Random Discussions On The Case

[William Anthony]

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

I think that the only persons Ms. Clark fooled with this were people, who wanted to believe that Simpson dropped the glove. The testimonies tell us that it could not have been the time Ms. Clark argued, since by those testimonies Kato had finished his first cursory search when before he went to buzz the limo in as you agreed and the nearly two minutes that you now continue to speak of, which was actually a minute to a minute and a half by the testimonies, were Park saw Kato still standing there was after the search. Ms. Clark left that time off her summation. The jury asked for a read back of Park's testimony and I believe they dissected it and saw the discrepancy.

[William Anthony]

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

Now, now bobaugust, there is no need to make false accusations. Martin did not create the transcripts of the trial nor have we collaborated on what they said. Martin and I have the ability to read for ourselves and reach our own conclusions without having people tell us what we should believe.:)

[William Anthony]

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.

Phone records only indicate the length of a call. They cannot tell if someone was talking the whole time or any of the time or what was said, unless they are being taped.

[William Anthony]

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!

Let's give Ms. Clark credit were credit is due. In her closing, she had to persuade the jury to look at the evidence as she did. She tried, she failed and I give her her just credits.

[William Anthony]

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?

I think Kato's desire for fame, meaning to be seen as someone, who was of the opinion was the murderer, would have been helpful to his career. I think this and the fact of the way he had been treated in the criminal case, wanting to call him a hostile witness, may have aided in some of the apparent changes in his testimonies. I think he would have been more accurate in his testimonies when those events were fresher in his mind.

[GreenIce]

Willilam and Martin,

Have either one of you read MF's prelim testimony? It is very interesting in regards to Westec. I haven't read the other 3's testimony but MF's testimony alone could blow up their alleged knowledge of a maid being there, it also indicates that Westec may have had a key to Simpson's home and this key was brough to the scene.

Again, I have to finishish reading his testimony and the other three.

Also, I can't find any testimony on the Rockingham glove in regards to any tests that were run on it. It appears to me that Marica Clark tells the court they were not going to discuss any evidence that found at Rockingham in regards to any testing.

If this is the case, then there is no way the DA's could prove that the tiny drop of Simpson's blood was there when Detective Fuhrman said he first saw it. Haven't finished it yet.

But also very telling, the DA's were already dealing with evidence items number changing. What a mess!

[William Anthony]

Willilam and Martin,

Have either one of you read MF's prelim testimony? It is very interesting in regards to Westec. I haven't read the other 3's testimony but MF's testimony alone could blow up their alleged knowledge of a maid being there, it also indicates that Westec may have had a key to Simpson's home and this key was brough to the scene.

Again, I have to finishish reading his testimony and the other three.

Also, I can't find any testimony on the Rockingham glove in regards to any tests that were run on it. It appears to me that Marica Clark tells the court they were not going to discuss any evidence that found at Rockingham in regards to any testing.

If this is the case, then there is no way the DA's could prove that the tiny drop of Simpson's blood was there when Detective Fuhrman said he first saw it. Haven't finished it yet.

But also very telling, the DA's were already dealing with evidence items number changing. What a mess!

Please, inform us of what you find? I am posting a portion of Park's grand jury testimony.

[William Anthony]

Park July 21, 1994

Q. WHEN YOU FIRST ARRIVED AT THE HOUSE, WERE THERE
5 ANY LIGHTS ON?
6 A. ONLY ONE UPSTAIRS.
7 Q. NONE DOWNSTAIRS?
8 A. NO.
9 Q. WHEN THE MALE BLACK WALKED INTO THE HOUSE, WHAT
10 HAPPENED NEXT?
11 A. SOME LIGHTS TURNED ON DOWNSTAIRS AND THE MALE
12 WHITE STILL DID NOT LET ME IN.
13 AND I GOT BACK OUT OF THE CAR AND I RANG THE
14 BELL AGAIN AND O.J. ANSWERED THE INTERCOM FROM THERE.
15 Q. YOU ARE SAYING, "O.J."
16 WHO ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
17 ARE YOU REFERRING TO MR. SIMPSON?
18 A. MR. SIMPSON.
19 Q. HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WAS HIS VOICE?
20 A. I JUST CAN TELL FROM JUST HEARING HIM FOR YEARS
21 AND YEARS ON T.V.
22 Q. WHEN YOU SAY, "THE BELL," YOU ARE RINGING "THE
23 BELL," WHERE IS THAT BELL?
24 A. IT'S RIGHT ABOUT HERE.
25 THERE'S A LITTLE INTERCOM.
26 Q. CAN YOU PLEASE CIRCLE THAT POINT ON THE
27 DIAGRAM.
28 A. (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

259

1 MS. CLARK: THE WITNESS HAS PLACED A BLUE CIRCLE AT
2 THE PORTION OF THE GATE WHERE HE INDICATES THE BELL WAS.
3 Q. I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES.
4 THIS IS THE DIAGRAM THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY MARKED,
5 OR PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 2.
6 CAN YOU TELL ME IF YOU RECOGNIZE THE LOCATION
7 DEPICTED THERE.
8 A. YES, I DO.
9 Q. WHAT IS IT?
10 A. WHAT IS WHAT?
11 Q. WHAT IS THAT LOCATION?
12 A. -A?
13 Q. NO.
14 DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE LOCATION?
15 HAVE YOU EVER BEEN THERE?
16 A. YES, I HAVE.
17 Q. OKAY.
18 WHAT LOCATION IS IT?
19 THE FOREPERSON: BE CAREFUL AND SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO
20 THE MICROPHONE, MR. PARK.
21 THEY ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY HEARING YOU.
22 THE WITNESS: I NOTICED IT TO BE 360 ROCKINGHAM LANE.
23 Q. BY MS. CLARK: IS THAT LOCATION YOU WENT TO?
24 A. YES, IT IS.
25 Q. THAT'S WHERE YOU WENT TO PICK UP MR. SIMPSON?
26 A. YES, IT IS.
27 Q. NOW, AFTER YOU SAW THE MALE BLACK ENTER THE
28 HOUSE, THE LIGHTS WENT ON, YOU RANG THE BELL AND YOU HAD A

260

1 CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE.
2 A. YES.
3 Q. YOU RECOGNIZED THAT PERSON WHO ANSWERED THE
4 BELL AS MR. SIMPSON?
5 A. YES, I DID.
6 Q. WHAT DID HE SAY?
7 A. HE SAID, "SORRY. I OVERSLEPT AND I JUST GOT
8 OUT OF THE SHOWER. I WILL BE DOWN IN A MINUTE."
9 Q. NOW, DO YOU SEE THE HEDGE THAT'S SHOWN IN -B,
10 PHOTOGRAPH -B?
11 A. YES, I DO.
12 Q. UNLESS YOU ARE IN FRONT OF THE GATE, IS YOUR
13 VIEW OF THE HOUSE PRETTY MUCH BLOCKED?
14 A. YES, IT IS.
15 Q. PHOTOGRAPH -A, IS THAT THE ASHFORD SIDE GATE
16 THAT YOU WAITED AT WHEN YOU FIRST GOT THERE?
17 A. YES, IT IS.
18 Q. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE MALE WHITE FOR US A LITTLE
19 BIT BETTER.
20 GIVE US A A FURTHER DESCRIPTION OF THE MALE
21 WHITE YOU SPOKE TO.
22 A. LIKE I SAID, HE WAS 5 FOOT 10, 160 POUNDS,
23 BLOND HAIR, SHOULDER-LENGTH, BLUE JEANS, T-SHIRT.
24 THAT'S ABOUT ALL I NOTICED.
25 Q. WAS HE CARRYING ANYTHING?
26 A. HE HAD A FLASHLIGHT.
27 Q. AFTER YOU HAD THE CONVERSATION WITH
28 MR. SIMPSON, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

261

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

[tv]

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

I request that you don't.

[William Anthony]

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."

kato hear the thumps at "10:45" waits two to three minutes and looks for a flashlight and see the limo at 10:50, completes his first cursory search and is seen by Park at 10:54. There is another interesting discrepancy in the testimony.

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.

Park's testimony-March 28th

Q: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT PHONE NUMBER AS YOUR BOSS' HOME PHONE?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: WAS THAT CALL PLACED AT 10:49:07?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU CALLED HIM AT 10:49:07, WAS DALE ST. JOHN AT HOME?

A: NO, HE WASN'T.

Q: DID YOU GET ANY ANSWER?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU GET AN ANSWERING MACHINE OR ANYTHING?

A: NOTHING.

Q: NO ANSWER AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: AFTER YOU CALLED YOUR BOSS AT HOME AND GOT NO ANSWER, WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT?

A: UMM, I STEPPED BACK OUT OF THE CAR AND PROCEEDED TO RING THE BUZZER SOME MORE TIMES, STILL GOT NO ANSWER.

Q: OKAY. HOW MANY MORE TIMES DID YOU RING THE BUZZER AT THAT POINT, SIR?

A: I DON'T KNOW. TWO OR THREE.

Q: TWO OR THREE TIMES?

A: YEAH.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU RANG THE BUZZER AGAIN A COUPLE MORE TIMES AND GOT NO ANSWER, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: THE NEXT THING I REMEMBERED WAS HEARING THE CAR PHONE RING INSIDE THE CAR AND GOT BACK IN AND PICKED UP THE PHONE AND IT WAS DALE ST. JOHN.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DO YOU SEE ON THE PHONE BILL IN FRONT OF YOU, SIR, A CALL AT 10:52 AND 17 SECONDS?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND YOU INDICATED BEFORE YOU DON'T KNOW THE PHONE NUMBER OF YOUR -- WHAT YOUR LIMO WAS?

A: NO, NEVER CALLED IT.

Q: OKAY. BUT YOU SURMISED EARLIER THAT THAT WAS THE NUMBER INDICATED AT THIS PHONE CALL AT 10:52:17?

A: YES.

Q: AND AT 10:52 AND 17 SECONDS IN THE EVENING, SIR, DID YOU SPEAK TO YOUR BOSS IN THE -- ON THE CAR PHONE IN THE STRETCH LIMO?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHEN YOU GOT OUT TO RING THE BUZZER JUST BEFORE YOU GOT THAT CALL, WAS YOUR DRIVER'S DOOR OPENED OR CLOSED?

A: IT WAS OPENED.

Q: AND ON PREVIOUS -- ON THE TWO PREVIOUS OCCASIONS WHEN YOU INDICATED THAT YOU GOT OUT OF THE LIMO TO RING THE BELL, WAS THE DRIVER'S DOOR OPENED OR CLOSED?

A: IT WAS OPENED. I LEFT IT OPENED.

[tv]

kato hear the thumps at "10:45" waits two to three minutes and looks for a flashlight and see the limo at 10:50, completes his first cursory search and is seen by Park at 10:54. There is another interesting discrepancy in the testimony.

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.

Park's testimony-March 28th

Q: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT PHONE NUMBER AS YOUR BOSS' HOME PHONE?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: WAS THAT CALL PLACED AT 10:49:07?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU CALLED HIM AT 10:49:07, WAS DALE ST. JOHN AT HOME?

A: NO, HE WASN'T.

Q: DID YOU GET ANY ANSWER?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU GET AN ANSWERING MACHINE OR ANYTHING?

A: NOTHING.

Q: NO ANSWER AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: AFTER YOU CALLED YOUR BOSS AT HOME AND GOT NO ANSWER, WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT?

A: UMM, I STEPPED BACK OUT OF THE CAR AND PROCEEDED TO RING THE BUZZER SOME MORE TIMES, STILL GOT NO ANSWER.

Q: OKAY. HOW MANY MORE TIMES DID YOU RING THE BUZZER AT THAT POINT, SIR?

A: I DON'T KNOW. TWO OR THREE.

Q: TWO OR THREE TIMES?

A: YEAH.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU RANG THE BUZZER AGAIN A COUPLE MORE TIMES AND GOT NO ANSWER, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?

A: THE NEXT THING I REMEMBERED WAS HEARING THE CAR PHONE RING INSIDE THE CAR AND GOT BACK IN AND PICKED UP THE PHONE AND IT WAS DALE ST. JOHN.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DO YOU SEE ON THE PHONE BILL IN FRONT OF YOU, SIR, A CALL AT 10:52 AND 17 SECONDS?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND YOU INDICATED BEFORE YOU DON'T KNOW THE PHONE NUMBER OF YOUR -- WHAT YOUR LIMO WAS?

A: NO, NEVER CALLED IT.

Q: OKAY. BUT YOU SURMISED EARLIER THAT THAT WAS THE NUMBER INDICATED AT THIS PHONE CALL AT 10:52:17?

A: YES.

Q: AND AT 10:52 AND 17 SECONDS IN THE EVENING, SIR, DID YOU SPEAK TO YOUR BOSS IN THE -- ON THE CAR PHONE IN THE STRETCH LIMO?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHEN YOU GOT OUT TO RING THE BUZZER JUST BEFORE YOU GOT THAT CALL, WAS YOUR DRIVER'S DOOR OPENED OR CLOSED?

A: IT WAS OPENED.

Q: AND ON PREVIOUS -- ON THE TWO PREVIOUS OCCASIONS WHEN YOU INDICATED THAT YOU GOT OUT OF THE LIMO TO RING THE BELL, WAS THE DRIVER'S DOOR OPENED OR CLOSED?

A: IT WAS OPENED. I LEFT IT OPENED.

William, Kato was estimating. The true time is known by counting back from the phone call between Park and his boss.

I guess I'm missing something about the limo door. What is the significance?

[William Anthony]

William, Kato was estimating. The true time is known by counting back from the phone call between Park and his boss.

I guess I'm missing something about the limo door. What is the significance?

Kato testified that he did not see anyone in the limo. If the door to the limo was left open, Kato would have seen Park in the limo. So, IMHO, we can assume that between 10:49 until about 10:52 Park was outside the limo. The inference from that is that Kato was correct in his time estimate of seeing the limo at 10:50 and no one in it, which means that Park did not see Kato when he began his first cursory search as Kato was "running" down the sidewalk and not "walking."

[tv]

Kato testified that he did not see anyone in the limo. If the door to the limo was left open, Kato would have seen Park in the limo. So, IMHO, we can assume that between 10:49 until about 10:52 Park was outside the limo. The inference from that is that Kato was correct in his time estimate of seeing the limo at 10:50 and no one in it, which means that Park did not see Kato when he began his first cursory search as Kato was "running" down the sidewalk and not "walking."

I'm going to have to review the diagram of the estate and the position of the limo before I decide what I think about this. I'll let you know. :)

[William Anthony]

I'm going to have to review the diagram of the estate and the position of the limo before I decide what I think about this. I'll let you know. :)

I am sure you will find something to let me know.:) However, it won't change the facts that the limo door was left open and Kato testified he did not see the driver and no one was in the limo. Park said he was sitting in the limo, when he first saw Kato.

[tv]

I am sure you will find something to let me know.:) However, it won't change the facts that the limo door was left open and Kato testified he did not see the driver and no one was in the limo. Park said he was sitting in the limo, when he first saw Kato.

I'm sure you'll allow me to interpret the evidence myself. Something tells me we're going to disagree but I'll reserve judgement for now. :)

[tv]

I am sure you will find something to let me know.:) However, it won't change the facts that the limo door was left open and Kato testified he did not see the driver and no one was in the limo. Park said he was sitting in the limo, when he first saw Kato.

From the testimony you posted, Kato said he didn't see anyone in the limo, he didn't say no one was in it.

[William Anthony]

I'm sure you'll allow me to interpret the evidence myself. Something tells me we're going to disagree but I'll reserve judgement for now. :)

Oh, I an sure we will disagree and I will be waiting to hear your judgment/interpretation/inferences. :)

[William Anthony]

From the testimony you posted, Kato said he didn't see anyone in the limo, he didn't say no one was in it.

You are correct and I stand corrected. I knew of the dead expert who testified but forgot that the prosecution had an invisible man witness.:)

[tv]

You are correct and I stand corrected. I knew of the dead expert who testified but forgot that the prosecution had an invisible man witness.:)

Not to mention the clairvoyant. :)

[William Anthony]

Not to mention the clairvoyant. :)

Did he work for the prosecution? I thought he just wanted to prove Simpson guilty for the last nearly 15 years.:)

[tv]

Did he work for the prosecution? I thought he just wanted to prove Simpson guilty for the last nearly 15 years.:)

No, my dear. He whispers in the ears of all those who profess to know the unspoken inner thoughts and motivations of others...how else could they know? :)

[William Anthony]

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.

bobaugust

What makes you think that Park was so presumptuous to think he could ask a total stranger to buzz him in to the property of someone else?

[William Anthony]

No, my dear. He whispers in the ears of all those who profess to know the unspoken inner thoughts and motivations of others...how else could they know? :)

Ah, I had not recognized his powers but it seems they should not have listened. :)

[tv]

Ah, I had not recognized his powers but it seems they should not have listened. :)

I agree -- he's a fibber. :)

[tv]

What makes you think that Park was so presumptuous to think he could ask a total stranger to buzz him in to the property of someone else?

Not having a statement from Park my guess would be he may have thought Kato was an employee or resident since he was inside the locked gate.

[William Anthony]

I agree -- he's a fibber. :)

I won't call him that but just say he makes super human errors and mistakes.:)

[fgump2]

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.


What about the blood in the bronco that the defense said MF put there in the early morning after the killings? Did that disappear on its own? I haven't looked at that testimony lately. It seems quite odd that the prosecution would announce that they found blood in it a few days after the killings, that was why they imponded it, and then wait weeks to plant the blood. In his closing speech, summation, JC said that the smudge on the floor came from MF (I think!).

[tv]

I won't call him that but just say he makes super human errors and mistakes.:)

Are you sure we're talking about the same guy? :)

[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.

bobaugust

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

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

If you want to belive that somehow Kato was able to complete his first cursory search in one minute of Park seeing him (I say that because Park testified that Kato stood there for "another minute before proceeding to let him in), then so be it. However, "another minute" implies a previous minute, which accounts for your two minutes.

[William Anthony]

Not having a statement from Park my guess would be he may have thought Kato was an employee or resident since he was inside the locked gate.

Neither of which would have allowed such a presumption of arrogance on Park's part, IMHO, but others may see it differently. :)

[tv]

Neither of which would have allowed such a presumption of arrogance on Park's part, IMHO, but others may see it differently. :)

I see it differently. I know you're shocked. :eek: :)

[William Anthony]

Are you sure we're talking about the same guy? :)

I am not clairvoyant but I do know what guy I am talking about.:)

[tv]

I am not clairvoyant but I do know what guy I am talking about.:)

I know what guy I'm talking about but I think we're talking about different guys...I think it's time for us to change the subject. :)

[William Anthony]

I see it differently. I know you're shocked. :eek: :)

Like a small jolt of static electricity.:)

[William Anthony]

I know what guy I'm talking about but I think we're talking about different guys...I think it's time for us to change the subject. :)

As you would like. :)

[tv]

As you would like. :)
Not as I would like but I don't want to spoil the pleasant atmosphere. :)

[William Anthony]

yet Park never saw it[/B].


bobaugust

That's what we have been saying Park never saw Kato complete his first search, because Park did not see Kato until after Kato completed said search.

