purpose. Had the glove been tossed or dropped, leaves would have been distrubed, something would have landed on the glove.

You know, I just thought about this--if that glove was left there over night, then how can be that not one single leaf was blown on to it? With it being wet with blood, you would think something would have stuck to it.

Were blue black fibers found on the Rockingham glove?

Anther thing I just though of, what about pictures of the alley? I mean I have seen a couple of the glove and I think the fence, but what about walk way? Don't you think it would have photograph---perhaps looking at the debris for trace evidence?

[martin II]

Clark summarized the evidence in her closing argument. September 26, 1995

“Kato said that he hung up from his call with Rachel pretty quickly after he heard the thumping. He estimated for you two to three minutes. Now, with Allan's cell phone call bill we can be very, very precise when that was. He indicated that he went out to investigate the noises, hung up with Rachel, went out to investigate two to three minutes after he heard the thumping. And he hung up thirty seconds after seeing him walk in the house and after seeing Kato on the side yard, so at 10:54 Kato was out in the side yard. Hearing the thumping noises two to three minutes before, that means that he heard the thumping on his wall at 10:51 to 10:52.”

bobaugust


When Park said SOMEONE HOME who did he see to tell him this OJ or Kato.

[GreenIce]

Mr Dear collected all of Jasons medical records and if true Jason had some serious problems whenever he got off his meds. But since the murders he seemed to be ok. He is a chef in a Miami restutant and i assume is living a healthy life style.Children of celebrities always have it a little harder.

I always found it interesting that Arnell and Jason accepted Nicole after the way she destroyed their mothers like with oj playing that other womans role.

Martin,

I would like to believe that our children would accept the person we fell in love with after a divorce or the death of the spouse. That they would want us to be happy and that when we saw them with that person, you can't help but notice.

Also, it is possible, they may have agreed or come to realize that their mother would be better off without their father. I can't be easy to know your mother is crying over other women as well as knowing that their father was never going to stop cheating. Maybe they believed that mother could find love again.

While I am sure their mother was very, very hurt by what happened, that does not mean Simpson destroyed her life.

Also, we don't how long it took for Arnelle and Jason to accept Nicole. There wasn't a huge difference. Perhaps they saw Nicole more as their big sister rather then a step mother.

[GreenIce]

KATO WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK that is testimony that you have tried to ignore or twist to save your argument but it will not go away.imo

Martin,

Didn't Kato give a different time in the civil trial or that he was never sure about the time when he talked to the DA's?

[GreenIce]

Mr. August,


Why would the police not talk to Sydney to find out where her father was? I would assume that the police suspected that Simpson was going to use his trip as an alibi. Sydney only could help their case, not hurt it. IMO.

If Simpson is guilty then that glove should have been there at 2:00 a.m.

Sydney and Justin's comments alone would have justified a search of Rockingham.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, there is only evidence to support that the glove was placed there on purpose. Had the glove been tossed or dropped, leaves would have been distrubed, something would have landed on the glove.

You know, I just thought about this--if that glove was left there over night, then how can be that not one single leaf was blown on to it? With it being wet with blood, you would think something would have stuck to it.

Were blue black fibers found on the Rockingham glove?

Anther thing I just though of, what about pictures of the alley? I mean I have seen a couple of the glove and I think the fence, but what about walk way? Don't you think it would have photograph---perhaps looking at the debris for trace evidence?


i have pictures of the glove, they must have been taken after furhman was back there and saw the glove.Wagner posted them also.In the pictures there a lot of fallen leaves and the glove on top.No sign of distrubed leaves on the walkway and the growth on that fence is very high and thick. no one pushed themselves through that growth and no blood was found in the pathway eventhough the DA said oj was bleeding all over the place.
No one entered or left by the s east part of the path because those conditions were worse than the s west end of the pathway.

[martin II]

Mr. August,


Why would the police not talk to Sydney to find out where her father was? I would assume that the police suspected that Simpson was going to use his trip as an alibi. Sydney only could help their case, not hurt it. IMO.

If Simpson is guilty then that glove should have been there at 2:00 a.m.