[William Anthony]

Not as I would like but I don't want to spoil the pleasant atmosphere. :)

Why because we may have been talking about two different people. I hope that does not spoil the pleasant atmosphere. :)

[William Anthony]

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.

bobaugust

Please, post any testimony that Park said he saw anything other than Kato still standing there in the same location that he saw Kato before Kato proceeded to open the gate after Park saw, who some claim was Simpson?

[fgump2]

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.

The FBI photo expert, Gerald Richards, said that the 1993 pictures of the ugly ass shoes were not faked. The Simpson defense couldn't get an expert to disagree with. My understanding is that there is an arms race between the photo fakers, and the detectors of fake photos. I am pretty sure I read that the detectors have almost always been ahead, and in any case, a 1996 fake should be detected by 2009 technology or earlier.

There was a 1993 Buffalo BIlls newsletter which pictured OJS wearing the ugly ass shoes. This was in the Petrocelli book. It is also true that OJS acted rather flustered and confused (to me) when the photos came into the trial.

[William Anthony]

P




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

Please, post the question where Kato was asked did he stop prior to going to the gate box after he had completed his first search of the garage area?

[tv]

Why because we may have been talking about two different people. I hope that does not spoil the pleasant atmosphere. :) It's still pleasant. :)

[William Anthony]

It's still pleasant. :)

I am glad.:)

[William Anthony]

The FBI photo expert, Gerald Richards, said that the 1993 pictures of the ugly ass shoes were not faked. The Simpson defense couldn't get an expert to disagree with. My understanding is that there is an arms race between the photo fakers, and the detectors of fake photos. I am pretty sure I read that the detectors have almost always been ahead, and in any case, a 1996 fake should be detected by 2009 technology or earlier.

There was a 1993 Buffalo BIlls newsletter which pictured OJS wearing the ugly ass shoes. This was in the Petrocelli book. It is also true that OJS acted rather flustered and confused (to me) when the photos came into the trial.

Fgump2,

There was something in your statement that touched me for some reason when you said I hurt your feelings, which was not my intention. I hope you understand.

[GreenIce]

What about the blood in the bronco that the defense said MF put there in the early morning after the killings? Did that disappear on its own? I haven't looked at that testimony lately. It seems quite odd that the prosecution would announce that they found blood in it a few days after the killings, that was why they imponded it, and then wait weeks to plant the blood. In his closing speech, summation, JC said that the smudge on the floor came from MF (I think!).

fgump,

Any leaks regarding the evidence found in this case had to have come from MF and the LAPD. Except for the detective who testified about this, the others claimed they were so curious about the Bronco because the news media said that there was a lot of blood found inside it.

Besides the 6 people that we know about it not seeing blood in the Bronco, it is also important to know the Bronco was moved at least 3 time once it arrived at the commerical impound facility.

The DA's are not in charge of the case and the the evidence until the police hand it over to them. If there were any leaks from the DA's office, then it came from the LAPD.

MF was the only one who claimed that he saw blood wisps and should have only been able to see them if the door was open. That has never been explained how he was able to see them.

However, IIRC, Simpson did not always lock the Bronco. The Bronco may have been opened, Fuhrman may have realized this and may have opened the door. I don't know if opening an unlocked car by a police officer is illegal without a proper permission.

[William Anthony]

fgump,

Any leaks regarding the evidence found in this case had to have come from MF and the LAPD. Except for the detective who testified about this, the others claimed they were so curious about the Bronco because the news media said that there was a lot of blood found inside it.

Besides the 6 people that we know about it not seeing blood in the Bronco, it is also important to know the Bronco was moved at least 3 time once it arrived at the commerical impound facility.

The DA's are not in charge of the case and the the evidence until the police hand it over to them. If there were any leaks from the DA's office, then it came from the LAPD.

MF was the only one who claimed that he saw blood wisps and should have only been able to see them if the door was open. That has never been explained how he was able to see them.

However, IIRC, Simpson did not always lock the Bronco. The Bronco may have been opened, Fuhrman may have realized this and may have opened the door. I don't know if opening an unlocked car by a police officer is illegal without a proper permission.

An interesting question about permission to search an unlocked vehicle. I believe in this sense it would have been upheld under the concept of exigent circumstances and seeing one drop of blood on the door handle. The point is that since a judge said that Vannatter had a reckless disregard for the truth I think that they were being overly cautious about searching the vehicle but MF had a slip of the tongue and said "in", which alerted the dream team.

[GreenIce]

I think Kato's desire for fame, meaning to be seen as someone, who was of the opinion was the murderer, would have been helpful to his career. I think this and the fact of the way he had been treated in the criminal case, wanting to call him a hostile witness, may have aided in some of the apparent changes in his testimonies. I think he would have been more accurate in his testimonies when those events were fresher in his mind.

William,

While I used this case as example, I really meant as a general question. Isn't it possible that a defense lawyer and a DA can get two different answers from the same witness into the record?

And isn't it a smart move by any lawyer on either side to realize they have "lost" on an issue and they better be very subtle when they accept the other side's theory?

What I do find interesting is that in the past, posts have been made about JC's and Barry's closing arguments, it was very quickly pointed out that closing arguments are not evidence. If the defense is held to this truth then so should be the DA's, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Let's give Ms. Clark credit were credit is due. In her closing, she had to persuade the jury to look at the evidence as she did. She tried, she failed and I give her her just credits.

William,

I always got a kick anyone who said that the defense was asking for jury nullification, when in fact, it was Clark who was asking for that. Wasn't she actually warned by Judge Ito several times about it? Her asking the jury to trust the evidence because she trusted it was the exact same thing JC was accused of?

[William Anthony]

William,

While I used this case as example, I really meant as a general question. Isn't it possible that a defense lawyer and a DA can get two different answers from the same witness into the record?

And isn't it a smart move by any lawyer on either side to realize they have "lost" on an issue and they better be very subtle when they accept the other side's theory?

What I do find interesting is that in the past, posts have been made about JC's and Barry's closing arguments, it was very quickly pointed out that closing arguments are not evidence. If the defense is held to this truth then so should be the DA's, IMO.

It is entirely possible by the way the question is asked, which is why a witness must pay close attention to the question. None of what either party says in argument or statements is evidence. A lawyer must realize that he/she can be mistaken and know how to correct that mistake without losing credibility with the jury, which is what they tried to do with MF, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

William,

I always got a kick anyone who said that the defense was asking for jury nullification, when in fact, it was Clark who was asking for that. Wasn't she actually warned by Judge Ito several times about it? Her asking the jury to trust the evidence because she trusted it was the exact same thing JC was accused of?

Yes, she may try to tell the jury to trust the evidence but in the end they are the ones that determine what evidence is trustworthy and it matters not that she trusted it. She probably still does but the jury didn't.

[GreenIce]

The FBI photo expert, Gerald Richards, said that the 1993 pictures of the ugly ass shoes were not faked. The Simpson defense couldn't get an expert to disagree with. My understanding is that there is an arms race between the photo fakers, and the detectors of fake photos. I am pretty sure I read that the detectors have almost always been ahead, and in any case, a 1996 fake should be detected by 2009 technology or earlier.

There was a 1993 Buffalo BIlls newsletter which pictured OJS wearing the ugly ass shoes. This was in the Petrocelli book. It is also true that OJS acted rather flustered and confused (to me) when the photos came into the trial.

fgump2,

The plaintiff's witness did give his opinon that he did not believe the photos were faked. However, he also went on to say that a fake photo could pass for an original. Even back in 1996 the technology was awesome.

The DA's had several assistants who spent weeks and months trying to find any picture with these shoes. In fact, I think in Darden's book he may have mentioned that they went to Buffalo to review thousands of pictures and came up with zip.

There were several photos given to the DA's with Simpson wearing gloves, but according to them, they never received one photo of Simpson's feet. I find that odd.

The problem with the newsletter is that several other people were in that photo who had first generation photos. Not one of these, to the best of our knowledge was ever given to the DA's. However, it would not surprise me if they did receive one and it was determined that they couldn't prove what type of shoe it was.

MC did not use JS because she "sold" her story. This photo was shopped and sold before it was ever turned over to the plaintiffs' lawyers. Does this prove the photo was fake--not necessairaly, but it does prove that the main interest in this photo was money, yes it does. Again, there is the double stand.

For this person to suddenly remember he took this photo a few months after the criminal trial just doesn't ring true.

Why wouldn't Simpson be flustered about these pictures?

The shoes were ugly assed shoes and that doesn't change no matter who was wearing them:)

[fgump2]

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.
I doubt that there have been millions of serious studies of knife fights, although I may have underestimated the general knowledge about knife fights; but each knife fight is going to be different. I realize that the pathologists can look at wounds and make a good guess at what damage each wound would do, but this isn’t the same as looking at a dead body and trying to estimate how long the fight took.

I don’t think anybody has a video of a knife fight that resembled the one at Bundy that night. To predict what any of the three people would have done is just not possible. It would be more unpredictable at night because the lighting factor could have helped or hurt Orenthal.
I don’t think even a good knife fighter could count killing two people silently and quickly, but for any one time the results would be unpredictable. Some abused women freeze up when they see their abuser. Ron could have frozen up, or initially worked harder at calming Orenthal down than he did at fighting him.

I have been around some serious fights and my experience is that the more serious the fight, the quieter it is. I admit I am not dealing with a large sample size of serious fights.I was around one fight which came close to being fatal. A person could have stood 10 feet away and not realized that there was a serious fight going on. There was noise, but not much. Damage to the throat or lungs can silence a person.

I used to be a boxing fan. I knew back then that some fights that were supposed to be one sided were fairly even for 15 rounds the whole fight and vice versa. I think that knife fights would be just as unpredictable, maybe more so. A lucky stab could change a fight faster than a lucky punch. .I remember that Mike Tyson was supposed to easily beat Evander Hollyfield. It was an easy win – for Hollyfield.

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.
Petrocelli quoted a retired homicide detective as saying: “:your battle, confined to a six foot area, could have taken only a minute. Don’t be thrown off by all the blood in different places, no one can tell you how long it took to get there”.

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.

I don’t think that Mrs. Brown’s memory of the time of her phone call with Nicole was accurate.. The defense, I think including Cochran, looked at the phone company’s records and agreed that the phone call was finished before 10:15. Mrs. Brown had heard her daughter was killed before making those statements; that could have interfered with her memory.
I don't think it is unusual to get 10:00 confused with 11:00.

To assume that Mrs. Brown’s memory was accurate, we have to assume that either the phone company records were inaccurate, or that the defense team lied for the purpose of keeping exculpatory evidence out. I find either of those possibilities to be highly unlikely. Do you really think that the lawyer that some call the magnificent one would do that?
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.

I think it is fair to allow Oenthal the same leeway we allow anyone else for memory lapses. In his statement to the police he agreed that he cut his hand at about the same time his wife was killed. He agreed that he bled in the Bronco and the house. If we go by that, he probably did have a bandage on his hand. OJS is a neat freak, and almost all retired athletes are health conscious; I couldn’t image him letting the cut heal by air drying. He would have been doing some serious thinking about it because he had some important PR work to do the next morning, and Orenthal was more careful about his physical appearance than most men. If we use his original statement about the cut, then at about the same time the cops thought the killer accidentally cut his left hand, Orenthal also accidentally cut his left hand. Just one of the many coincidences we have to believe in to think Orenthal was innocent.

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?

I know from my younger days, football and wrestling, that it is possible to feel bruised up, and not have anything show up in a mirror. I thought that one of the NGs posted that the defense medical doctor, Huizenga, said that when he first saw Simpson, he (Simpson) was limping.

[GreenIce]

It is entirely possible by the way the question is asked, which is why a witness must pay close attention to the question. None of what either party says in argument or statements is evidence. A lawyer must realize that he/she can be mistaken and know how to correct that mistake without losing credibility with the jury, which is what they tried to do with MF, IMHO.

William,

IMO, MF was not the downfall of the DA's credibility. I think that ball started rolling down the DA's hill long before MF even took the stand. Off of the top of my head, I think it started when the DA's had two witnesses who testified about Simpson's demeanor only to be shown a video tape that did not reflect this testimony. The saw photos of Simpson with his daughter after the recital and Kato's testimony about his conversation with Simpson.

[tv]

I know from my younger days, football and wrestling, that it is possible to feel bruised up, and not have anything show up in a mirror. I thought that one of the NGs posted that the defense medical doctor, Huizenga, said that when he first saw Simpson, he (Simpson) was limping.

Dr. Huizenga did testify to that.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, MF was not the downfall of the DA's credibility. I think that ball started rolling down the DA's hill long before MF even took the stand. Off of the top of my head, I think it started when the DA's had two witnesses who testified about Simpson's demeanor only to be shown a video tape that did not reflect this testimony. The saw photos of Simpson with his daughter after the recital and Kato's testimony about his conversation with Simpson.

Know I was not saying that but it was probably the starkest example of not admitting a mistake and then trying to clean it up and losing credibility.

[William Anthony]

Dr. Huizenga did testify to that.

I think arthritis makes a person limp and I think there was testimony that Simpson limped prior to the murders and we saw him limping during the trial.

[tv]

I think arthritis makes a person limp and I think there was testimony that Simpson limped prior to the murders and we saw him limping during the trial.I believe that Dr. Huizenga said more about the limp but I'm relying on memory and will have to research it.

[William Anthony]

I believe that Dr. Huizenga said more about the limp but I'm relying on memory and will have to research it.

Yes, which included the knee surgeries that Simpson had.

[GreenIce]

I know from my younger days, football and wrestling, that it is possible to feel bruised up, and not have anything show up in a mirror. I thought that one of the NGs posted that the defense medical doctor, Huizenga, said that when he first saw Simpson, he (Simpson) was limping.

fgump2,

Why did Dr. Baden and Dr. Lee testify they believed it was not a short struggle? Their opinons were not based on what knife was used, only they based their opinons on several factors. The bleed out of both victims, the determination of which of the stab wounds was the "fatal" one. Ron had control wounds on his face or neck. Ron's knuckles were swollen as well as there were knife cuts in at least one of Ron's boots.

I agree with the type of knife would have very little bearing on the length of the fight. However, the length, the type of blade, the blade handle are very important factors.

IIRC, there were unusal marks on Ron's body and I'm not sure if Nicole had the same markings but these markings, according to Dr. Spitz and the DA's experts could have come a raised symbol on a murder weapon or ring. Which the DA's did ask for Simpson's rings as a part of their discovery.

It doesn't matter if Simpson forgot he put a bandage on his hand, no one else saw on his hand as he was leaving for the airport.

IMO, Petrocelli is talking about the ground areas where blood was found, as in how long it took the blood to form a stream and head down toward the front gate. The defense used experts who based their opinons on the blood on Ron's clothes and the injuries he suffered and how long he would have been able to remain on his feet while defending himself.

[tv]

Yes, which included the knee surgeries that Simpson had.
He said something in the civil trial about why he didn't say something or other about the limp in the criminal trial but I don't recall if it was actual testimony. I've been trying to find it but I'm very tired right now. If I don't find it tonight maybe I'll be able to find it tomorrow.

[GreenIce]

fgump2,

Simpson volunteered to give his blood. He allowed the LAPD to take a photo of his hand. Why didn't the DA's ask him to take off his shirt and pants so they could pictures of him? If he was cooperating with them on these two issues, it only makes sense he would have allowed pictures to be taken of his body---as he had nothing to hide.

The detectives, through their experinced knew that at least Ron put up a tremendous fight, that does mean they knew the length of it but it was very possible one of the victims could have either scatched him or punched him or kicked him or was able to gouge the killer with the keys.

Again, this evidence of a rush to judgement and getting stuck with a theory that made no sense. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Yes, which included the knee surgeries that Simpson had.

William,

If Simpson was limping 3 days later, then how come he wasn't limping on the way to Chicago, the way from home Chicago and on to his property? Aren't these fair questions?

Dr. H had gone on to say that he was never asked if Simpson could have been the fight of his life. Again, who's fault is that he wasn't asked this question?

[GreenIce]

I think arthritis makes a person limp and I think there was testimony that Simpson limped prior to the murders and we saw him limping during the trial.

William,

You know the DA's may have made a very smart move by not asking Dr. H about a possible fight. The video clearly shows Simpson stuggling to pick up Justin. Perhaps the DA's left this alone because they didn't want the jury to see that tape over and over again.

Also, the DA's claimed that RG beat up a tree before he died, I am sure they did not want to bring attention to RG landing a few kicks and punches. IMO.

[William Anthony]

DR. HUIZENGA: Well, when I first saw him in the office, which as I said was noon, we squeezed him in during the lunch hour, he basically was visibly limping as he came down the hall. You know, that is the first thing that strikes me. And he really was not walking properly. Umm, on examination of that knee--and we haven't even got to his right knee which was far less severely involved, just had a meniscal tear. When you move the knee there is four different ligaments that hold it in place and there was some laxity there mainly because you are missing the meniscus and you are possibly missing articular cartilage so it is a looser knee. And when you move the knee, the knee should go through a certain range of motion. When I extend my knee you can see it is straight, it is 180 degrees. When I flex it, there is a different range that everyone can flex that knee, but typically it goes back to 135 degrees, 140 whatever. He was able to extend his knee, but really could only flex it to a point where he was limited by 25 to 30 degrees, approximately. That indicates damage there. When you move the knee and put your hand over different parts of the knee, you can hear kcchhh-kcchhh, kcchhh-kcchhh, and basically that is, you know, surfaces rubbing, abrading each other that probably shouldn't be doing that in a perfect world.

MR. SHAPIRO: Now, you indicated that--would you describe the degree of damage to that knee.

DR. HUIZENGA: His knee--there are knees that are more severely damaged, but according to the orthopedist he was seeing he was essentially--

MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. Move to strike as hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained at this point.

MR. SHAPIRO: What is your opinion as to--

DR. HUIZENGA: My opinion was--

MR. SHAPIRO: Let me ask the question. What is your opinion as to the condition of his knee based on your examination and the medical histories that you reviewed?

DR. HUIZENGA: He had severe wear and tear arthritis of the left knee and was a strong candidate in the relatively near future for a total knee replacement.

MR. SHAPIRO: What does that consist of?

DR. HUIZENGA: A total knee replacement consists of basically taking a saw and sawing off the distal portion of the femur and inserting an artificial knee and inserting that down into the tibia and back up in the femur so that when the point comes where the pain is too much and your quality of life is interfered with--he was obviously not able to do a number of things--then it is time to move on to an artificial knee.

MR. SHAPIRO: In your opinion how would that affect his mobility on the day you saw him?

DR. HUIZENGA: On the day I saw him he had significantly limited mobility because of the knee and actually another ankle problem that we haven't discussed, and I think would be significantly limited in terms of fast walking, certainly in terms of slow jogging, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, that day.

MR. SHAPIRO: What about a week prior to this?

DR. HUIZENGA: I have no knowledge of what his condition was like a week prior to that.

MR. SHAPIRO: Do you think there would be any significant change two days prior to that?

DR. HUIZENGA: Occasionally with activity you can worsen wear and tear arthritis, osteoarthritis, and so that can be a variable. He also--and we haven't talked about it--there were other rheumatologic conditions that may have a waxing and waning and fluctuating cause, but without question this is someone that was not able to jog or move quickly on the basis of his left knee.

MR. SHAPIRO: Let's go to the right knee. What was the condition of the right knee?

[William Anthony]

William,

If Simpson was limping 3 days later, then how come he wasn't limping on the way to Chicago, the way from home Chicago and on to his property? Aren't these fair questions?

Dr. H had gone on to say that he was never asked if Simpson could have been the fight of his life. Again, who's fault is that he wasn't asked this question?

I think that the questions and answers may call for speculation. I truly believe that the last question about fight of his life, would call for speculation and I am not sure but may have been improper based on assumption of facts not in evidence.

[William Anthony]

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, if one assumes that the murder of Ronald Goldman was a question of power, not a question of aerobics, because Mr. Goldman had nowhere to go to be chased down, how would you describe the power of Mr. Simpson's upper torso?

DR. HUIZENGA: I would say that he has some difficulties there, specifically the fixed flexion contracture. When you get a boxer, basically your punch is the body and the shoulder, but what you have to do is you have to snap out, you have to snap out your arm, and when you have affixed flexion contracture, imagine a boxer just going like that, (Indicating) You have some problems there. He certainly has power, and I've already described that I thought his motor was, you know, for intensive purposes fairly good, if not absolutely normal. However, that is one defect and the other is his ability to use his hands and the other is if there had to be any bending or any movement of the lower extremity, there could be problems there. Assuming, though, there is--that he is standing in a firm-footed position, then I think that given the difficulties with punching and the difficulties with full motion of that wrist, he would be similar to a man his age of, certainly not a world class athlete, but a man his age he would be average.

MR. KELBERG: Well--

DR. HUIZENGA: I wouldn't hire him to, you know, back me newspaper a bar fight. You know, he isn't that--he isn't as powerful as he looks, but he certainly is as powerful as someone else his stated age.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what did do you to assess the power of his upper torso?

DR. HUIZENGA: Basically looking at the flexion contractures of the elbows and the difficulty with the wrist. That is--that is--that is the only point that I'm basing that on.

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, for example, would you describe the condition of Mr. Simpson's upper torso, the chest area, for example--and I will ask Mr. Fairtlough--this is one of the Defense exhibits 1249, the upper torso, the chest, and let me see if I can find the flip side showing the back. Here. I'm not sure if Mr.--well, Mr. Fairtlough, could you make it smaller perhaps and--I think I would rather go by one by one. Let's start with--there we go. Doctor, would you consider Mr. Simpson's upper torso, front and back, to be well-muscled?

DR. HUIZENGA: Absolutely well-muscled.

MR. KELBERG: And doctor, muscles atrophy without use? They basically wither, don't they?

DR. HUIZENGA: That is not true in all instances. Some people have huge muscle builds that work out very, very little. I don't personally fully understand it, but that is not absolutely correct, no.

[GreenIce]

I think that the questions and answers may call for speculation. I truly believe that the last question about fight of his life, would call for speculation and I am not sure but may have been improper based on assumption of facts not in evidence.

William,

I remember both during the criminal trial and the civil trial, the DA's and the plaintiffs asked their questions based on the shape that Simpson was in when he played football.

I also remember Paula's interview before the criminal case, I think where she said she knew Simpson could not have done it because of his knees. That this was well known information. It would not have taken much for either Ron or Nicole to get at least one good kick to the knee. IMO.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

Have a productive and fun time and you will be missed.

[William Anthony]

William,

I remember both during the criminal trial and the civil trial, the DA's and the plaintiffs asked their questions based on the shape that Simpson was in when he played football.

I also remember Paula's interview before the criminal case, I think where she said she knew Simpson could not have done it because of his knees. That this was well known information. It would not have taken much for either Ron or Nicole to get at least one good kick to the knee. IMO.

I posted one hypothetical that the prosecution was allowed to ask and it assumes some facts that are ridiculous, IMHO. In a fight, a person moves all parts of their body in order to avoid being damaged or to minimize the damage, unless one just does not fight back, IMHO.

[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.

Vannatter testified that Arnelle let the detectives in the rear door. He said he asked Arnelle where the maid’s quarter were and she led him through the bar area into the kitchen and then into a utility room at the south side of the kitchen. Arnelle opened the door to the maid’s quarters and Vannatter looked in and saw that everything appeared to be in good order just as all the other rooms in the house appeared to be in good order. Kaelin was not taken into the kitchen he was taken to the bar area.

bobaugust

[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

I can’t help it if you still can’t comprehend that when Park said Kaelin was “still standing on the sidewalk” he was talking about where Kaelin was after he saw Kaelin come from behind the house on the Ashford path with a flashlight and stop when he got to the driveway. Park said he then saw Simpson walk into the entranceway from the driveway and enter his house.

[bobaugust]

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

After Park first saw Kaelin and then Simpson he told Dale “somebody’s here.”

[bobaugust]

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.

GreenIce, Simpson testified about the phone call he made to Nicole at 9:00 and spoke with Sydney. There is no evidence that Simpson told Sydney any details regarding his trip to Chicago later that night. If the detectives had any idea that Simpson was not home they would have never spent any time going to Rockingham. There is no evidence to support your imagined claims.

November 26, 1996 Simpson

Q. And the last call you made during the time frame was one to Nicole's condominium, true?
A. Yes.
Q. About 9 o'clock p.m. you said?
A. Yes.
Q. And Nicole answered, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said to Nicole, let me speak to Sydney, true?
A. I may have asked is Sydney asleep yet.
Q. And the phone was put down and Sydney got on the phone, right?
A. Yes. I think she was in Sydney's room.
Q. And you congratulated Sydney on her dance performance, right?
A. Partially, yes.
Q. Even though you just congratulated her a few hours before?
A. Actually, she came up, I said you were super. She took a picture, she ran off, so I didn't have time to talk to her.
Q. Ran off because the cars were waiting to take her away?
A. No, ran off because all the kids were running around.
Q. And you told Sydney that maybe you guys might go to Knott's Berry Farm, or something like that, when you got back from out of town, right?
A. She had asked previously about Knott's Berry Farm, and I told her I'd be back this coming weekend, and this would be the weekend I'd take them to Knott's Berry Farm.
Q. And it is your testimony --
A. Or Sunday, I should say.
Q. Excuse me. It is your testimony, sir, that there was absolutely nothing said between Nicole and you in that call at 9 o'clock p.m., June 12, 1994?
A. Absolutely nothing.
Q. Excuse me?
A. Absolutely nothing, other than has Sydney gone to sleep yet.
Q. Not even small talk?
A. Not even small talk.

bobaugust

[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, you say the jurors could consider only the time guesses Kaelin made and disregarded the documented times on the telephone records? That’s ridiculous.

bobaugust

[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.

William, in Kaelin’s grand jury testimony he said he was running down the Ashford path. He didn’t say he was running on the driveway

What you and Martin can’t seem to comprehend is that when Park said Kaelin was “still standing on the sidewalk” he was talking about where Kaelin was after he saw Kaelin come from behind the house on the Ashford path with a flashlight and stop when he got to the driveway. Park said he then saw Simpson walk into the entranceway from the driveway and enter his house. Both happened simultaneously.

Of course Kaelin walked back towards the Ashford gate. I already posted Kaelin’s testimony where he said he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. Kaelin did not use the word directly; I did since Kaelin never said he went anywhere else. Kaelin never said he went back to the Ashford path like you have imagined. Kaelin never said he stopped anywhere along the way to the gate control box like you have imagined. Kaelin said when he went back out from behind the garage he saw that the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

Park had testified that when he parked the limo outside the Ashford gate he left his parking lights on. If you had looked at the diagram of the Rockingham estate you would have seen that when Kaelin got to the driveway after coming from behind the garage he would have been able to see the Ashford gate at the end of the driveway.

There was never any dispute by Simpson’s attorneys that Park had first see Kaelin when Kaelin had left his room after hearing the noises and was on his way to investigate them. So there was no reasonable doubt by the criminal trial jurors concerning this issue. Only you William have confused yourself in an effort to try and change the evidence in this case because it incriminates Simpson. Your facts are wrong, your reasoning is flawed, and your imagined scenario that Park first saw Kaelin when he returned from his first investigation is false and contradicted by both Park and Kaelin’s testimony.

The more you avoid admitting you are wrong about this the more embarrassing it is for you.

bobaugust

[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?

I did not use Park’s estimates since they were only estimates not exact times. But even using Park’s three 30 second estimates and then allowing another 30 seconds for Park to go to the intercom, speak with Simpson and then return to the limo it still adds up to about 2 minutes from the time Park last saw Kaelin to the time he again saw him go to the gate control box and open the gate.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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

Evidently that’s what you think since you call Park’s undisputed testimony mistaken testimony and you then try to change the evidence to fit what you want to believe.

[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.

If you think that Kaelin should have seen lights on downstairs in the house when he went to the garage then support that claim. Tell us William what windows could Kaelin have past on his way to the garage to be able to see the lighting downstairs that Park saw?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I think that the only persons Ms. Clark fooled with this were people, who wanted to believe that Simpson dropped the glove. The testimonies tell us that it could not have been the time Ms. Clark argued, since by those testimonies Kato had finished his first cursory search when before he went to buzz the limo in as you agreed and the nearly two minutes that you now continue to speak of, which was actually a minute to a minute and a half by the testimonies, were Park saw Kato still standing there was after the search. Ms. Clark left that time off her summation. The jury asked for a read back of Park's testimony and I believe they dissected it and saw the discrepancy.

Support your claim William. Post the testimony that Park said he saw Kaelin standing for a minute and half (not even counting the time Park went to the intercom and spoke with Simpson) after he saw Simpson go into the house.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Now, now bobaugust, there is no need to make false accusations. Martin did not create the transcripts of the trial nor have we collaborated on what they said. Martin and I have the ability to read for ourselves and reach our own conclusions without having people tell us what we should believe.:)

Your claim that Park first saw Kaelin after Kaelin returned from his first trip behind the garage is false, makes no sense, and is contradicted by the testimony of both Park and Kaelin. No attorney in this case ever made such a claim. Park’s testimony that he first saw Kaelin when Kaelin came from behind the house after leaving his room to investigate the noises he had just heard was undisputed. That is the evidence in this case. Not your imagined illogical false scenario.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I am sure you will find something to let me know.:) However, it won't change the facts that the limo door was left open and Kato testified he did not see the driver and no one was in the limo. Park said he was sitting in the limo, when he first saw Kato.

Please note that betwen the Ashford gate and the Ashford sidewalk was a very dark area as there were no lights and Park was looking at the house through the vetrical metal bars of the gate.

[William Anthony]

GreenIce, Simpson testified about the phone call he made to Nicole at 9:00 and spoke with Sydney. There is no evidence that Simpson told Sydney any details regarding his trip to Chicago later that night. If the detectives had any idea that Simpson was not home they would have never spent any time going to Rockingham. There is no evidence to support your imagined claims.

November 26, 1996 Simpson

Q. And the last call you made during the time frame was one to Nicole's condominium, true?
A. Yes.
Q. About 9 o'clock p.m. you said?
A. Yes.
Q. And Nicole answered, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said to Nicole, let me speak to Sydney, true?
A. I may have asked is Sydney asleep yet.
Q. And the phone was put down and Sydney got on the phone, right?
A. Yes. I think she was in Sydney's room.
Q. And you congratulated Sydney on her dance performance, right?
A. Partially, yes.
Q. Even though you just congratulated her a few hours before?
A. Actually, she came up, I said you were super. She took a picture, she ran off, so I didn't have time to talk to her.
Q. Ran off because the cars were waiting to take her away?
A. No, ran off because all the kids were running around.
Q. And you told Sydney that maybe you guys might go to Knott's Berry Farm, or something like that, when you got back from out of town, right?
A. She had asked previously about Knott's Berry Farm, and I told her I'd be back this coming weekend, and this would be the weekend I'd take them to Knott's Berry Farm.
Q. And it is your testimony --
A. Or Sunday, I should say.
Q. Excuse me. It is your testimony, sir, that there was absolutely nothing said between Nicole and you in that call at 9 o'clock p.m., June 12, 1994?
A. Absolutely nothing.
Q. Excuse me?
A. Absolutely nothing, other than has Sydney gone to sleep yet.
Q. Not even small talk?
A. Not even small talk.

bobaugust

You mean just like there is no evidence that Park saw anything other than Kato still standing there for a minute and a half.

[martin II]

I am sure you will find something to let me know.:) However, it won't change the facts that the limo door was left open and Kato testified he did not see the driver and no one was in the limo. Park said he was sitting in the limo, when he first saw Kato.

Park could not be looking at the buzzer to the side of the gate and watching the activity in the driveway at the same time unless he had eyes in the side of his head.

[William Anthony]

Your claim that Park first saw Kaelin after Kaelin returned from his first trip behind the garage is false, makes no sense, and is contradicted by the testimony of both Park and Kaelin. No attorney in this case ever made such a claim. Park’s testimony that he first saw Kaelin when Kaelin came from behind the house after leaving his room to investigate the noises he had just heard was undisputed. That is the evidence in this case. Not your imagined illogical false scenario.

bobaugust

I have not looked to the statements of the lawyers but I did post the portion of the magnificent one's argument where he stated what is obvious to me, that Park was mistaken and I do believe the jury, when they asked for the read back of Park's testimony were able to see what I see. I have supported my position with actual testimony. However, in order for you to continue to support your inference, you have come up with a scenario that call Park a liar, because he might, could have, possibly did not see Kato perform his first cursory search when he testified he saw Kato still standing there. When one says that someone else is mistaken they are disputing the testimony. There is no need for you last insulting sentence, so I ask you to stop.

[William Anthony]

Support your claim William. Post the testimony that Park said he saw Kaelin standing for a minute and half (not even counting the time Park went to the intercom and spoke with Simpson) after he saw Simpson go into the house.

bobaugust

Already done.

[William Anthony]

If you think that Kaelin should have seen lights on downstairs in the house when he went to the garage then support that claim. Tell us William what windows could Kaelin have past on his way to the garage to be able to see the lighting downstairs that Park saw?

bobaugust

I thought you were familiar with the diagram of the layout of the estate?

[William Anthony]

Evidently that’s what you think since you call Park’s undisputed testimony mistaken testimony and you then try to change the evidence to fit what you want to believe.

Park's testimony was contradicted by the Kato and you and disputed by the defense and you. You only consider part of the evidence on the issue to support your claim. I look at all of the evidence to draw reasonable inferences.

[martin II]

I think that after being educated by his mommie and clarke park created the seeing Kato part

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

This is from post $7762 and is in regard to your question about Park's testimony where he said he saw Kato standing for two minutes, which I had previously posted.

1 A. THE MALE WHITE PAUSED FOR "ANOTHER MINUTE" AS HE
2 WAS STILL STANDING IN THE SAME POSITION AS WHERE HE WAS.

I would ask you to note that the adjective "another" means that there had been at least one prior minute and maybe more that Park saw Kato "in the same position as where he was."

[William Anthony]

I think that after promping by his mommie and clarke park created the seeing Kato part

I think you are probably correct.

[William Anthony]

If you think that Kaelin should have seen lights on downstairs in the house when he went to the garage then support that claim. Tell us William what windows could Kaelin have past on his way to the garage to be able to see the lighting downstairs that Park saw?

bobaugust


'[QUOTE]Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
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."

If what you believe is true that kato did not perform his first cursory search of the garage area until after the someone, believed to be Simpson, went into the house and turned the lights on, because Park testified to seeing these things in seconds almost simultaneously, then Kato would have proceeded down the driveway and the downstairs lights would have been on.
If I recall correctly, Kato was asked about the downstairs lighting and said none were on but I don't remember the timing of when he was asked but I will look.

[martin II]

I think arthritis makes a person limp and I think there was testimony that Simpson limped prior to the murders and we saw him limping during the trial.

HE always limped from arthritis long before the trial.

[William Anthony]

William, in Kaelin’s grand jury testimony he said he was running down the Ashford path. He didn’t say he was running on the driveway

The more you avoid admitting you are wrong about this the more embarrassing it is for you.

bobaugust

He testified where he started walking and it was on the pathway by the garage area.

[William Anthony]

Kaelin did not use the word directly; I did since Kaelin never said he went anywhere else

bobaugust

Thanks. Kato was never asked if he went back to the pathway but Park's testimony tells us that he did as he was still standing there in the same position as he was.

[martin II]

fgump2,

Why did Dr. Baden and Dr. Lee testify they believed it was not a short struggle? Their opinons were not based on what knife was used, only they based their opinons on several factors. The bleed out of both victims, the determination of which of the stab wounds was the "fatal" one. Ron had control wounds on his face or neck. Ron's knuckles were swollen as well as there were knife cuts in at least one of Ron's boots.

I agree with the type of knife would have very little bearing on the length of the fight. However, the length, the type of blade, the blade handle are very important factors.

IIRC, there were unusal marks on Ron's body and I'm not sure if Nicole had the same markings but these markings, according to Dr. Spitz and the DA's experts could have come a raised symbol on a murder weapon or ring. Which the DA's did ask for Simpson's rings as a part of their discovery.

It doesn't matter if Simpson forgot he put a bandage on his hand, no one else saw on his hand as he was leaving for the airport.

IMO, Petrocelli is talking about the ground areas where blood was found, as in how long it took the blood to form a stream and head down toward the front gate. The defense used experts who based their opinons on the blood on Ron's clothes and the injuries he suffered and how long he would have been able to remain on his feet while defending himself.

The autopsy said the knife was 4 inches.
Oj had long standing football injuries to his knees and arthritis.So why wouldn't he limp.

[weezer]

TV,

I am using Martin's space to ensure you read this post.

I apologized to Martin for the comments I made about a poster on this board because it put him on the spot as it would have put any one on the spot no matter who I was posting at the time.