Sydney and Justin's comments alone would have justified a search of Rockingham.

if simpson is guilty the glove would have been at Rockingham at about 10;45
and the blood should have been dry by the time furhman saw it the next morning.

[GreenIce]

i have pictures of the glove, they must have been taken after furhman was back there and saw the glove.Wagner posted them also.In the pictures there a lot of fallen leaves and the glove on top.No sign of distrubed leaves on the walkway and the growth on that fence is very high and thick. no one pushed themselves through that growth and no blood was found in the pathway eventhough the DA said oj was bleeding all over the place.
No one entered or left by the s east part of the path because those conditions were worse than the s west end of the pathway.

Martin,

I don't think my question was clear. Did the detectives leave footprints when they went to where the glove was found? If MF left footprints when he was back there, then so should have the person who was supposed to have dropped the glove there. IMO.

Also, the pictures, again, no close ups of it? Just distance shots of the area?

It so doesn't ring true that MF said he was not looking for any evidence of that time and I don't think the other detectives looked either. Isn't it their job to find evidence that confirms their theory?

[martin II]

Martin,

Didn't Kato give a different time in the civil trial or that he was never sure about the time when he talked to the DA's?

Kato established his time at 10;45 and so did his girl friend.At different times the plaintiff used trick questions to manipulate the time but Clarke actually manipulated her questions to him to get him to say 10;45.

[GreenIce]

if simpson is guilty the glove would have been at Rockingham at about 10;45
and the blood should have been dry by the time furhman saw it the next morning.

Martin,

I agree, but some debris should have been found on the top of the glove. There should have been some blood spatter on the leaves. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Kato established his time at 10;45 and so did his girl friend.At different times the plaintiff used trick questions to manipulate the time but Clarke actually manipulated her questions to him to get him to say 10;45.

Martin,

I know that--what I am talking about is Kato's change of time for the civil trial. I believe he later said it was 10:50--I think.

BTW, I still think what Kato told OJ when he saw him is very telling clue but no one seems to pick up on it. Kato told Simpson about what he heard---Simpson only went to help him find a flashlight. He showed no emtion when Kato told him about the noise.

[martin II]

Martin,

I don't think my question was clear. Did the detectives leave footprints when they went to where the glove was found? If MF left footprints when he was back there, then so should have the person who was supposed to have dropped the glove there. IMO.

Also, the pictures, again, no close ups of it? Just distance shots of the area?

It so doesn't ring true that MF said he was not looking for any evidence of that time and I don't think the other detectives looked either. Isn't it their job to find evidence that confirms their theory?

Furhman identified the item as a glove so he must have stood right over the glove and was careful of how he walked.same is true for Vanhatter when he went back there. in the opicture i have it was close up but the glove appeared as a black blotch.
i will post it later today.

[GreenIce]

Furhman identified the item as a glove so he must have stood right over the glove and was careful of how he walked.same is true for Vanhatter when he went back there. in the opicture i have it was close up but the glove appeared as a black blotch.
i will post it later today.

Martin,

If MF planted that glove, then he would not have careful how he walked, IMO.

However, if you are right and the was careful, as well as the other, then they were knew there could have been trace evidence they were distrubing, hence, they were looking for this evidence---hence they got in another lie. IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree, but some debris should have been found on the top of the glove. There should have been some blood spatter on the leaves. IMO.

if some was back there and dropped the glove they would have had to walk on the leaves. Clark actually said oj was running out of the pathway in the pitch dark.THERE WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE DISTRUBED LEAVES BUT there were none.So no one was walking or running back there imo

[GreenIce]

if some was back there and dropped the glove they would have had to walk on the leaves. Clark actually said oj was running out of the pathway in the pitch dark.THERE WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE DISTRUBED LEAVES BUT there were none.So no one was walking or running back there imo

Martin,

Not only did Clark say that he was running back there, but also slammed in to the AC unit--3 times. Like the first time wasn't enough to know he couldn't run through it? However, she only said this in her closing statements.

[martin II]

Martin,

If MF planted that glove, then he would not have careful how he walked, IMO.