I never dreamed that you would have the unmitigate gall to turn your self into a victim of Martin's. Because he didn't defend you against me because of comments I made that must mean he agrees with them? Are you kidding me?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can not claim you are a victim. You can't use Martin or William to back up your pathic attempts of being a victim. You are not a victim.

You are just a verballing abusive and cruel as some of your "collegues" on this board.

Martin and William are their own man. My personal feelings regarding you or anyone else on these boards mean nothing to them, they will make up their own minds. There is nothing I can say that will ever change their opinons of others on the board.

Bottom line, you can feel the strength of character of both of these proud man through their posts and their passionate responses. Your posts are weak minded and posted with a mob mentality that proves lack of character, lack of having an ability to think on your own and go against "what every body else" says.

You can say whatever you want about me, but I do stand up for what I believe in, I do have character to stand up to the likes you and some of the others here.

Every single time a NG makes a point, you start low balling. It is so shameful and unappealing. You are victim of your stubborness and lack of character. You dont like it when people make the same toned posts that you make. You think because of your race you are able to make these comments without being challenged. You feel because of your race you are allowed to determine who is educated and who is uneducated. Because of your race you feel that you know what is in every white man's, especially every white cops heart. You feel because of your race you are a superior judge in character. You are not. You are just a mean and petty old woman who has forgotten the manners her parents taught her. Who has forgotten the past injustices or has trivialized them to such an extent that even when asked to stop using certain terms because of the feelings they caused, you continued to use them saying you had a right to use them.

Yes, legally you had the right to use them but how could a person with a strong character ignore those requests? To continue to make comments and use words that you knew were hurtful?

You are spiteful TV. You are not kind nor are you clever. You are just as mean and cruel as FBG.

Martin,

I will never put you or another poster on the spot again with any other of these types of comments. I did mean to drag you into this, again, I never thought TV would go "victim" on you. Sorry.

I don't know but I believe personal attacks are against the rules. shame, shame, shame.

[weezer]

GI

I have known you for a very long time . you have always been a favorite poster for me and you remain a favorite.
much love
martin.

martin, your encouragement of the personal attacks is wrong.

[weezer]

I think that after being educated by his mommie and clarke park created the seeing Kato part

I bet he even knows who his daddy is! :eek:

[martin II]

I thought you were familiar with the diagram of the layout of the estate?

Bob is playing word games
I posted petrercelli and Kato tstimony where Petro asked him if he saw THE COACH LIGHTS OVER THE DOOR ON HIS WAS HE SAID NO. Then ON HIS RETURN HE SAW THE COACH LIGHTS OVER THE DOOR ON.

SEE YOU LATER.

[Jayme K]

TV,

I am using Martin's space to ensure you read this post.

I apologized to Martin for the comments I made about a poster on this board because it put him on the spot as it would have put any one on the spot no matter who I was posting at the time.

I never dreamed that you would have the unmitigate gall to turn your self into a victim of Martin's. Because he didn't defend you against me because of comments I made that must mean he agrees with them? Are you kidding me?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can not claim you are a victim. You can't use Martin or William to back up your pathic attempts of being a victim. You are not a victim.

You are just a verballing abusive and cruel as some of your "collegues" on this board.

Martin and William are their own man. My personal feelings regarding you or anyone else on these boards mean nothing to them, they will make up their own minds. There is nothing I can say that will ever change their opinons of others on the board.

Bottom line, you can feel the strength of character of both of these proud man through their posts and their passionate responses. Your posts are weak minded and posted with a mob mentality that proves lack of character, lack of having an ability to think on your own and go against "what every body else" says.

You can say whatever you want about me, but I do stand up for what I believe in, I do have character to stand up to the likes you and some of the others here.

Every single time a NG makes a point, you start low balling. It is so shameful and unappealing. You are victim of your stubborness and lack of character. You dont like it when people make the same toned posts that you make. You think because of your race you are able to make these comments without being challenged. You feel because of your race you are allowed to determine who is educated and who is uneducated. Because of your race you feel that you know what is in every white man's, especially every white cops heart. You feel because of your race you are a superior judge in character. You are not. You are just a mean and petty old woman who has forgotten the manners her parents taught her. Who has forgotten the past injustices or has trivialized them to such an extent that even when asked to stop using certain terms because of the feelings they caused, you continued to use them saying you had a right to use them.

Yes, legally you had the right to use them but how could a person with a strong character ignore those requests? To continue to make comments and use words that you knew were hurtful?

You are spiteful TV. You are not kind nor are you clever. You are just as mean and cruel as FBG.

Martin,

I will never put you or another poster on the spot again with any other of these types of comments. I did mean to drag you into this, again, I never thought TV would go "victim" on you. Sorry.

LMFAO, honey you're a joke. You're one of the most disrespectful people on this board and what ya just did proves how pathetic and desperate you are. You just used martin's space to make sure that another poster couldn't have you on ignore and not see your filth! That's like a kid needing the last word.

The funnest part for me is that you do that jazz and then have the gall to turn around and try to convince us that you have character. Funny stuff there.

Thanks for the awesome round of laughter though. I gotta circulate this stuff, it's way too fun not to show it off.

[weezer]

LMFAO, honey you're a joke. You're one of the most disrespectful people on this board and what ya just did proves how pathetic and desperate you are. You just used martin's space to make sure that another poster couldn't have you on ignore and not see your filth! That's like a kid needing the last word.

The funnest part for me is that you do that jazz and then have the gall to turn around and try to convince us that you have character. Funny stuff there.

Thanks for the awesome round of laughter though. I gotta circulate this stuff, it's way too fun not to show it off.

thank you Jayme K!

[tv]

LMFAO, honey you're a joke. You're one of the most disrespectful people on this board and what ya just did proves how pathetic and desperate you are. You just used martin's space to make sure that another poster couldn't have you on ignore and not see your filth! That's like a kid needing the last word.

The funnest part for me is that you do that jazz and then have the gall to turn around and try to convince us that you have character. Funny stuff there.

Thanks for the awesome round of laughter though. I gotta circulate this stuff, it's way too fun not to show it off.

She tells martin she doesn't want to get him involved and then she asks him to quote her so I'll see it. He says he doesn't want to get involved but then he quotes her which only served the purpose of making sure I would see it. This is all because she can't convince me that OJ Simpson is innocent and the LAPD lied and planted evidence. She resorted to the old 'if you think OJ's guilty you must not like black people' argument. I tell ya, something's just not right with her! LOL. :biggrin:

[tv]

martin, your encouragement of the personal attacks is wrong.

Thanks, weezer but you know he doesn't get involved. He has another name for it -- something about me pulling him into it. I put her on ignore and they both wanted to make sure I saw it. Okay, so I saw it. I just think she's more of a nut than I did before. Sorry you got named along with me but she was making sure she covered all her bases I guess. Are you losing as much sleep as I am?

[Jayme K]

She tells martin she doesn't want to get him involved and then she asks him to quote her so I'll see it. He says he doesn't want to get involved but then he quotes her which only served the purpose of making sure I would see it. This is all because she can't convince me that OJ Simpson is innocent and the LAPD lied and planted evidence. She resorted to the old 'if you think OJ's guilty you must not like black people' argument. I tell ya, something's just not right with her! LOL. :biggrin:

We're on to ya tv - we all know you use your white chick status to label everybody - lol! I swear that girl took a beating on the head at some point in time that knocked all the sensible marbles loose.

But you just gotta laugh at this point. She's like a Britney Spears before rehab - and I bet she dons the hot pink wig before one of her manic episodes and kisses her O.J. poster at night before bed.

[tv]

I bet he even knows who his daddy is! :eek:
Uh-oh, the grand conspiracy again. Park had to have 'created' seeing Kato or OJ Simpson is a liar.

[weezer]

Thanks, weezer but you know he doesn't get involved. He has another name for it -- something about me pulling him into it. I put her on ignore and they both wanted to make sure I saw it. Okay, so I saw it. I just think she's more of a nut than I did before. Sorry you got named along with me but she was making sure she covered all her bases I guess. Are you losing as much sleep as I am?

oh gosh tv -- I don't care what a coupla-three losers think of me! Remember, these folks have had to be reincarnated because of the same bad behavior in the past. ;)

I am sorely disappointed that the moderator has let the unprovoked personal attacks continue.

[tv]

oh gosh tv -- I don't care what a coupla-three losers think of me! Remember, these folks have had to be reincarnated because of the same bad behavior in the past. ;)

I am sorely disappointed that the moderator has let the unprovoked personal attacks continue.

Me too, I'm like you -- I don't care what they think of me. It all started because I pointed out GreenIce's misrepresentations of the testimony and facts of the case. She doesn't get that this is a discussion board. Maybe she thinks it's an OJ Simpson fan forum -- just not sure what she's thinking and can't say that I care!

[tv]

We're on to ya tv - we all know you use your white chick status to label everybody - lol! I swear that girl took a beating on the head at some point in time that knocked all the sensible marbles loose.

But you just gotta laugh at this point. She's like a Britney Spears before rehab - and I bet she dons the hot pink wig before one of her manic episodes and kisses her O.J. poster at night before bed.

LOL, JaymeK! I'm picturing it and it ain't pretty! :D

[William Anthony]

Kato seemed to have a change in testimony from his prior testimony, from not seeing anyone in the limo to not being able to see anyone in the limo. Ms. Clark then asks another one of the lawyer questions changing his testimony of his observation from the driveway to the driveway area. I will look to see if there was any cross on the issues.

"Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT DID YOU SEE WHEN YOU WERE ON THAT PATH?

A: ON THIS PATH?

Q: YES.

A: NOTHING. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING UNTIL I GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY.

Q: WHEN YOU GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY AREA WHERE THE PATH MEETS THE DRIVEWAY?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE?

A: I SAW A LIMOUSINE.

Q: WHERE WAS THAT LIMOUSINE?

A: IT WAS RIGHT BEHIND THE GATE ON ASHFORD, (INDICATING).

Q: WAS IT FACING INTO THAT ASHFORD GATE?

A: YES.

Q: COULD YOU SEE WHETHER ANYONE WAS INSIDE IT?

A: NO.

[tv]

Kato seemed to have a change in testimony from his prior testimony, from not seeing anyone in the limo to not being able to see anyone in the limo. Ms. Clark then asks another one of the lawyer questions changing his testimony of his observation from the driveway to the driveway area. I will look to see if there was any cross on the issues.

"Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT DID YOU SEE WHEN YOU WERE ON THAT PATH?

A: ON THIS PATH?

Q: YES.

A: NOTHING. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING UNTIL I GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY.

Q: WHEN YOU GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY AREA WHERE THE PATH MEETS THE DRIVEWAY?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE?

A: I SAW A LIMOUSINE.

Q: WHERE WAS THAT LIMOUSINE?

A: IT WAS RIGHT BEHIND THE GATE ON ASHFORD, (INDICATING).

Q: WAS IT FACING INTO THAT ASHFORD GATE?

A: YES.

Q: COULD YOU SEE WHETHER ANYONE WAS INSIDE IT?

A: NO.

I thought you and I agreed last night that he said he didn't see anyone in the llimo not that there wasn't anyone in it.

[William Anthony]

I thought you and I agreed last night that he said he didn't see anyone in the llimo not that there wasn't anyone in it.

I agreed that he would not have seen anyone in the limo if the driver was invisible. However, on other issues, let's see what Kato said on cross.

"Q: AND DO YOU RECALL TELLING ME IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION AFTER YOU HEARD THAT NOISE HOW MUCH TIME ELAPSED BETWEEN THE TIME THAT YOU HEARD THE NOISE AND YOU NEXT SAW O.J. SIMPSON?

A: UMM, YES.

Q: AND YOUR ANSWER WAS THREE TO FIVE MINUTES LATER?

A: YEAH. IN -- ON THAT -- CAN I SAY SOMETHING?

Q: IS THAT YOUR ANSWER; THREE TO FIVE MINUTES LATER?

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THE WITNESS WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN HIS ANSWER.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'M GOING TO LET HIM EXPLAIN. I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF THAT'S HIS ANSWER FIRST.

THE COURT: MR. KAELIN.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO OFFER A FURTHER EXPLANATION?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT IS THAT?

A: ON -- ON THAT WAS, THREE, FIVE MINUTES WAS MY PART OF THE -- ON THE REST THAT I FINISHED -- THAT'S WHEN I WAS TALKING TO -- TO RACHEL AND THAT'S WHAT I -- I -- I THOUGHT AT THE TIME WAS THE QUESTIONING BECAUSE ON THE -- WHERE IT SAYS THAT IT WAS ME SAYING UH, SO I HUNG UP THE PHONE WITH RACHEL. IT WAS ON THAT -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT PAGE.

Q: WOULD YOU LOOK AT PAGE 18. IT'S ON PAGE 18. MY QUESTION TO YOU WAS: "HOW MUCH TIME ELAPSED BETWEEN HEARING THE NOISE AND SEEING O.J.," REFERRING TO O.J. SIMPSON.

A: RIGHT.

Q: DO YOU SEE WHERE THAT IS?

A: UH-HUH. YES, I DO.

Q: AND DO YOU SEE WHAT YOUR ANSWER IS?

A: YEAH. IT'S --

Q: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY AS TO WHAT YOU TOLD ME ON TUESDAY?

A: THE -- THE -- THAT'S PART OF IT.

Q: OKAY. WHAT -- WHAT -- WHAT DID -- WHAT DID -- WHAT DID YOU SAY ON TUESDAY? THAT'S MY QUESTION.

A: THAT I WAS --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT'S ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IT -- IT SAYS ABOUT THREE TO FIVE MINUTES.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND WHAT ELSE DOES IT SAY?

A: BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN I RAN OUT AND SAW THE LIMO, AND I TOLD HER IMMEDIATELY THAT I -- I TOLD HER I GOT TO CHECK THIS OUT, CHECK OUT THIS NOISE. I TALKED TO HER FOR MAYBE ANOTHER MINUTE OR SO CONVINCING MYSELF THAT I WAS GOING TO GO OUT THERE."

You now have the noise at 10:45 and Kato staying on the phone talking until about 10:46 and running out, seeing the limo at a time that Park would have been getting his boss' number and writing it down. Interestingly, Kato wanted to change it to two to three minutes he remained on the phone with Ms. Rachel. The cross sheds a different light on Kato's and Park's testimonies. Kato testified he was running during the grand jury.

[tv]

I agreed that he would not have seen anyone in the limo if the driver was invisible. However, on other issues, let's see what Kato said on cross.

"Q: AND DO YOU RECALL TELLING ME IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION AFTER YOU HEARD THAT NOISE HOW MUCH TIME ELAPSED BETWEEN THE TIME THAT YOU HEARD THE NOISE AND YOU NEXT SAW O.J. SIMPSON?

A: UMM, YES.

Q: AND YOUR ANSWER WAS THREE TO FIVE MINUTES LATER?

A: YEAH. IN -- ON THAT -- CAN I SAY SOMETHING?

Q: IS THAT YOUR ANSWER; THREE TO FIVE MINUTES LATER?

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, THE WITNESS WOULD LIKE TO EXPLAIN HIS ANSWER.

MR. SHAPIRO: I'M GOING TO LET HIM EXPLAIN. I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF THAT'S HIS ANSWER FIRST.

THE COURT: MR. KAELIN.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO OFFER A FURTHER EXPLANATION?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT IS THAT?

A: ON -- ON THAT WAS, THREE, FIVE MINUTES WAS MY PART OF THE -- ON THE REST THAT I FINISHED -- THAT'S WHEN I WAS TALKING TO -- TO RACHEL AND THAT'S WHAT I -- I -- I THOUGHT AT THE TIME WAS THE QUESTIONING BECAUSE ON THE -- WHERE IT SAYS THAT IT WAS ME SAYING UH, SO I HUNG UP THE PHONE WITH RACHEL. IT WAS ON THAT -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT PAGE.

Q: WOULD YOU LOOK AT PAGE 18. IT'S ON PAGE 18. MY QUESTION TO YOU WAS: "HOW MUCH TIME ELAPSED BETWEEN HEARING THE NOISE AND SEEING O.J.," REFERRING TO O.J. SIMPSON.

A: RIGHT.

Q: DO YOU SEE WHERE THAT IS?

A: UH-HUH. YES, I DO.

Q: AND DO YOU SEE WHAT YOUR ANSWER IS?

A: YEAH. IT'S --

Q: DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY AS TO WHAT YOU TOLD ME ON TUESDAY?

A: THE -- THE -- THAT'S PART OF IT.

Q: OKAY. WHAT -- WHAT -- WHAT DID -- WHAT DID -- WHAT DID YOU SAY ON TUESDAY? THAT'S MY QUESTION.

A: THAT I WAS --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT'S ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IT -- IT SAYS ABOUT THREE TO FIVE MINUTES.

Q: BY MR. SHAPIRO: AND WHAT ELSE DOES IT SAY?

A: BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN I RAN OUT AND SAW THE LIMO, AND I TOLD HER IMMEDIATELY THAT I -- I TOLD HER I GOT TO CHECK THIS OUT, CHECK OUT THIS NOISE. I TALKED TO HER FOR MAYBE ANOTHER MINUTE OR SO CONVINCING MYSELF THAT I WAS GOING TO GO OUT THERE."

You now have the noise at 10:45 and Kato staying on the phone talking until about 10:46 and running out, seeing the limo at a time that Park would have been getting his boss' number and writing it down. Interestingly, Kato wanted to change it to two to three minutes he remained on the phone with Ms. Rachel. The cross sheds a different light on Kato's and Park's testimonies. Kato testified he was running during the grand jury.

William, I'm not going to talk about invisible people. Kato didn't see Park -- big deal. The phone records can't be disputed and that's what establishes the time of the noise behind Kato's room.

[William Anthony]

William, I'm not going to talk about invisible people. Kato didn't see Park -- big deal. The phone records can't be disputed and that's what establishes the time of the noise behind Kato's room.

The phone records only establish what time Park first saw Kato. Now, let's look at the testimony of Ms. Rachel. The importance of the testimony is that Park said he was sitting in the limo when he saw kato walk down the north path. However, we now have Kato saying in the grand jury and in the trial that he ran, meaning Park did not see kato walk down the north path. I ask you to remember Kato's testimony that he saw the limo and did not see anyone in it as he ran down the north path at approximately 10:50. Ms. Rachel's testimony places the time of the thumps closer to 10:40, because she says they stayed on the phone for about ten minutes after Kato talked about hearing the thumps, meaning that, by Park's own testimony, he was not sitting in the limo from 10:49 until 10:52 until he answered his boss' return phone call.

"Q: YES. JUST BEFORE HE HUNG UP WITH YOU DID HE GIVE YOU SOME INSTRUCTION?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT?

A: HE SAID IF HE DOESN'T CALL BACK IN TEN MINUTES TO CALL THE POLICE.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHETHER HE WAS JOKING OR SERIOUS?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT WAS HIS TONE OF VOICE WHEN HE TOLD YOU THAT?

A: IT WAS -- I DON'T REMEMBER.

Q: I'M SORRY?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER HIS TONE OF VOICE. IT WASN'T URGENT.

Q: WERE YOU CONCERNED?

A: NOT AT THE MOMENT, NOT AS MUCH.

Q: DID HE INDICATE AT ANY POINT THAT HE WANTED TO GO OUT AND FIND OUT WHAT CAUSED THE NOISE?

A: YES.

Q: AND ABOUT WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU HUNG UP?

A: APPROXIMATELY 10:50".

[tv]

The phone records only establish what time Park first saw Kato. Now, let's look at the testimony of Ms. Rachel. The importance of the testimony is that Park said he was sitting in the limo when he saw kato walk down the north path. However, we now have Kato saying in the grand jury and in the trial that he ran, meaning Park did not see kato walk down the north path. I ask you to remember Kato's testimony that he saw the limo and did not see anyone in it as he ran down the north path at approximately 10:50. Ms. Rachel's testimony places the time of the thumps closer to 10:40, because she says they stayed on the phone for about ten minutes, meaning that, by Park's own testimony, he was not sitting in the limo from 10:49 until 10:52 until he answered his boss' return phone call.

"Q: YES. JUST BEFORE HE HUNG UP WITH YOU DID HE GIVE YOU SOME INSTRUCTION?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT?

A: HE SAID IF HE DOESN'T CALL BACK IN TEN MINUTES TO CALL THE POLICE.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHETHER HE WAS JOKING OR SERIOUS?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT WAS HIS TONE OF VOICE WHEN HE TOLD YOU THAT?

A: IT WAS -- I DON'T REMEMBER.

Q: I'M SORRY?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER HIS TONE OF VOICE. IT WASN'T URGENT.

Q: WERE YOU CONCERNED?

A: NOT AT THE MOMENT, NOT AS MUCH.

Q: DID HE INDICATE AT ANY POINT THAT HE WANTED TO GO OUT AND FIND OUT WHAT CAUSED THE NOISE?

A: YES.

Q: AND ABOUT WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU HUNG UP?

A: APPROXIMATELY 10:50".

No, it establishes the time of the thumps.

[William Anthony]

No, it establishes the time of the thumps.

I did not know that there was testimony that someone called Park and said Kato heard three thumps at a certain time. Please, post the testimony that shows this.:)

[tv]

I did not know that there was testimony that someone called Park and said Kato heard three thumps at a certain time. Please, post the testimony that shows this.:)

This is what I posted on 3/27/09, post #2625:

"Park was on the phone with his mother from 10:46:30 to 10:48:50 getting the number of Dale St. John. It was his boss, Dale St. John, that he paged at 10:43:44. At 10:52:17 he was standing next to the buzzer when he heard his cell phone ring in the car. He hurried back to the car and got in. He hung up at 10:55:12. He saw Kato for the first time while he was on this call with his boss which would be approximately 10:54:30. Kato testifed that it was between two and a half to three and a half minutes between the time he heard the thumps on the wall and the time he reached the front of the house. That pinpoints the time of the thumps at 10:51 to 10:52.

Your answer post #2626:

"You are correct. At any rate he was in the car at 10:43, stepped out and rang the intercom, returned to the car and at ten forty six was calling his mother, which is consistent with Kato hearing the thumps between ten forty and ten forty five waiting two to three minutes to go check, around ten forty eight while Park was getting the number of his boss and not seeing Kato go behind the quarters, which severely damages bobaugust's theory and reinforces Kato's estimate."

[William Anthony]

This is what I posted on 3/27/09, post #2625:

"Park was on the phone with his mother from 10:46:30 to 10:48:50 getting the number of Dale St. John. It was his boss, Dale St. John, that he paged at 10:43:44. At 10:52:17 he was standing next to the buzzer when he heard his cell phone ring in the car. He hurried back to the car and got in. He hung up at 10:55:12. He saw Kato for the first time while he was on this call with his boss which would be approximately 10:54:30. Kato testifed that it was between two and a half to three and a half minutes between the time he heard the thumps on the wall and the time he reached the front of the house. That pinpoints the time of the thumps at 10:51 to 10:52.

Your answer post #2626:

"You are correct."

Very clever but still incorrect, :). I had previously said the Park was on the phone with his boss when I made the statement that you are correct but not meaning you whole posts as you know, as this was my full response.

"You are correct. At any rate he was in the car at 10:43, stepped out and rang the intercom, returned to the car and at ten forty six was calling his mother, which is consistent with Kato hearing the thumps between ten forty and ten forty five waiting two to three minutes to go check, around ten forty eight while Park was getting the number of his boss and not seeing Kato go behind the quarters, which severely damages bobaugust's theory and reinforces Kato's estimate. "

You see that I never adopted your inference as to the time of the thumps.

[tv]

Very clever but still incorrect, :). I had previously said the Park was on the phone with his boss when I made the statement that you are correct but not meaning you whole posts as you know, as this was my full response.

"You are correct. At any rate he was in the car at 10:43, stepped out and rang the intercom, returned to the car and at ten forty six was calling his mother, which is consistent with Kato hearing the thumps between ten forty and ten forty five waiting two to three minutes to go check, around ten forty eight while Park was getting the number of his boss and not seeing Kato go behind the quarters, which severely damages bobaugust's theory and reinforces Kato's estimate. "

If you'll notice my above post I realized I had left out your entire response and added it. Your rejection of the facts means you don't agree with the defense's own timeline.

[William Anthony]

If you'll notice my above post I realized I had left out your entire response and added it. Your rejection of the facts means you don't agree with the defense's own timeline.

I don't reject the facts, since there are none other than Simpson was found not guilty of the murders. I tend to review all the evidence on an issue and arrive at my own conclusions. I don't think that the defense ever conceded that Simpson dropped the glove at Rockingham at anytime, which is the time line that I was discussing as the consensus is that when the thumps occurred was Simpson returning from the murders. Considering all the testimony, as the records only indicate at what time Park claimed to have seen Kato, the thumps could have occurred at any time between ten forty and ten fifty, not at ten fifty four, because the testimonies indicate that Pak did not see Kato walking down the Ashford pathway and stopping. The only time Kato could have stopped was after he finished his first cursory search on his way to buzz the limo in, after he walked back to the Ashford sidewalk where Park saw him standing in the same position as he was for another minute (evidence). I thank you for amending your post as your prior one was misleading, smile.

[William Anthony]

I never knew how much of Kato wanted to please people. This is from his civil trial testimony.

"Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Okay. Do you have an estimate of the time that you heard these noises?

A. In between the 10:40 to 10:50 hour."

It seems to be that Kato changed his times to suit the prosecution' and the plaintiff's and Rachel's estimates of the time but see what happens in regard to the civil record as Petrocelli attempted to get in Ms. Clark's argument through questioning.

"Q. Okay. I'd like you to assume that based upon cell phone records and other evidence in the case, that the limousine driver saw you --

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to this, Your Honor.

MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me, your honor, I haven't finished my question.

MR. BAKER: I understand that. But there's no -- this is leading, suggestive, and hypothetical.

MR. PETROCELLI: It is not leading.

THE COURT: Sustained. I'll sustain it."

[GreenIce]

Vannatter testified that Arnelle let the detectives in the rear door. He said he asked Arnelle where the maid’s quarter were and she led him through the bar area into the kitchen and then into a utility room at the south side of the kitchen. Arnelle opened the door to the maid’s quarters and Vannatter looked in and saw that everything appeared to be in good order just as all the other rooms in the house appeared to be in good order. Kaelin was not taken into the kitchen he was taken to the bar area.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

VA did not search every room in the house. There is no rule that if the hired help get murdered in their employer's home, it must done inside their living quarters.

How conducted the search for the maid and for that matter Simpson? And tell me, what type of detectives who are frantic about victims inside would let a family member lead them into the house first--what if the maid was murdered in the house? What if it was her father?

So much has been said about Simpson leaving the bodies where his children could find their mother but what about Arnelle finding her father murdered? Or the maid. Either way, I would think it would be very, very upsetting. IMO.

When the police first spoke to Kato and Arnelle, why only questions about OJ, I thought their concerns was for the maid?

Sorry Mr. August, again the LAPD got caught in nest of lies that never had to be told. IMO.

[fgump2]

William,

If Simpson was limping 3 days later, then how come he wasn't limping on the way to Chicago, the way from home Chicago and on to his property? Aren't these fair questions?

Dr. H had gone on to say that he was never asked if Simpson could have been the fight of his life. Again, who's fault is that he wasn't asked this question?
************************************************** ***
My experience is that knee injuries cause increasing discomfort for more than 24 hours. In other words, they would cause more discomfort and therefore limping 24 hours later than they would 12 hours later. Of course any witnesses memories can help even though we know that witnesses are often wrong.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

Why did Dr. Baden and Dr. Lee testify they believed it was not a short struggle? Their opinons were not based on what knife was used, only they based their opinons on several factors. The bleed out of both victims, the determination of which of the stab wounds was the "fatal" one. Ron had control wounds on his face or neck. Ron's knuckles were swollen as well as there were knife cuts in at least one of Ron's boots.

I agree with the type of knife would have very little bearing on the length of the fight. However, the length, the type of blade, the blade handle are very important factors.

IIRC, there were unusal marks on Ron's body and I'm not sure if Nicole had the same markings but these markings, according to Dr. Spitz and the DA's experts could have come a raised symbol on a murder weapon or ring. Which the DA's did ask for Simpson's rings as a part of their discovery.

It doesn't matter if Simpson forgot he put a bandage on his hand, no one else saw on his hand as he was leaving for the airport.

IMO, Petrocelli is talking about the ground areas where blood was found, as in how long it took the blood to form a stream and head down toward the front gate. The defense used experts who based their opinons on the blood on Ron's clothes and the injuries he suffered and how long he would have been able to remain on his feet while defending himself.
*******************************************
Dr. Lee admitted at the civil trial that the fight could have lasted as short as 1 minutes. At the criminal trial he said it could have lasted as long as 20 minutes, and also 'it was not a short time". This should have puzzled people because the shorted possible time was more important than the longest possible time. This is just one thing that reduces Dr. Lee's credibility.

Mr. Heidestra's testimony was probably at least partly accurate. At least one of the Goldmans said that when Ron was excited, he would often yell 'hey, hey, hey'. This gives him some credibility. Heidestra heard some arguing, and a few mnutes later (certainly not 20) he saw a white SUV, whilch could have been a bronco drive away.

It is true that the LAPD probably made a lot of mistakes. I once met a woman police officer who worked there and said the competence level wasn't very high. In spite of this the job of the jury, and the main job of the press (on the Simpson trial), is to decide guilt or innocence, not competence or incompetence.

[William Anthony]

*******************************************
Dr. Lee admitted at the civil trial that the fight could have lasted as short as 1 minutes. At the criminal trial he said it could have lasted as long as 20 minutes, and also 'it was not a short time". This should have puzzled people because the shorted possible time was more important than the longest possible time. This is just one thing that reduces Dr. Lee's credibility.

Mr. Heidestra's testimony was probably at least partly accurate. At least one of the Goldmans said that when Ron was excited, he would often yell 'hey, hey, hey'. This gives him some credibility. Heidestra heard some arguing, and a few mnutes later (certainly not 20) he saw a white SUV, whilch could have been a bronco drive away.

It is true that the LAPD probably made a lot of mistakes. I once met a woman police officer who worked there and said the competence level wasn't very high. In spite of this the job of the jury, and the main job of the press (on the Simpson trial), is to decide guilt or innocence, not competence or incompetence.

DR. HUIZENGA: Occasionally with activity you can worsen wear and tear arthritis, osteoarthritis, and so that can be a variable. He also--and we haven't talked about it--there were other rheumatologic conditions that may have a waxing and waning and fluctuating cause, but without question this is someone that was not able to jog or move quickly on the basis of his left knee.

[William Anthony]

************************************************** ***
My experience is that knee injuries cause increasing discomfort for more than 24 hours. In other words, they would cause more discomfort and therefore limping 24 hours later than they would 12 hours later. Of course any witnesses memories can help even though we know that witnesses are often wrong.

How much experience have you had with rheumatoid arthritis?

[William Anthony]

Since this is the first time I have heard this, please, supply the link to one of the Goldman's statement that when Mr. RG was excited he would yell hey, hey, hey.

[William Anthony]

http://www.webmd.com/rheumatoid-arthritis/guide/knee-ra-rheumatoid-arthritis-of-the-knee

[GreenIce]

*******************************************
Dr. Lee admitted at the civil trial that the fight could have lasted as short as 1 minutes. At the criminal trial he said it could have lasted as long as 20 minutes, and also 'it was not a short time". This should have puzzled people because the shorted possible time was more important than the longest possible time. This is just one thing that reduces Dr. Lee's credibility.

Mr. Heidestra's testimony was probably at least partly accurate. At least one of the Goldmans said that when Ron was excited, he would often yell 'hey, hey, hey'. This gives him some credibility. Heidestra heard some arguing, and a few mnutes later (certainly not 20) he saw a white SUV, whilch could have been a bronco drive away.

It is true that the LAPD probably made a lot of mistakes. I once met a woman police officer who worked there and said the competence level wasn't very high. In spite of this the job of the jury, and the main job of the press (on the Simpson trial), is to decide guilt or innocence, not competence or incompetence.

fgump2,

Yes, Dr. Lee said it could have, but did he say that was his opinon? Dr. L in the criminal trial testimony said that two knives could have been used, the struggle could have been longer, etc. Experts give their opinions and what factors they use to back it up. Of course there our disagreements. Of course lawyers know how to phrase questions and keep asking them until they get an answer they work with.

There is no proof that the person who said "hey, hey, hey" was in fact Ron Goldman. The only person who might have been able to identify Ron's voice is Sydney.

Yes, Mr. H did see a SUV drive away, however, it was going in the opposite direction and the reality situation is that there are many SUV's in CA. There are many light color SUV's in CA. There are many white SUV's in CA. There are many white Bronco's in CA. Mr. H seeing a white or a light color SUV driving that night does automatically prove that it was a white Bronco and the driver of that SUV was OJ Simpson. No proof.

Mr. Simpson's Bronco had tinted windows. Mr. H. could give no description of the driver, not a digit or a letter on the license plate. In fact, was he even asked if was able to make out if it was even a CA license plate?

I don't remember JS ever being asked about a license plate. But she did describe what appears to me to unusal tire rims---she said they sparkled--I think.

Oh, did Dr. Spitz tesitify that the struggle could have been longer then what he opined to?

The competence level of police departments personnel are paramount to an accurate investigation. In this career field comptence equals life and death. In this career field comptence equals justice, for both sides.

Incompetence does not equal justice. You have slammed Dr. Lee and his credibility on issues that IMO, just make no sense to me but it is obvious you feel strongly about it. If you feel his credibilty is so damaged because his book and what he wrote about how many hairs are needed, they how can you give any credibility to the LAPD's crime lab--4 experts looked at those socks and saw no blood and never used the basic equipment?

In all fairness fgump2, did Dr. Lee's opinons alter the collection, storage, chain of custody of the evidence?

[fgump2]

Since this is the first time I have heard this, please, supply the link to one of the Goldman's statement that when Mr. RG was excited he would yell hey, hey, hey.

*****************************************
I don't have a link or source. I remember during the trial when I read Heidestra's testimony, I thought it might be made up so he could have 15 minutes of fame. I changed my mind when one of Ron's relatives said he would say or yell 'hey, hey, hey' when he was excited.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, Simpson testified about the phone call he made to Nicole at 9:00 and spoke with Sydney. There is no evidence that Simpson told Sydney any details regarding his trip to Chicago later that night. If the detectives had any idea that Simpson was not home they would have never spent any time going to Rockingham. There is no evidence to support your imagined claims.

November 26, 1996 Simpson

Q. And the last call you made during the time frame was one to Nicole's condominium, true?
A. Yes.
Q. About 9 o'clock p.m. you said?
A. Yes.
Q. And Nicole answered, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said to Nicole, let me speak to Sydney, true?
A. I may have asked is Sydney asleep yet.
Q. And the phone was put down and Sydney got on the phone, right?
A. Yes. I think she was in Sydney's room.
Q. And you congratulated Sydney on her dance performance, right?
A. Partially, yes.
Q. Even though you just congratulated her a few hours before?
A. Actually, she came up, I said you were super. She took a picture, she ran off, so I didn't have time to talk to her.
Q. Ran off because the cars were waiting to take her away?
A. No, ran off because all the kids were running around.
Q. And you told Sydney that maybe you guys might go to Knott's Berry Farm, or something like that, when you got back from out of town, right?
A. She had asked previously about Knott's Berry Farm, and I told her I'd be back this coming weekend, and this would be the weekend I'd take them to Knott's Berry Farm.
Q. And it is your testimony --
A. Or Sunday, I should say.
Q. Excuse me. It is your testimony, sir, that there was absolutely nothing said between Nicole and you in that call at 9 o'clock p.m., June 12, 1994?
A. Absolutely nothing.
Q. Excuse me?
A. Absolutely nothing, other than has Sydney gone to sleep yet.
Q. Not even small talk?
A. Not even small talk.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

From the testimony you posted, it is clear that Sydney did know her father was going out of town and when he was coming back.

It is logical to assume that Simpson called Sydney to congratulate her on her performance that evening because he would be out of town the next day and because of his schedule, he may not have been able to call her congratulate her the next day--hence the reason he called her knowing she may have already been asleep.

Sydney called her mother's home several times that night. She was obviously upset, she knew something terrible happened, she told the cops what she heard that night. It is perfectly logical for her to tell the police that her father was out of town and where he was.

You have no proof to suggest that Sydney was not aware of her father's travel plans.

However, according to you your total belief is the detective's and the LAPD's reason for going to Rockingham, they had no reason NOT to ask Sydney where her father was. In fact to suggest they did not ask Sydney where her father was supports the NG's belief that the cops always knew where he was and that he was a prime suspect.

In one of the books, not sure which one, but it says around 5:00 a.m. a male cop asked Sydney for phone numbers of a her sister, Arnelle. She knew that number and she gave it, what she didn't know this number at 1:00 a.m.? She didn't know her own father's telephone number.

Sydney was woken up by police officers, taken out of the house, knew something was horribly wrong, told the police about what she heard that night. Do you really think she would not have offered this information? Don't you think that Sydney wanted someone from her family to come and get her and explain what is going on?