However, if you are right and the was careful, as well as the other, then they were knew there could have been trace evidence they were distrubing, hence, they were looking for this evidence---hence they got in another lie. IMO.

Furhman saw the glove first. i don't know how close he got to it but when Vanhatter joined him they must have gotten very close.Maby they walked slowly and did not distrube the leaves. Actually they should have waited for the photographer before getting right on the glove.But when Furhman FOUND the glove everyone sems to have gone nuts. Running back and forth to confirm what it was etc.

We know furhman was at the glove twice and Vanhatter once.I don't know if the picture was talken before Fung collected it or not. I don't know if they looked for blood during their first trips to the glove or not. But the photo shows the glove on top of leaves and no distrubed leaves that i could see.

[GreenIce]

Clark summarized the evidence in her closing argument. September 26, 1995

“Kato said that he hung up from his call with Rachel pretty quickly after he heard the thumping. He estimated for you two to three minutes. Now, with Allan's cell phone call bill we can be very, very precise when that was. He indicated that he went out to investigate the noises, hung up with Rachel, went out to investigate two to three minutes after he heard the thumping. And he hung up thirty seconds after seeing him walk in the house and after seeing Kato on the side yard, so at 10:54 Kato was out in the side yard. Hearing the thumping noises two to three minutes before, that means that he heard the thumping on his wall at 10:51 to 10:52.”

bobaugust

Mr. August,

It is a well known fact that both Darden and Clark threw out their timelines in their closing arguments. They spend so much of their case trying to discredit the defense's timeline withness during the actual trial but adjusted their timeline in their closing arguments.

It is also a well know fact, closing arguements are not consider evidence. Clark could have said any time she wanted in them, however, the jurors could only consider the time that Kato testified to.

[GreenIce]

Furhman saw the glove first. i don't know how close he got to it but when Vanhatter joined him they must have gotten very close.Maby they walked slowly and did not distrube the leaves. Actually they should have waited for the photographer before getting right on the glove.But when Furhman FOUND the glove everyone sems to have gone nuts. Running back and forth to confirm what it was etc.

We know furhman was at the glove twice and Vanhatter once.I don't know if the picture was talken before Fung collected it or not. I don't know if they looked for blood during their first trips to the glove or not. But the photo shows the glove on top of leaves and no distrubed leaves that i could see.

Martin,

MF was back there more then twice. He was back there at least 4 times. Didn't the testify that he took one detective at a time back there? IMO, MF was sent on a useless mission so VA and TL could see how the glove got back there.

Also, MF says he did not tell VA about the noise. VA says he did.

MF knew that even if the detectives did think he planted the glove--they couldn't prove it. However, I think some of the comments made by VA does support this. There was a reason why MF was not mentioned to be who found the glove or why he was back there in the first place.

[GreenIce]

Martin,

I just read one of your posts and I am sorry for putting you on the spot with another poster. I have my own opinions about certain posters but I did not think they would use your lack of response/defense would be used against you. Again, I am sorry.

[tv]

if some was back there and dropped the glove they would have had to walk on the leaves. Clark actually said oj was running out of the pathway in the pitch dark.THERE WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE DISTRUBED LEAVES BUT there were none.So no one was walking or running back there imo

This is interesting. Everyone says that Marcia Clark said the thumps were heard by Kato at 10:45 but this is from her closing --

" He said the man that looked like the Defendant. You understand I'm talking about what we know based on all of the evidence, that it was him. 10:54 he saw Kato approximately, because it was at the same time he saw the Defendant. And he hung up thirty seconds after seeing him walk in the house and after seeing Kato on the side yard, so at 10:54 Kato was out in the side yard. Hearing the thumping noises two to three minutes before, that means that he heard the thumping on his wall at 10:51 to 10:52."

[GreenIce]

Martin,

IMO, the DA's should have had no problem recreating the noise, the picture move and how someone could have gotten back there without leaving trace evidence.

And Kato did not testify that he thought the noise was from the A/C unit. That was what MF's theory was and the one Clark used in her closing.

[martin II]

http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo22/mc71111/r_glove_small.jpg

[tv]

i don't know the details of the plaintiffs civil timeline.So i cannot compare it to the criminal trial.
It's the same as the criminal defense timeline -- the one that you think is accurate.