You are living in a fantasy world to even suggest that Sydney was deaf and mute to the events that night. You are treating her like she was incompetent to give logical answers to very basic questions.

IMO, the reason why you remain so stubborn on this issue is because you realize that all your defense of the LAPD and the detectives falls apart and you have to deal with the obvious--the cops lied and knowing where Simpson was and what time he left, provides the means and the opportunity for evidence to be transfered from one crime scene to another--and it was not OJ Simpson. Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

*****************************************
I don't have a link or source. I remember during the trial when I read Heidestra's testimony, I thought it might be made up so he could have 15 minutes of fame. I changed my mind when one of Ron's relatives said he would say or yell 'hey, hey, hey' when he was excited.

fgump2,

The relative was Michael Glass, Ron's younger step brother. He said that Ron would have said something like that as he was rushing to help Nicole. Again, "hey, hey, hey" are not unique words.

However, I will tell you, I think it was in William Dear's book that "hey, hey, hey" is often used in martial arts. I don't remember the exact reasoning behind it. I think both Ron and Nicole had martial training.

His other step brother, was quoted in an interview that he believed Ron was murdered because he got in over head. Hence, why Brian Glass was never seen again or talked to by the press.

If that was Ron, he had martial arts training, as well as the evidence at the scene clearly indicate that Ron was able to land a few kicks and punches before he died.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

The plaintiff's witness did give his opinon that he did not believe the photos were faked. However, he also went on to say that a fake photo could pass for an original. Even back in 1996 the technology was awesome.

The DA's had several assistants who spent weeks and months trying to find any picture with these shoes. In fact, I think in Darden's book he may have mentioned that they went to Buffalo to review thousands of pictures and came up with zip.

There were several photos given to the DA's with Simpson wearing gloves, but according to them, they never received one photo of Simpson's feet. I find that odd.

The problem with the newsletter is that several other people were in that photo who had first generation photos. Not one of these, to the best of our knowledge was ever given to the DA's. However, it would not surprise me if they did receive one and it was determined that they couldn't prove what type of shoe it was.

MC did not use JS because she "sold" her story. This photo was shopped and sold before it was ever turned over to the plaintiffs' lawyers. Does this prove the photo was fake--not necessairaly, but it does prove that the main interest in this photo was money, yes it does. Again, there is the double stand.

For this person to suddenly remember he took this photo a few months after the criminal trial just doesn't ring true.

Why wouldn't Simpson be flustered about these pictures?

The shoes were ugly assed shoes and that doesn't change no matter who was wearing them:)
**************************************
the FBI expert said that it would have been difficult and expensive. To retouch a picture which had been printed in a newsletter would be very risky in addition to being expensive. All the defense would have had to do is find one printed copy that looked different. For that matter if they had found one non touched picture of Mr. Simpson on that day, with other shoes, and the prosecutions big day would have been deflated.

[GreenIce]

**************************************
the FBI expert said that it would have been difficult and expensive. To retouch a picture which had been printed in a newsletter would be very risky in addition to being expensive. All the defense would have had to do is find one printed copy that looked different. For that matter if they had found one non touched picture of Mr. Simpson on that day, with other shoes, and the prosecutions big day would have been deflated.

fgump2,

Have you read the Goldmans' book? Mr. Goldman does say that he had people come up to him and offer to kill Simpson for him and that it would never be traced back to him. Mr. Goldman didn't want that and rejected it out of hand. However, if there were people willing to kill Simpson, is it that great a leap of logic that somone would have photo doctored?

Had the defense produced photos that proved he was not wearing BM's, how quick would G's point out that pictures can be doctored and Simpson was rich enough to accomplish this?

The bottom line is there was no risk to any one who participated in this in getting caught. It was always going to come down to a battle of the experts and the jurors would have had to decided which expert they believed.

Millions were spent on this trial on both sides. IIRC, the DA's had a lot of exhibits that were topnotch due the free services of private agencies. I am not say that these agencies did anything more then make them very professional looking. It is a great leap of logic to believe that a person would have altered the photo and not ask for money?

Is it a great leap of logic that no matter how much this would have cost, the people knew that it would not compare to how much money they were going to make off of it?

I believe this picture was examined and verified in England. I do not believe the defense would have been able to compel this person to testify in the trial.
There was also an issue of time. Did the defense have enough time to fully prepare for the photos? I don't think they were.

It would be very interesting to read the testimony regarding the photos, not so much the experts but the other key players.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, you say the jurors could consider only the time guesses Kaelin made and disregarded the documented times on the telephone records? That’s ridiculous.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Clearly your questions are not about the post you are quoting.

I made it clear that Clark changed her timeline in her closing arguments and that closing arguments are to be taken as evidence.

Since Kato testified in the criminal trial to the 10:40-10:45 p.m., the times he gave when testifying are the only times the jurors could have used.

My post was not ridiculous.

[bobaugust]

Please note that betwen the Ashford gate and the Ashford sidewalk was a very dark area as there were no lights and Park was looking at the house through the vetrical metal bars of the gate.

Please note that Kaelin was using a flashlight when he came from around the house and down the Ashford path. That is what attracted Park’s attention.

[bobaugust]

I have not looked to the statements of the lawyers but I did post the portion of the magnificent one's argument where he stated what is obvious to me, that Park was mistaken and I do believe the jury, when they asked for the read back of Park's testimony were able to see what I see. I have supported my position with actual testimony. However, in order for you to continue to support your inference, you have come up with a scenario that call Park a liar, because he might, could have, possibly did not see Kato perform his first cursory search when he testified he saw Kato still standing there. When one says that someone else is mistaken they are disputing the testimony. There is no need for you last insulting sentence, so I ask you to stop.

The evidence in this case is that Park saw Kaelin for the first time that night when Kaelin came from behind the house on the Ashford sidewalk with a flashlight after leaving his room to investigate the noises he had heard and then almost simultaneously Park saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up and enter his house. What is insulting to this discussion group is your distortion of that evidence and illogical false claim that Park saw Kaelin and Simpson after Kaelin had returned from his first investigation. Your claim is proven false by both Park and Kaelin’s testimony.

You have never supported your claim with any testimony from Kaelin who testified as to what he actually did, not what you imagine him to have done. All you have done is supported the fact that Park did not pay any attention to Kaelin after Park saw Simpson enter his house and did not know that Kaelin had continued onto the garage. It wasn’t until a couple minutes later after Park had waited to be let in, talked on the intercom to Simpson, and continued to wait in the limo for someone to open the gate that he once again saw Kaelin go to the gate control box and open the gate after Kaelin had returned from his short trip to behind the garage.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I thought you were familiar with the diagram of the layout of the estate?

I am, you evidently are not. Park saw lights illuminate the windows of the front office and the living room, most likely when Simpson turned the light on in the foyer. Tell us William what window Kaelin would have past on his way to the garage to be able to see that light.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Park's testimony was contradicted by the Kato and you and disputed by the defense and you. You only consider part of the evidence on the issue to support your claim. I look at all of the evidence to draw reasonable inferences.

Park’s testimony that he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house down the Ashford sidewalk with a flashlight was never disputed by Kaelin or any of Simpson’s defense attorneys. Your doubt isn’t reasonable at all it’s simply imaginary doubt based on your refusal to accept that both Park and Kaelin contradict what you have imagined to have happened.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Bobaugust,

This is from post $7762 and is in regard to your question about Park's testimony where he said he saw Kato standing for two minutes, which I had previously posted.

1 A. THE MALE WHITE PAUSED FOR "ANOTHER MINUTE" AS HE
2 WAS STILL STANDING IN THE SAME POSITION AS WHERE HE WAS.

I would ask you to note that the adjective "another" means that there had been at least one prior minute and maybe more that Park saw Kato "in the same position as where he was."

This portion of testimony was not in your post 7762. You are once again referring to Park’s grand jury testimony where Park thought Kaelin was standing by the gate control box. Park’s criminal trial was far more detailed than his grand jury testimony. You William, as someone who has studied law should be able to understand why. I explained to you before Park was not aware that Kaelin had gone on to the garage and returned to the gate control box because he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin after Simpson entered his house.

The point here is not Park’s testimony as to what he thought Kaelin had done but Kaelin’s testimony as to what he actually did. Kaelin never said he went back to the Ashford path as you imagine he did. Kaelin never said he stood anywhere for a minute let alone for two minutes. What Kaelin did say was that after coming back from behind the garage he saw the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

That happened a couple of minutes after Park saw Simpson enter his house, after Park said he waited in the limo, after Park said he had talked to Simpson on the intercom, after Park waited some more time in the limo.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

'[QUOTE]Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
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."

If what you believe is true that kato did not perform his first cursory search of the garage area until after the someone, believed to be Simpson, went into the house and turned the lights on, because Park testified to seeing these things in seconds almost simultaneously, then Kato would have proceeded down the driveway and the downstairs lights would have been on.
If I recall correctly, Kato was asked about the downstairs lighting and said none were on but I don't remember the timing of when he was asked but I will look.

You recall incorrectly. If you think Kaelin was asked about downstairs lights on in the house then post it please. There was no window in the front of Simpson’s house that Kaelin could have seen the downstairs lights (most likely the foyer light) that Simpson had turned on when he entered his house. Kaelin was only asked about outside lights in the front of the house.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

He testified where he started walking and it was on the pathway by the garage area.

I have to agree with you that Kaelin could very well have run or walked briskly to the garage. That’s another reason why his first trip to behind the garage and then back to the gate control box didn’t take very long. Possibly even less than two minutes.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Thanks. Kato was never asked if he went back to the pathway but Park's testimony tells us that he did as he was still standing there in the same position as he was.

Park does not tell us what Kaelin did since Park wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin after he saw Simpson enter his house. Kaelin told us what he did. I previously posted Kaelin’s testimony concerning this issue. Here it is again in case you do not remember reading it.

June 17, 1994 Grand Jury Kaelin

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

July 5, 1994 Preliminary Hearing Kaelin

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


March 22, 1995 Criminal trial Kaelin

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

Kaelin Deposition February 14, 1996

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


November 19, 1995 Civil Trial Kaelin

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

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

VA did not search every room in the house. There is no rule that if the hired help get murdered in their employer's home, it must done inside their living quarters.

How conducted the search for the maid and for that matter Simpson? And tell me, what type of detectives who are frantic about victims inside would let a family member lead them into the house first--what if the maid was murdered in the house? What if it was her father?

So much has been said about Simpson leaving the bodies where his children could find their mother but what about Arnelle finding her father murdered? Or the maid. Either way, I would think it would be very, very upsetting. IMO.

When the police first spoke to Kato and Arnelle, why only questions about OJ, I thought their concerns was for the maid?

Sorry Mr. August, again the LAPD got caught in nest of lies that never had to be told. IMO.

GreenIce, neither the detectives nor Arnelle saw anything out of order in Simpson’s house. Arnelle knew the housekeeper was not there and her father was out of town.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

From the testimony you posted, it is clear that Sydney did know her father was going out of town and when he was coming back.

It is logical to assume that Simpson called Sydney to congratulate her on her performance that evening because he would be out of town the next day and because of his schedule, he may not have been able to call her congratulate her the next day--hence the reason he called her knowing she may have already been asleep.

Sydney called her mother's home several times that night. She was obviously upset, she knew something terrible happened, she told the cops what she heard that night. It is perfectly logical for her to tell the police that her father was out of town and where he was.

You have no proof to suggest that Sydney was not aware of her father's travel plans.

However, according to you your total belief is the detective's and the LAPD's reason for going to Rockingham, they had no reason NOT to ask Sydney where her father was. In fact to suggest they did not ask Sydney where her father was supports the NG's belief that the cops always knew where he was and that he was a prime suspect.

In one of the books, not sure which one, but it says around 5:00 a.m. a male cop asked Sydney for phone numbers of a her sister, Arnelle. She knew that number and she gave it, what she didn't know this number at 1:00 a.m.? She didn't know her own father's telephone number.

Sydney was woken up by police officers, taken out of the house, knew something was horribly wrong, told the police about what she heard that night. Do you really think she would not have offered this information? Don't you think that Sydney wanted someone from her family to come and get her and explain what is going on?


You are living in a fantasy world to even suggest that Sydney was deaf and mute to the events that night. You are treating her like she was incompetent to give logical answers to very basic questions.

IMO, the reason why you remain so stubborn on this issue is because you realize that all your defense of the LAPD and the detectives falls apart and you have to deal with the obvious--the cops lied and knowing where Simpson was and what time he left, provides the means and the opportunity for evidence to be transfered from one crime scene to another--and it was not OJ Simpson. Again, IMO.

GreenIce, I’m not being stubborn, the fact is there is no evidence that Simpson told his young daughter any details concerning his flight out of town. There is no evidence that the detectives knew that Simpson was out of town when they were told to notify him in person. The detectives would never have been told to go there nor would they have gone there if they knew that Simpson was not there. They would not have wasted their time standing outside Simpson’s estate so long if they had known for a fact that Simpson wasn’t there. That’s reality.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Clearly your questions are not about the post you are quoting.

I made it clear that Clark changed her timeline in her closing arguments and that closing arguments are to be taken as evidence.

Since Kato testified in the criminal trial to the 10:40-10:45 p.m., the times he gave when testifying are the only times the jurors could have used.

My post was not ridiculous.

GreenIce, I agree that Clark made many mistakes including using estimated times or guesses as to what time some events had taken place. In her closing argument she attempted to correct some of those mistakes to the jurors. The estimated times Kaelin guessed at should not have been the times the jurors considered as to when an event happened if there was a more accurate time based on documented telephone records.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

*****************************************
I don't have a link or source. I remember during the trial when I read Heidestra's testimony, I thought it might be made up so he could have 15 minutes of fame. I changed my mind when one of Ron's relatives said he would say or yell 'hey, hey, hey' when he was excited.

I wonder what he yelled when he wanted to get someone's attention-don't, don't, don't.

[GreenIce]

Park’s testimony that he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house down the Ashford sidewalk with a flashlight was never disputed by Kaelin or any of Simpson’s defense attorneys. Your doubt isn’t reasonable at all it’s simply imaginary doubt based on your refusal to accept that both Park and Kaelin contradict what you have imagined to have happened.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

First, the defense had no dog in this fight when Park first saw Kato or Kato first saw Park. There stance is that OJ was inside the house getting ready for his trip. This point is a dispute of time between 2 DA witnesses. Has no bearing on the murders.

Both Park and Kato had imagination problems of their own that night. For example Mr. Park imagined he saw a car that was not there. Kato imagined that Simpson was wearing a dark sweat suit when he left for the airport. He continued to imagine what Simpson was wearing when both men were inside the home and he was able to see what Mr. Simpson was wearing in a lighted kitchen.

Imagination goes both ways, IMO.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, I’m not being stubborn, the fact is there is no evidence that Simpson told his young daughter any details concerning his flight out of town. There is no evidence that the detectives knew that Simpson was out of town when they were told to notify him in person. The detectives would never have been told to go there nor would they have gone there if they knew that Simpson was not there. They would not have wasted their time standing outside Simpson’s estate so long if they had known for a fact that Simpson wasn’t there. That’s reality.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Again, you ignore the obvious. Why wouldn't the police have asked Sydney and Justin if they knew where their father was? Why? Sydney knew that her father was going out of town, she knew he was leaving town that night because he attended her dance recital. Simpson and his daugther were making plans to go to an amusement park.

The reality of the situation is that Sydney knew something was horribly wrong and she sat in a police station for hours and she made several statements about the events of that night and apparently was only allowed to call her mother's home and leave messages for her mother.

The reality of the situation is that the LAPD had to come up with a cover story, regardless of how lame it was, to protect their going over the wall.

The realilty of the situation at least 2 of the detectives were aware of not only 1 DV call between the Simpsons but at least one more that resulted in Mr. Simpson pleading no contest. The reality of the situation is that Mr. Simpson was the prime suspect, MF knew he was "right" and went to Rockingham long before the order was given.

Again, the detectives were ordered to go to Simpson's home to give him notice, correct? Well when the officers determined that Simpson was not home, when did they call their superior, the same person who gave them the order to notify Simpson personally, to find out what to do next?

Are we to believe that after being given an "order" to notify Simpson face to face and the reasons for doing so, were tossed out the window when they knew where he was?

The fact is Mr. August, Simpson not being home is much more of a reason for the police going to Rockingham ASAP rather then waiting hours before doing so. They knew where he was.

[William Anthony]

The evidence in this case is that Park saw Kaelin for the first time that night when Kaelin came from behind the house on the Ashford sidewalk with a flashlight after leaving his room to investigate the noises he had heard and then almost simultaneously Park saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up and enter his house. What is insulting to this discussion group is your distortion of that evidence and illogical false claim that Park saw Kaelin and Simpson after Kaelin had returned from his first investigation. Your claim is proven false by both Park and Kaelin’s testimony.

You have never supported your claim with any testimony from Kaelin who testified as to what he actually did, not what you imagine him to have done. All you have done is supported the fact that Park did not pay any attention to Kaelin after Park saw Simpson enter his house and did not know that Kaelin had continued onto the garage. It wasn’t until a couple minutes later after Park had waited to be let in, talked on the intercom to Simpson, and continued to wait in the limo for someone to open the gate that he once again saw Kaelin go to the gate control box and open the gate after Kaelin had returned from his short trip to behind the garage.

bobaugust

bobaugust,

You want to say what is insulting to the group, The most insulting thing that I can remember that was insulting to the group and the memory of a beautiful young murder victim was when you repeatedly claimed that the civil verdict meant that Simpson was responsible for killing Ms. NBS. Just as I corrected that portion of your false posts, allow me to correct these. The evidence is contradicted thoroughly as to when Park first saw Kato, as Park said he saw Kato walking and Kato testified that he was running when the events were fresher in his mind and before he had been intimidated by Ms. Clark. Since you have to be right, you distort the evidence in this case. The evidence is that Park said he saw kato still standing in the position that he was for another minute after seeing Simpson (for the sake of argument) enter his home, before Kato proceeded to go to the gate box. Park marked that position and it is on the diagram, which was standing near the driveway near the Ashford path. There is no testimony that Park ever saw Kato standing near the gate box. Since you have previously agreed that Kato did not open the gate until after he finished his first cursory search, you have to come up with an illogical inference, when the evidence is that when Park saw Kato still standing he saw Simpson enter the house and the lights came on within. If you scenario is at all possible, then Kato would have been walking down the driveway at the same time the lights came on and would have seen them. However, he did not. Additionally, it did not take Simpson two minutes to enter the house and have Park's attention diverted to him for that amount of time. Looking from the Ashford gate, Park's view was that he was looking down the driveway. There is no way that he would not have seen Kato walking down the driveway, which Kato said he ran down. The evidence is that Park testified to seeing Kato standing on the sidewalk near Ashford for another minute after Simpson went in the house, before Kato proceeded to go to the gate box to let him in.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9188348]'

You recall incorrectly. If you think Kaelin was asked about downstairs lights on in the house then post it please. There was no window in the front of Simpson’s house that Kaelin could have seen the downstairs lights (most likely the foyer light) that Simpson had turned on when he entered his house. Kaelin was only asked about outside lights in the front of the house.

bobaugust

Then there was no light that Park could have seen come on that illuminated curtains. If it was the foyer light, Kato would have seen it.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, I agree that Clark made many mistakes including using estimated times or guesses as to what time some events had taken place. In her closing argument she attempted to correct some of those mistakes to the jurors. The estimated times Kaelin guessed at should not have been the times the jurors considered as to when an event happened if there was a more accurate time based on documented telephone records.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Clark knew about those phone records since June of 1994. Both Kato and Rachel took the stand. Miss Clark is the one who was doing the estimating on top of Kato's and Rachel's estimating. She was using these estimates to confirm her timeline.

True or not true, any statements made by a lawyer in opening or closing arguments are not to be taken as evidence? Both sides can point out the weaknesses of the other's case. Both sides can say that the other side promised witnesses that did not testify. However, neither side can correct any evidence problems in closing. The only way for Clark to have been able to legally correct her timeline was by recallling Kato and Rachel.

However, it was Darden who told the jury that the timeline wasn't important, that even using the defense's timeline does not mean Simpson did not kill Ron and Nicole.

JC nailed Darden on this statement. He said is the first time he as well as the jurors heard that about the timeline.

It was in MC's final appearance before the jury is when she changed her timeline. However, closing arguments are not evidence. Her switching to the defense's timeline put her orignal timeline off by close to a half hour. That is a lot of time, huge difference. IMO.

[William Anthony]

Park does not tell us what Kaelin did since Park wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin after he saw Simpson enter his house. Kaelin told us what he did. I previously posted Kaelin’s testimony concerning this issue. Here it is again in case you do not remember reading it.

June 17, 1994 Grand Jury Kaelin

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

July 5, 1994 Preliminary Hearing Kaelin

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


March 22, 1995 Criminal trial Kaelin

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

Kaelin Deposition February 14, 1996

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


November 19, 1995 Civil Trial Kaelin

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

bobaugust

You have previously admitted that there is not testimony and Kato never said he went directly to the gate box as you falsely claimed. In fact there are no questions as to the path Kato took to get to the gate box. However, see my previous response as Park tells us he saw Kato standing for another minute in the same position as he was before Kato proceeded to the gate box to let the limo in.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, I agree that Clark made many mistakes including using estimated times or guesses as to what time some events had taken place. In her closing argument she attempted to correct some of those mistakes to the jurors. The estimated times Kaelin guessed at should not have been the times the jurors considered as to when an event happened if there was a more accurate time based on documented telephone records.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

One last thing, Clark did not make any mistakes---she took risks that were well thought out and she alone did not have the authority to takes these risks.

There is a huge difference between making an honest mistake vs taking a calculated risk. IMO.

[William Anthony]

GreenIce, I agree that Clark made many mistakes including using estimated times or guesses as to what time some events had taken place. In her closing argument she attempted to correct some of those mistakes to the jurors. The estimated times Kaelin guessed at should not have been the times the jurors considered as to when an event happened if there was a more accurate time based on documented telephone records.

bobaugust

I posted the question Petrocelli tried to ask by using the phone records to indicate the time of the thumps, which was objected to and sustained. Ms. Clark got away with it in her closing because what she says is not evidence and she is allowed to attempt to persuade the jury to agree with how she saw the evidence fitting together. However, the evidence was that Kato testified to hearing the thumps in the time frame between ten forty and ten forty five. The judge in the civil trial did not allow the speculative answer that the time of the phone calls establishes the time of the thumps, only that they establish when Park first saw Kato.

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

One last thing, Clark did not make any mistakes---she took risks that were well thought out and she alone did not have the authority to takes these risks.

There is a huge difference between making an honest mistake vs taking a calculated risk. IMO.

Agreed, which is what I was saying in the post that followed yours.

[GreenIce]

You have previously admitted that there is not testimony and Kato never said he went directly to the gate box as you falsely claimed. In fact there are no questions as to the path Kato took to get to the gate box. However, see my previous response as Park tells us he saw Kato standing for another minute in the same position as he was before Kato proceeded to the gate box to let the limo in.

William,

Do you agree with me that the defense had no dog in this fight? And whoever saw who first really doesn't matter?

It never made any sense to me why the DA's would have forced the issue that when Park saw Simpson, it had to be him returning from the murders.

IMO, if it was Simpson making the noise, then he would have been able to enter his house and be inside when Kato let the limo driver in.

It seems to me by forcing such details that really had no bearing on the case hurt the DA's. Just like Simpson's blood on the Bronco. Telling the truth on when he cut his hand on his own property does mean he is innocent. IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

Do you agree with me that the defense had no dog in this fight? And whoever saw who first really doesn't matter?

It never made any sense to me why the DA's would have forced the issue that when Park saw Simpson, it had to be him returning from the murders.

IMO, if it was Simpson making the noise, then he would have been able to enter his house and be inside when Kato let the limo driver in.

It seems to me by forcing such details that really had no bearing on the case hurt the DA's. Just like Simpson's blood on the Bronco. Telling the truth on when he cut his hand on his own property does mean he is innocent. IMO.

I cannot agree that the defense had no dog in the fight as the prosecution's theory was that Simpson dropped the glove (the time of the sound of the thumps). I think the defense was obligated to provide reasonable doubt on this issue. The problem is that the prosecution and the plaintiffs wanted to make the sound of the thumps later than ten forty five to allow Simpson more time to have committed the murders and returned to Rockingham. If the prosecution had been successful in moving the time closer to ten fifty four it would have allowed Simpson more time. Park could only testify to seeing Simpson entering his home through the front entrance way and, consequently, the prosecution had to make this Simpson returning at ten fifty four. However, no witness saw Simpson behind Kato's quarters or walking anywhere outside before Park saw him enter, which means that Simpson came from inside his home, dropped some bags and walked back in which is when Park so him, IMHO.

It does matter who saw who first and it matters at what time Kato saw Park but Park did not see Kato as that helps establish the time of the thumps and narrows down the time of the murders, according to the prosecution's theory.

[William Anthony]

"Q: AND ON ASHFORD, THERE'S A LARGE STREET LAMP; IS THERE NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT STREET LAMP ILLUMINATES THE AREA OF THE DRIVEWAY AND THE FRONT DOOR; DOES IT NOT?

A: THE STREETLIGHT -- YEAH, YOU CAN SEE THE STREETLIGHT WOULD LIGHT UP PART OF THE DRIVEWAY JUST A BIT, YEAH.

Q: AND THAT'S A VERY, VERY BRIGHT INTENSE STREETLIGHT; IS IT NOT?

A: YEAH. IT LIGHTS UP THAT CORNER, YEAH.

Q: YOU'VE PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED, HAVE YOU NOT, THAT YOU DON'T RECALL WHETHER OR NOT THE LIGHTS WERE ON DOWNSTAIRS?

A: YEAH. I WAS IFFY. I THINK I SAID THAT I THOUGHT THEY WERE ON AND MAYBE OFF, BUT I THOUGHT THEY WERE -- I THINK I SAID THEY WERE OFF AND ON AND THEN I THOUGHT I -- THE LAST THING I SAID IN THIS TESTIMONY WAS THAT THEY WERE OFF.

Q: ARE YOU -- HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT YOU'RE NOT SURE WHETHER THEY WERE ON OR OFF?

A: YES, I DID THAT.

Q: AND WOULD THAT BE YOUR BEST ANSWER IN THIS CASE?

A: THAT I WASN'T SURE? YES.



I now have posted the testimony about Kato being asked about the downstairs lights, contrary to the assertion that he was not asked.

[William Anthony]

If you think that Kaelin should have seen lights on downstairs in the house when he went to the garage then support that claim. Tell us William what windows could Kaelin have past on his way to the garage to be able to see the lighting downstairs that Park saw?

bobaugust

Bobaugust,

Do you think Simpson had curtains hanging on the outside walls of his home?

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

A: JUST SECONDS.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHICH LIGHTS WENT ON?

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

[William Anthony]

I explained to you before Park was not aware that Kaelin had gone on to the garage and returned to the gate control box because he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin after Simpson entered his house.

bobaugust

This is from the preliminary hearing when the events would have been fresher in Park's mind. He was paying attention to Kato, who he said was standing there pretty much the whole time, and he did not recall Kato walking to the garage area. I don't know how you think you can explain to me what Park was aware of when he testified as to his awareness.

"18 Q Okay. Immediately after that person entered
19 the door and the lights went on downstairs, what
20 happened next?
21 A I waited a couple seconds to see if the white
22 male was going to come and open the gate, which he
23 didn't, so I got back out of the car and buzzed the gate
24 again. And at that time I got an answer.
25 Q Now, wait.
26 How long was it -- between the time you saw
27 the person enter the front door, the lights went on, you
28 buzzed the gate.
0029
01 How much time elapsed between the lights going
02 on and the person entering the front door and you
03 buzzing the gate?
04 A 15, 20 seconds.
05 Q So 15 or 20 seconds after the person entered
06 the house, you buzzed the gate.
07 A Yes.
08 Q What happened then?
09 A The intercom was answered by what I believe
10 was Mr. Simpson, and he told me that he overslept and he
11 just got out of the shower and that he'd be out -- he'd
12 be down in a minute.
13 Q And when you say you believe Mr. Simpson, is
14 that someone you see in court today, sir?
15 A Yes, it is.
16 Q Could you please point him out.
17 A He's right here.
18 Q And what's he wearing today?
19 MR. SHAPIRO: We'll stipulate that he's identified
20 Mr. Simpson.
21 MS. CLARK: Thank you.
22 THE COURT: All right.
23 BY MS. CLARK:
24 Q So Mr. Simpson told you that he had overslept
25 and he just got out of the shower?
26 A Correct.
27 Q And he'd be down in a few minutes?
28 A Um-hum.
0030
01 Q Is that "yes"?
02 A Yes, yes.
03 Q The person that you saw walk into the house
04 after which you saw the lights go on, could you tell
05 where they came from, whether it was Rockingham or the
06 garage area?
07 A I couldn't tell what direction he was coming
08 from. I could tell you what direction he was walking.
09 Q Yeah. He was walking towards the front door?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Okay. Can you -- but you couldn't tell where
12 he was coming from?
13 A No.
14 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I'm going to object to
15 the form of the question.
16 The witness has testified he couldn't tell
17 whether it was a male or female, and now Ms. Clark is
18 saying "You couldn't tell where he was coming from."
19 THE COURT: Sustained. Assumes a fact not in
20 evidence at this point.
21 MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
22 BY MS. CLARK:
23 Q You couldn't tell where that person was coming
24 from?
25 A Correct.
26 Q After you had the conversation with
27 Mr. Simpson, what happened next?
28 A I got back in the car and waited for the gate
0031
01 to be opened, which still took another 30 seconds or so.
02 Q Did you see where the male white was at that
03 point?
04 A He stood there pretty much the whole time.
05 Q Could you see whether he walked over to the
06 garage area at some point while you were waiting for him
07 to open the gate and talking to Mr. Simpson?
08 A Not that I can recall, no."

[William Anthony]

The point here is not Park’s testimony as to what he thought Kaelin had done but Kaelin’s testimony as to what he actually did. Kaelin never said he went back to the Ashford path as you imagine he did. Kaelin never said he stood anywhere for a minute let alone for two minutes. What Kaelin did say was that after coming back from behind the garage he saw the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

That happened a couple of minutes after Park saw Simpson enter his house, after Park said he waited in the limo, after Park said he had talked to Simpson on the intercom, after Park waited some more time in the limo.

bobaugust

Show me the questions, if kato was asked did he walk back to the Ashford pathway and stand there. If you say Kato never stood there for a minute let alone two minutes you are calling Park a liar. If you believe Park is a liar, then how can you believe that he saw Kato "walking from behind the house", when Kato, who you now want to give all credibility, says he was running?

Park testified that all the events, which you mentioned in your last paragraph, took place within a minute and a half.

[William Anthony]

Continuation of Park's preliminary hearing testimony from where I left off.

"09 Q Was the male white and the other person you
10 saw walking into the front door dressed in all dark
11 clothing, were they ever on the driveway at the same
12 point in time?
13 A I don't remember that. I wouldn't --
14 Q You don't remember seeing him on the driveway
15 at the same point --
16 A No --
17 Q -- At the same time?
18 A No.
19 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, the witness has not had a
20 chance to complete his answer.
21 THE COURT: Yes.
22 Please let the witness finish entirely before
23 you make an additional statement.
24 BY MS. CLARK:
25 Q Had you completed your answer?
26 A Yes.
27 Q At some point did the male white open the gate
28 for you?
0032
01 A Yes, he did.
02 Q How long had you been waiting at this --
03 strike that. Let me ask you this.
04 After you spoke to the defendant on the
05 intercom, how long after that did you have to wait for
06 this other man to open the gate?
07 A 30 seconds or more.
08 Q What happened next?
09 A He came towards me and opened the gate. I
10 drove in.

Park's grand jury testimony

"Q. SO YOU MADE THE CALL TO YOUR BOSS AND THEN WHAT
7 HAPPENED?
8 A. HE CALLED ME BACK.
9 Q. WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU MADE THE CALL TO YOUR
10 BOSS?
11 A. I CALLED HIM FIRST AT ABOUT -- RIGHT IN BETWEEN
12 10:50 AND 10:55.
13 HE THEN CALLED ME BACK AT 10:55 AND I TOLD HIM
14 THAT I DID NOT THINK THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS HOME; THAT THERE
15 WERE NO LIGHTS ON DOWNSTAIRS, THERE WAS ONLY ONE LIGHT ON
16 UPSTAIRS AND THAT -- I JUST TOLD HIM I DIDN'T THINK HE WAS
17 HOME.
18 Q. WHILE YOU WERE TALKING TO YOUR BOSS, WERE YOU
19 FOCUSED ON THIS FRONT AREA OR WERE YOU LOOKING ALL AROUND?
20 A. NO, I WAS FOCUSED ON THE FRONT AREA.
21 Q. WHY WERE YOU FOCUSED ON THE FRONT AREA?
22 A. BECAUSE JUST THE WAY I WAS -- YOU KNOW, IT'S
23 JUST THE WAY THE CAR WAS FACING.
24 I WAS LOOKING STRAIGHT OUT THE FRONT WINDSHIELD
25 INTO HIS FRONT AREA, THE FRONT DOOR AND THE DRIVEWAY."

[William Anthony]

Continuation of Park's grand jury testimony

A. AT THAT POINT, I SAW SOMEBODY. I SAW TWO
19 PEOPLE.
20 Q. TELL US, WHO DID YOU SEE FIRST?
21 A. FIRST, I SAW THE WHITE MALE.
22 Q. YOU SAW A MALE WHITE?
23 A. YES.
24 Q. WHERE WAS HE?
25 A. HE CAME FROM THE BACK YARD AREA, FROM THIS AREA
26 UP TO THE DRIVEWAY.
27 MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS IS
28 INDICATING WHEN HE SAID, "THIS AREA," IT IS THE PORTION AS

257

1 YOU FACE THE DIAGRAM THAT IS JUST ABOVE THE FRONT DOOR.
2 Q. AND HE WAS WALKING IN THAT AREA THERE?
3 A. YES.
4 Q. CAN YOU DESCRIBE HIM?
5 A. BLOND HAIR, SHOULDER-LENGTH HAIR, 5-10, 160
6 POUNDS, JEANS, T-SHIRT, AND HE HAD A FLASHLIGHT.
7 AT THAT POINT -- AT THAT POINT, HE JUST STOOD
8 THERE AND GAVE ME A SIGNAL THAT HE SAW ME. HE WAVED TO
9 ME.
10 AND JUST SECONDS AFTER THAT, I SAW A BLACK
11 MALE, 6 FOOT 1, 100 AND -- 200 POUNDS COME FROM -- THE AREA
12 THAT I SAW HIM FROM WAS ABOUT --
13 Q. PLEASE POINT TO IT ON THE DIAGRAM.
14 AND I WILL ASK YOU TO PUT AN "X" ON THAT AREA
15 WHERE YOU FIRST SAW HIM.
16 A. I SAW HIM ABOUT HERE.
17 MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS DONE SO.
18 THE WITNESS: I SAW HIM FROM THERE AND HE PROCEEDED
19 INTO THE FRONT DOOR.
20 Q. BY MS. CLARK: HOW WAS HE MOVING?
21 A. HE WAS NOT RUNNING, BUT HE WAS MOVING QUICKLY.
22 Q. WHAT WAS HE WEARING?
23 Q. FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, IT WAS DARK CLOTHES.
24 I CANNOT TELL WHAT KIND OF CLOTHES, SUIT OR
25 ANYTHING. IT WAS JUST A DARK SHIRT AND DARK PARTS.
26 Q. COULD YOU TELL IF THE SHIRT HAD LONG OR SHORT
27 SLEEVES?
28 A. NO, I COULDN'T.