[tv]

i have not said there was a lack of character on your part or GI as that would not be correct.i know where the lack is but will not comment on it.:cool:

martin, it doesn't matter to me what you think of GreenIck. I prefer to trust my own instincts when it comes to misfits like her. Sometimes I catch one of her little temper tantrums in a quote. She's mildly irritating but I won't be missing any sleep over her silliness. :)

[martin II]

This is interesting. Everyone says that Marcia Clark said the thumps were heard by Kato at 10:45 but this is from her closing --

" He said the man that looked like the Defendant. You understand I'm talking about what we know based on all of the evidence, that it was him. 10:54 he saw Kato approximately, because it was at the same time he saw the Defendant. And he hung up thirty seconds after seeing him walk in the house and after seeing Kato on the side yard, so at 10:54 Kato was out in the side yard. Hearing the thumping noises two to three minutes before, that means that he heard the thumping on his wall at 10:51 to 10:52."

Well see her questioning of Kato on when he heard the noise.i will look for it if you don't have time.

[tv]

Well see her questioning of Kato on when he heard the noise.i will look for it if you don't have time.IIRC, Kato ESTIMATED the time because he wasn't looking at the clock. If you back up from Park speaking to his boss on the phone it's 10:51 or 10:52. the phone records don't lie.

[martin II]

It's the same as the criminal defense timeline -- the one that you think is accurate.

tv
it could not be the exact same as petro offered the idea that oj jumped the fence from going around the sallingers property.

[martin II]

IIRC, Kato ESTIMATED the time because he wasn't looking at the clock. If you back up from Park speaking to his boss on the phone it's 10:51 or 10:52. the phone records don't lie.

Dale did not testify to who park was talking about when he said someone home kato or oj but i think it was oj as dale said ok take him to the airport
and park did not say no i mean the white guy is home.Later park testified he saw kato first but there is no proof of that.

[tv]

Dale did not testify to who park was talking about when he said someone home kato or oj but i think it was oj as dale said ok take him to the airport
and park did not say no i mean the white guy is home.Later park testified he saw kato first but there is no proof of that.

martin, if Park says he saw Kato first there's no reason to doubt him. He had no reason to lie.

[martin II]

martin, it doesn't matter to me what you think of GreenIck. I prefer to trust my own instincts when it comes to misfits like her. Sometimes I catch one of her little temper tantrums in a quote. She's mildly irritating but I won't be missing any sleep over her silliness. :)

I was not involved in the GI post to you. another poster tried to drag me into it by posting nonsense and putting my name in it. Now you are posting to me about it using my nic.

leave me out of it as i didn't think it was important to me then or now.

[tv]

tv
it could not be the exact same as petro offered the idea that oj jumped the fence from going around the sallingers property.

The details may be different but the timing of events is the same.

[tv]

I was not involved in the GI post to you. another poster tried to drag me into it by posting nonsense and putting my name in it. Now you are posting to me about it using my nic.

leave me out of it as i didn't think it was important to me then or now.

GreenIck posted to you using your nic and said some very unkind things about me. I have a good idea -- don't post to me at all. Now she's accomplished what she set out to do so we can all be happy. :)

[martin II]

GreenIck posted to you using your nic and said some very unkind things about me. I have a good idea -- don't post to me at all. Now she's accomplished what she set out to do so we can all be happy. :)

i am going to post to you about the case not about personal stuff unless you request that i don't.

[martin II]

The details may be different but the timing of events is the same.

it would take more time to jump the fence than to walk from the rockingham gate.

the defence said oj was in his house.timeline was a prosecution issue. the defence only said the da was wrong.

[GreenIce]

it would take more time to jump the fence than to walk from the rockingham gate.

the defence said oj was in his house.timeline was a prosecution issue. the defence only said the da was wrong.

Martin,

This was another flaw in the DA's case. Why did they insist that it had to be Simpson coming back from the murders and entering his house through the front door? Does that make sense to you?

Wouldn't it have made more sense that of course Park saw Simpson coming out of his house because he set all this up before leaving to go to Bundy? That he knew the limo driver came early? Of course he would be inside the house, he wanted to give that impression.

The problem is they insisted on using the blood drop on the Bronco to justify the search. Had they conceded that the blood trail that lead from the Bronco to the front door was consistent with Simpson's story. However, how does explain the smear on the console?

For some reason Clark felt she had to hit a homerun with every piece of evidence and argued over details that really didn't matter. Simpson bleeding on his own property is not a crime nor does it mean he committed one. IMO.

[William Anthony]

Running or walking briskly (as Kaelin later testified to) should help you understand how short a time Kaelin was gone after Park last saw him on the Ashford path. Park thought that Kaelin stopped before he got to the driveway and that’s when Park then saw Simpson walk up and enter his house. Could Kaelin have simply slowed down or even paused when he got to the driveway? Of course, but Park perceived it as stopping. The important fact is that was the last time Park was aware of Kaelin until Kaelin opened the gate a couple of minutes later when he returned to the gate control box from going behind the garage.

Kaelin consistently testified when he returned from the garage he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. He never said he went back to the Ashford path. He never said he stopped and stood around for about two minutes. Your claim that he did is incorrect and you are wrong.

I explained to you before that “up” or “down” is a relative term based on how you look at the diagram. Where Kaelin was walking from and going to is what is important. Look at the diagram; North is at the top like most maps so Kaelin was walking up the driveway when he went from the garage to the gate control box.

bobaugust

Park said he saw Kato "walking". Kato said he was running in the first testimony he gave after the night. I have posted the testimony where it says Kato walked back toward the Ashford gate, not gate box. You want to say what Park thought. I know what the testimony says, Kato was still standing there. Piecing together all the evidence and testimony on the issue, the reasonable inference can be drawn that Park saw Kato still standing there after Kato had ran down to do his first cursory search and returned to the Ashoford Pathway area. I do not have to be right or prove you wrong because of the concept of reasonable doubt and the jury instructions. Post the testimony where Kato claimed to walk "directly" to the gate box as you claimed.

[martin II]

Martin,

I just read one of your posts and I am sorry for putting you on the spot with another poster. I have my own opinions about certain posters but I did not think they would use your lack of response/defense would be used against you. Again, I am sorry.

There are two posters whoes post i don't read.All other posters i read and post to so it is all good. No problem.

[William Anthony]

Park never said that he saw Kaelin standing on the sidewalk just before Kaelin opened the gate. Based on Park’s detailed testimony in the criminal trial it was about 2 minutes between the time he saw Kaelin on the sidewalk to when he saw Kaelin go to the gate control box.

What you can’t seem to understand Martin, is that when Clark asked Park if he noticed where Kaelin was after Simpson entered his house and Park answered from what he remembered Kaelin was still standing on the sidewalk, Park was talking about the exact same time he said when Kaelin got to the driveway he stopped and then Simpson entered the house.

Park perceived Kaelin stopping when Kaelin got to the driveway after seeing him come from behind the house and down the Ashford path. Kaelin said he didn’t stop. Kaelin said he was running or walking briskly down that path. What could very well have happened is that when Kaelin got to the driveway and saw the limo he may very well have slowed down or paused and Park perceived that as stopping. Park’s attention was then immediately diverted to Simpson when he said that almost simultaneously he saw Simpson walk up into the entranceway and enter his house.

The point here is that this all happened in a matter of seconds and when Simpson entered the house Kaelin was in no position to see him. When Park said that after Simpson entered the house and saw lights come on downstairs in the house Park was still on the phone with his boss. Park told Dale someone was here and then proceeded to finish his conversation. Its evident Park wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin when he finished that call since Kaelin said he continued on to the garage yet Park never saw it.

After hanging up the phone Park sat and waited for someone to let him in but no one did. So after a while he got out of the limo and went to the intercom and rang it for the fourth time that night. This time Simpson answered. Since I have no doubt that you are familiar with the diagrams of the Rockingham estate you should be able to understand that if Kaelin was still standing on the sidewalk when Park was at the intercom Kaelin would have been right in front of Park. Park wouldn’t have had to call Simpson he could have simply asked Kaelin to open the gate. But that never happened because Kaelin was no longer there he was already at the garage. Park didn’t know that.

After Park finished speaking with Simpson he went back to the limo and waited some more time until finally he saw Kaelin go the gate control box and open the gate. Once again since you are familiar with the diagram you should know that the gate control box was near some trees on the other side of the driveway from the Ashford sidewalk. Kaelin testified when he came from behind the garage to the driveway he saw the limo was still outside the gate. Park testified he had left his parking lights on and looking at the diagram you should be able to see that Kaelin could have clearly seen the limo as he walked north on the driveway. Kaelin testified he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. Kaelin never said he went back to the Ashford path or even to that side of the driveway. He never said he stopped and stood there. He said he went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

bobaugust

Why did you not give the seconds that Park said he waited instead of "some more time" and the number of seconds that Park talked on the phone after seeing Simpson and Kato?

[William Anthony]

I wasn't referring to specific time estimates as being exactly 10 minutes off. I meant that we can consider the phone call times as being completely accurate (electronically recorded), and the times that people remembered as being up to 10 minutes off in either direction. For example if Kato thought he heard the bumps or thumps at 10:45, we can consider them made between 10:35 and 10:55. Or if Heidestra thought he heard 'hey hey hey' at 10:40, we could consider it being between 10:30 an 10:50.

I could be wrong, but I think that if we do this, the problems with the prosecution time line disappear.

So, if we change the testimony to suit our opinions, then we can make what doesn't fit, fit perfectly, correct?

[martin II]

Why did you not give the seconds that Park said he waited instead of "some more time" and the number of seconds that Park talked on the phone after seeing Simpson and Kato?

Bob does that all the time.

I remember a guy named slick willie.

[GreenIce]

So, if we change the testimony to suit our opinions, then we can make what doesn't fit, fit perfectly, correct?

William,

Marcia Clark makes your argument for you. The fact that she has Kato testify to one time and uses another in her closing statements is proof that both Kato and Park did the best they could when it came to giving he times.

Neither man wore a watch did they?

Remember Bill P. with the Rosa Lopez tape? How he made the mistake of thinking it took 5 minutes to make a cup of tea in the microwave when it really took less then two?

Clark is just make up the time as she is going on.

What the real twist her is the timeline she later adopts, one she knew she was going to change, she still declined to use Jill Schivey or the other driver of the gray nissan.

And people thought Clark had a slam dunk!

[GreenIce]

William,

Don't talented lawyers on both sides often accomplish getting at least two official versions of a witness' testimony? Don't they keep asking the same question, adding their own little twist to get an answer they can later use?

Also, isn't it possible that talented lawyers will use the opposing lawyers admissions to their own advantage?

It seems to me that Kato's testimony weakened and so watered down in the civil trial that his testimony can really be placed in the same bin as the nurse's and a few other's testimony. I mean when it comes right down to it, they no longer really know what they saw, when they saw it, who they saw and at what time they saw it?

[martin II]

martin, if Park says he saw Kato first there's no reason to doubt him. He had no reason to lie.

Unless his mommie and Clarke told him to.
He was so wrong on so many other issues.
He actually said he saw oJ come out of the house to the limo wearing A BLACK OVERCOAT.

[martin II]

William,

Marcia Clark makes your argument for you. The fact that she has Kato testify to one time and uses another in her closing statements is proof that both Kato and Park did the best they could when it came to giving he times.

Neither man wore a watch did they?

Remember Bill P. with the Rosa Lopez tape? How he made the mistake of thinking it took 5 minutes to make a cup of tea in the microwave when it really took less then two?

Clark is just make up the time as she is going on.

What the real twist her is the timeline she later adopts, one she knew she was going to change, she still declined to use Jill Schivey or the other driver of the gray nissan.

And people thought Clark had a slam dunk!

With Kato on the stand Clarke definately manipulated him to say he heard the noist at 10:45. that is for sure.

[GreenIce]

Unless his mommie and Clarke told him to.
He was so wrong on so many other issues.
He actually said he saw oJ come out of the house to the limo wearing A BLACK OVERCOAT.

Martin,

IMO, Park's comment about the black overcoat does support Simpson saying he came out of the house wearing a black bathrobe.

Are the DA's saying that Park saw the figure wearing a dark clothese one minute and then next minute he sess a figure wearing a black overcoat?

[martin II]

William,

Don't talented lawyers on both sides often accomplish getting at least two official versions of a witness' testimony? Don't they keep asking the same question, adding their own little twist to get an answer they can later use?

Also, isn't it possible that talented lawyers will use the opposing lawyers admissions to their own advantage?

It seems to me that Kato's testimony weakened and so watered down in the civil trial that his testimony can really be placed in the same bin as the nurse's and a few other's testimony. I mean when it comes right down to it, they no longer really know what they saw, when they saw it, who they saw and at what time they saw it?

The bags
Kato gave 3-4 different explinations of what bags he loaded into the limo.
Park too.By the time petrocilli prompted Kato the noise had turned to three sounds of a body banging against the wall.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, Park's comment about the black overcoat does support Simpson saying he came out of the house wearing a black bathrobe.

Are the DA's saying that Park saw the figure wearing a dark clothese one minute and then next minute he sess a figure wearing a black overcoat?

When the defence asked Park if the person could have been wearing a black bathrobe he said "could be"

[William Anthony]

The situation is that OJ Simpson is a double murderer who had the money to hire lawyers that were determined to win no matter what it took and who understood their jury. The civil trial was another matter -- without all the nonsense that the defense made up and with Simpson's lying testimony the truth of what happened to Ron and Nicole was clear.

It was not their jury. It was a jury picked by both parties.

[William Anthony]

I also had an outstanding countback which William agreed with at one point until he realized it implicated OJ Simpson and then he backed off.

I have never fell back off of my count of the time line but I did say you were correct, that Park was on his phone at a certain time talking to his mommy and getting his boss' home phone number, which is why he could not have seen Kato walking, which we now see Kato was running from behind the house and on the Ashford pathway. In fact, I thanked you for showing that Kato heard the thumps at 10:45. Thanks.

[William Anthony]

The evidence has been posted many times. The evidence in this case is that Park first saw both Kaelin and then Simpson for the first time that night almost simultaneously at the front of the house about three minutes after Kaelin heard the noises. Kaelin testified that he believed the noises and vibrations he felt on his back wall were caused by someone behind his room. There were only three people on Simpson’s estate at that time; Kaelin, Simpson, and Allan Park. The only one who could have made those noises was Simpson.

After hearing the noises Kaelin left his room and made his way around the north side of the house and after causing the noises Simpson made his way around the south side of the house. It took both Kaelin and Simpson the same amount of time to make it around the house to the front of the house each going their own way.

The killer’s right hand glove was found on the south path right behind the back wall of Kaelin’s room where Kaelin said the noises occurred. Blood and fiber evidence later found on that glove all pointed only to Simpson as the person who handled the glove.

bobaugust

I hope you realize the obvious in your post, which makes it incorrect by your inferences as to what happened. It was the lighting. You have Park seeing Kato and Simpson at nearly the same time and, according to Park, the downstairs lights came on. If that had been the case and Kato proceeded down the driveway toward the garage, he would have noticed the lights on downstairs on his way to the garage.

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

I have been reading the testimony about the three witnesses who testified about not seeing blood in the Bronco. I never realized just how crucial their testimony is. If you read their testimony, there is no way that all 3 of these witness could have been wrong about not seeing blood.

It is clear that each of these witnesses understood what their responsibility was in regards to the evidence that was supposed to be inside of it. In fact, the John M., he knew his company's contract depended on this knowledge. He knew how important it was to safe guard any evidence.

Another important fact, it is obvious that others were inside the Bronco was well and I have no doubt that each of these witnesses would have to have testified that they did not see any blood.

In fact, while they did not testify, there were 3 other guys with Blasini when he clearly testifies tall three were looking for blood in the Bronco. So actually, that makes it 6 people who were willing to go on record saying they saw no blood in the Bronco.