258

1 Q. DID YOU SEE WHERE THIS MALE BLACK WENT?
2 A. HE WENT INTO THE FRONT DOOR AND ENTERED THE
3 HOUSE.
4 Q. WHEN YOU FIRST ARRIVED AT THE HOUSE, WERE THERE
5 ANY LIGHTS ON?
6 A. ONLY ONE UPSTAIRS.
7 Q. NONE DOWNSTAIRS?
8 A. NO.
9 Q. WHEN THE MALE BLACK WALKED INTO THE HOUSE, WHAT
10 HAPPENED NEXT?
11 A. SOME LIGHTS TURNED ON DOWNSTAIRS AND THE MALE
12 WHITE STILL DID NOT LET ME IN.
13 AND I GOT BACK OUT OF THE CAR AND I RANG THE
14 BELL AGAIN AND O.J. ANSWERED THE INTERCOM FROM THERE.
15 Q. YOU ARE SAYING, "O.J."
16 WHO ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
17 ARE YOU REFERRING TO MR. SIMPSON?
18 A. MR. SIMPSON.
19 Q. HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WAS HIS VOICE?
20 A. I JUST CAN TELL FROM JUST HEARING HIM FOR YEARS
21 AND YEARS ON T.V.
22 Q. WHEN YOU SAY, "THE BELL," YOU ARE RINGING "THE
23 BELL," WHERE IS THAT BELL?
24 A. IT'S RIGHT ABOUT HERE.
25 THERE'S A LITTLE INTERCOM.
26 Q. CAN YOU PLEASE CIRCLE THAT POINT ON THE
27 DIAGRAM.
28 A. (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

259

1 MS. CLARK: THE WITNESS HAS PLACED A BLUE CIRCLE AT
2 THE PORTION OF THE GATE WHERE HE INDICATES THE BELL WAS.
3 Q. I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES.
4 THIS IS THE DIAGRAM THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY MARKED,
5 OR PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 2.
6 CAN YOU TELL ME IF YOU RECOGNIZE THE LOCATION
7 DEPICTED THERE.
8 A. YES, I DO.
9 Q. WHAT IS IT?
10 A. WHAT IS WHAT?
11 Q. WHAT IS THAT LOCATION?
12 A. -A?
13 Q. NO.
14 DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE LOCATION?
15 HAVE YOU EVER BEEN THERE?
16 A. YES, I HAVE.
17 Q. OKAY.
18 WHAT LOCATION IS IT?
19 THE FOREPERSON: BE CAREFUL AND SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO
20 THE MICROPHONE, MR. PARK.
21 THEY ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY HEARING YOU.
22 THE WITNESS: I NOTICED IT TO BE 360 ROCKINGHAM LANE.
23 Q. BY MS. CLARK: IS THAT LOCATION YOU WENT TO?
24 A. YES, IT IS.
25 Q. THAT'S WHERE YOU WENT TO PICK UP MR. SIMPSON?
26 A. YES, IT IS.
27 Q. NOW, AFTER YOU SAW THE MALE BLACK ENTER THE
28 HOUSE, THE LIGHTS WENT ON, YOU RANG THE BELL AND YOU HAD A

260

1 CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE.
2 A. YES.
3 Q. YOU RECOGNIZED THAT PERSON WHO ANSWERED THE
4 BELL AS MR. SIMPSON?
5 A. YES, I DID.
6 Q. WHAT DID HE SAY?
7 A. HE SAID, "SORRY. I OVERSLEPT AND I JUST GOT
8 OUT OF THE SHOWER. I WILL BE DOWN IN A MINUTE."
9 Q. NOW, DO YOU SEE THE HEDGE THAT'S SHOWN IN -B,
10 PHOTOGRAPH -B?
11 A. YES, I DO.
12 Q. UNLESS YOU ARE IN FRONT OF THE GATE, IS YOUR
13 VIEW OF THE HOUSE PRETTY MUCH BLOCKED?
14 A. YES, IT IS.
15 Q. PHOTOGRAPH -A, IS THAT THE ASHFORD SIDE GATE
16 THAT YOU WAITED AT WHEN YOU FIRST GOT THERE?
17 A. YES, IT IS.
18 Q. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE MALE WHITE FOR US A LITTLE
19 BIT BETTER.
20 GIVE US A A FURTHER DESCRIPTION OF THE MALE
21 WHITE YOU SPOKE TO.
22 A. LIKE I SAID, HE WAS 5 FOOT 10, 160 POUNDS,
23 BLOND HAIR, SHOULDER-LENGTH, BLUE JEANS, T-SHIRT.
24 THAT'S ABOUT ALL I NOTICED.
25 Q. WAS HE CARRYING ANYTHING?
26 A. HE HAD A FLASHLIGHT.

[William Anthony]

Park's preliminary hearing testimony

Q And when they walked -- when that person
02 walked into the front door, what happened next?
03 A A couple lights came on and I was still
04 waiting, you know, just waiting for this white male to
05 open the gate or -- he was just standing there. I kind
06 of recognized him, he waved at me.

kato's grand jury testimony

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.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, neither the detectives nor Arnelle saw anything out of order in Simpson’s house. Arnelle knew the housekeeper was not there and her father was out of town.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

We have gone back and forth on this for years, at least it seems like years. You have always said that Arnelle justified Vanatter's lies on the search warrant because when asked where her father was, she pointed to the house and was supposed to have said something like, "isn't in there?"

For years you have used Arnelle for justification, so now are you admitting that for years you were wrong, that Arnelle did know her father was out of town?

Also, how did Arnelle know the housekeep was not home? Who told her? Where is this in the testimony? When Simpson was going out of town, he required his housekeeper to sleep on the estate. It didn't matter if she wasn't there during the day, but at night, he wanted someone there. She did ask for the night off and he granted it. Where is your proof that Arnelle knew this?

I get it, in order for Arnelle to Simpson's accomplice, she had to know where her father was right? She had to know that the maid was not home, right? Well nice try, but you can't have it both ways. Either you use Arnelle to justify the detective's lies or you prove that Arnelle was Simpson's accomplice and I do mean prove.

[GreenIce]

I cannot agree that the defense had no dog in the fight as the prosecution's theory was that Simpson dropped the glove (the time of the sound of the thumps). I think the defense was obligated to provide reasonable doubt on this issue. The problem is that the prosecution and the plaintiffs wanted to make the sound of the thumps later than ten forty five to allow Simpson more time to have committed the murders and returned to Rockingham. If the prosecution had been successful in moving the time closer to ten fifty four it would have allowed Simpson more time. Park could only testify to seeing Simpson entering his home through the front entrance way and, consequently, the prosecution had to make this Simpson returning at ten fifty four. However, no witness saw Simpson behind Kato's quarters or walking anywhere outside before Park saw him enter, which means that Simpson came from inside his home, dropped some bags and walked back in which is when Park so him, IMHO.

It does matter who saw who first and it matters at what time Kato saw Park but Park did not see Kato as that helps establish the time of the thumps and narrows down the time of the murders, according to the prosecution's theory.

William,

The defense, IMO, provided much more evidence that the glove was planted, even before Dr. Lee testified. It seems to me that the noise was a mystery and it could not be proven that it had anything to do with the murders.

A loud noise can move objects, make the ground shake, but it can't move a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the Rockingham crime scene. I truly believe the defense was not worried about the glove or the thumps. If they couldn't recreate the noise and the picture moving, they knew the DA's couldn't. They also already knew from Dr. Lee that no human being climbed that fence and crashed into the wall.

If they had a dog in this fight, it was a really tiny one:) Neither the DA's nor the Plaintiff's have ever linked the thumps to the murders.

Do you think it was a mistake on the DA's part to insist that when Park saw Simpson had was returning from the murders had not been inside his house?

But Clark fought for the eariler time---why did she switch in her closing argument, in your opinon?

[William Anthony]

William,

The defense, IMO, provided much more evidence that the glove was planted, even before Dr. Lee testified. It seems to me that the noise was a mystery and it could not be proven that it had anything to do with the murders.

A loud noise can move objects, make the ground shake, but it can't move a glove from the Bundy crime scene to the Rockingham crime scene. I truly believe the defense was not worried about the glove or the thumps. If they couldn't recreate the noise and the picture moving, they knew the DA's couldn't. They also already knew from Dr. Lee that no human being climbed that fence and crashed into the wall.

If they had a dog in this fight, it was a really tiny one:) Neither the DA's nor the Plaintiff's have ever linked the thumps to the murders.

Do you think it was a mistake on the DA's part to insist that when Park saw Simpson had was returning from the murders had not been inside his house?

But Clark fought for the eariler time---why did she switch in her closing argument, in your opinon?

She switched because she realized it did not fit into the prosecution's scenario. I think the defense was not worried about the noise but used it show that it wasn't possible for Simpson to have committed the murders and have returned home. This is more from Kato's grand jury testimony, which indicates he did not signal/wave/gesture to Park until after he had opened the gate.

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.
27 Q. WHERE DID HE PULL UP TO?
28 A. SHALL I MARK IT?

73

1 Q. YOU CAN JUST SHOW US.
2 A. RIGHT HERE.
3 MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS INDICATED
4 THE AREA DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE FRONT DOOR AND THE AREA
5 DIRECTLY IN FRONT MARKED "G.B."
6 Q. DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM?
7 A. YES, I DID.
8 Q. WHERE WERE YOU STANDING WHEN YOU HAD THAT
9 CONVERSATION, IF YOU RECALL?
10 A. TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, I WAS EXCITED
11 FROM THAT AND I WAS MOVING KIND OF LIKE IN THAT KIND OF
12 MOTION.
13 IT WOULD BE MAINLY RIGHT HERE IN THE FRONT,
14 BECAUSE HE HAD PULLED UP AND THE DOG -- I SAID, "CHACHI,
15 MOVE."
16 AND THE DOG MOVED AND I KIND OF WAVED HIM ON.

[GreenIce]

She switched because she realized it did not fit into the prosecution's scenario. I think the defense was not worried about the noise but used it show that it wasn't possible for Simpson to have committed the murders and have returned home. This is more from Kato's grand jury testimony, which indicates he did not signal/wave/gesture to Park until after he had opened the gate.

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.
27 Q. WHERE DID HE PULL UP TO?
28 A. SHALL I MARK IT?

73

1 Q. YOU CAN JUST SHOW US.
2 A. RIGHT HERE.
3 MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS INDICATED
4 THE AREA DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE FRONT DOOR AND THE AREA
5 DIRECTLY IN FRONT MARKED "G.B."
6 Q. DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM?
7 A. YES, I DID.
8 Q. WHERE WERE YOU STANDING WHEN YOU HAD THAT
9 CONVERSATION, IF YOU RECALL?
10 A. TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, I WAS EXCITED
11 FROM THAT AND I WAS MOVING KIND OF LIKE IN THAT KIND OF
12 MOTION.
13 IT WOULD BE MAINLY RIGHT HERE IN THE FRONT,
14 BECAUSE HE HAD PULLED UP AND THE DOG -- I SAID, "CHACHI,
15 MOVE."
16 AND THE DOG MOVED AND I KIND OF WAVED HIM ON.

William,

Have you ever thought about what the outcome of the trial would have been if Clark did not call MF to the stand? Yes, she would have lost the noise and the glove but wouldn't that have helped her? Without Kato and the noise, didn't she have much more freedom in the timeline?

[fgump2]

One the issues discussed on this thread is Mr. Simpson’s state of mind during the Bronco chase. People have debated about whether he was thinking of fleeing. I think he was considering fleeing. He was also thinking about suicide, or pretending to. I attempt to show here that his behavior was a strong indication of guilt.
I could believe that an average person might want to take their passport on a trip even though they weren’t planning on leaving the country. Simpson was a celebrity, he had thousands of dollars with him, and he wasn’t planning on leaving town. I don’t understand the need for a passport. The fact that he had a passport, a gun, a disguise, thousands of dollars, and a change of underwear with him is suspicious. I realize that if he had fled, he would have needed more clothes.
The disguise in itself isn’t very incriminating. The most incriminating aspect of the disguise is that he bought it less than a week after Nicole dumped him.
Even if we give Mr. Simpson the benefit of a doubt, and ignore the signs of flight, his suicide note and the talk with Detective Lange is a strong indication of guilt.
The key fact here is that he was thinking of committing suicide because the police accused him of murder, and yet he hadn’t seriously examined the evidence.
Mr. Simpson was a very successful athlete. He is in the pro football hall of fame. He is considered one of the best running backs ever. He was also a pro baseball prospect, and successful at track as well. I don’t think he could have accomplished this unless he dealt well with adversity.
Most coaches, especially football coaches, use slogans. One of the most popular is: ‘Winners don’t quit, and quitters don’t win’. It is generally recognized that to be successful at sports, a person has to be good at overcoming adversity. If we look at Mr. Simpson’s life, we see that he overcome a lot of adversity. He was arrested for armed robbery as a teenager. By the time he was 22 he was one of the most popular athletes in the country and had a great financial future. He also had some success in public relations, broadcasting, and movies. He had a long background of overcoming adversity by the time he was accused of murder.
I think that his behavior in the Bronco chase is a strong indicator of guilt. The things he said to Detective Lange during the Bronco chase was an indication of guilt: “Hey, you've been a good guy, too, man...let me tell you. I know you're doing your job. You've been honest with me right from the beginning… I am the only one who deserves it (to be hurt)”. I think some of his supporters, GI maybe, say that his lack of anger against the police was because he didn’t realize that he had been framed. I disagree. If he knew he was innocent, then he had to know the police framed him or that they were incompetent. Either way they weren’t doing their job. I have gotten quite angry at people who falsely accused me even though I didn’t think they framed me. The fact that dark skinned people have often been mistreated by the police should have given him additional reasons for distrusting the police, and for thinking the evidence might be weak.
It seems obvious to me that he didn’t do much to examine the evidence against him. The DNA evidence hadn’t come back yet.
One of my complaints about the Simpson defenders is that they seem to think that if a piece of evidence doesn’t prove guilt it should be ignored. This doesn’t prove guilt, but it is a strong indication of guilt.
Here is a link to lange's talk with Simpson during the bronco chase.
http://walraven.org/simpson/oj-lange.html

[GreenIce]

One the issues discussed on this thread is Mr. Simpson’s state of mind during the Bronco chase. People have debated about whether he was thinking of fleeing. I think he was considering fleeing. He was also thinking about suicide, or pretending to. I attempt to show here that his behavior was a strong indication of guilt.
I could believe that an average person might want to take their passport on a trip even though they weren’t planning on leaving the country. Simpson was a celebrity, he had thousands of dollars with him, and he wasn’t planning on leaving town. I don’t understand the need for a passport. The fact that he had a passport, a gun, a disguise, thousands of dollars, and a change of underwear with him is suspicious. I realize that if he had fled, he would have needed more clothes.
The disguise in itself isn’t very incriminating. The most incriminating aspect of the disguise is that he bought it less than a week after Nicole dumped him.
Even if we give Mr. Simpson the benefit of a doubt, and ignore the signs of flight, his suicide note and the talk with Detective Lange is a strong indication of guilt.
The key fact here is that he was thinking of committing suicide because the police accused him of murder, and yet he hadn’t seriously examined the evidence.
Mr. Simpson was a very successful athlete. He is in the pro football hall of fame. He is considered one of the best running backs ever. He was also a pro baseball prospect, and successful at track as well. I don’t think he could have accomplished this unless he dealt well with adversity.
Most coaches, especially football coaches, use slogans. One of the most popular is: ‘Winners don’t quit, and quitters don’t win’. It is generally recognized that to be successful at sports, a person has to be good at overcoming adversity. If we look at Mr. Simpson’s life, we see that he overcome a lot of adversity. He was arrested for armed robbery as a teenager. By the time he was 22 he was one of the most popular athletes in the country and had a great financial future. He also had some success in public relations, broadcasting, and movies. He had a long background of overcoming adversity by the time he was accused of murder.
I think that his behavior in the Bronco chase is a strong indicator of guilt. The things he said to Detective Lange during the Bronco chase was an indication of guilt: “Hey, you've been a good guy, too, man...let me tell you. I know you're doing your job. You've been honest with me right from the beginning… I am the only one who deserves it (to be hurt)”. I think some of his supporters, GI maybe, say that his lack of anger against the police was because he didn’t realize that he had been framed. I disagree. If he knew he was innocent, then he had to know the police framed him or that they were incompetent. Either way they weren’t doing their job. I have gotten quite angry at people who falsely accused me even though I didn’t think they framed me. The fact that dark skinned people have often been mistreated by the police should have given him additional reasons for distrusting the police, and for thinking the evidence might be weak.
It seems obvious to me that he didn’t do much to examine the evidence against him. The DNA evidence hadn’t come back yet.
One of my complaints about the Simpson defenders is that they seem to think that if a piece of evidence doesn’t prove guilt it should be ignored. This doesn’t prove guilt, but it is a strong indication of guilt.
Here is a link to lange's talk with Simpson during the bronco chase.
http://walraven.org/simpson/oj-lange.html

fump2,

I have no problem with your opinons on the "Chase" and some of this actions could be considered strong evidence of guilt. However, you must also consider the Bronco Chase was never entered into evidence.

It was well known that Simpson always carried his passport with him as well as several thousands dollars on him. Nicole also was in the habit of carrying her passport with her and large sums of cash. Both Simpsons loved going to Mexico on the spur of moment. I find nothing odd about Simpson carrying his passport. Nicole may have had another reason for carrying her passport. Nicole was not an American Citizen. She still carried her West German passport. I think only the two younger sisters were born in the USA. Also, passports, regardless of citizenship, is the most valued form of identification there is.

Mr. Simpson knew that every point of exit out of the country was on alert for Mr. Simpson if he tried to flee. In fact, Darden does talk about this in his book. There was the rumor that he was renting a boat to get him out of the country. I don't believe there was a real concern that he was trying to flee. I was very surprised when a civil trial juror said she and other jury members did not believe Simpson was trying to flee, only trying to delay what he knew was coming.

The thing with the tape between Lange and Simpson is that if the DA's brought that into the trial, then all the conversations Simpson had with various people would have also come in. I think Simpson made one very damning comment about him being the only one who deserved to be hurt. Obviously the DA's felt that this comment was not worth the risk to introduce the chase.

I would agree with any one, even a G that the chase were signs of guilt, but guilt for what? For being a crummy husband to Nicole? For not listening to Cora to get Nicole and the kids and move away? He has also said that he was glad he was out of the "mix" of the dramas surrounding Nicole and her friends--well perhaps if he stayed in the mix, Nicole would still be alive. I believe Mr. Simpson deserves this guilt, he earned it. I have posted this many times before, I truly believe had Simpson stopped his cheating, he and Nicole would still be a married couple living at Rockingham.

IMO, had Mr. Simpson killed himself, then I would have believed he was guilty of the murders. He would have known that the police have all the evidence they need to put him on death row. He would not be the first person to chose death over jail.

As you know, there were many news leaks about the evidence. The bloody ski mask, the military entrenching tool, his icing his hand all the way to Chicago, a blood glove found behind Kato's wall, on his property, etc. Simpson felt he was being framed. He insisted that he was innocent during other phone calls during the chase. Please remember, at that time, he only knew that he was being framed, he did not know who was behind it and at that time, he had no reason to suspect the LAPD of any wrong doing.

Simpson believed all the media reports about the evidence, he believed he was being framed, however, if he was the killer, he never would have left. He alone knew what the murder weapon was, he alone knew where he got of the blood clothes and shoes. He knew the events that night and they weren't even close to what the media was reporting--and don't forget, the source of those leaks were the DA's and the LAPD. They were so far off about the evidence, he had nothing to worry about, IMO.

[GreenIce]

One of my complaints about the Simpson defenders is that they seem to think that if a piece of evidence doesn’t prove guilt it should be ignored. This doesn’t prove guilt, but it is a strong indication of guilt.
Here is a link to lange's talk with Simpson during the bronco chase.
http://walraven.org/simpson/oj-lange.html

fgump2,

What evidence have NG's ignored? I don't believe that is true because we have explained why we see the evidence differently.

A perfect example is the lie detector test. While I do not believe in them, many people do and feel that since Simpson was said to have failed one, this must mean his guilt. However, Simpson's failed test, IMO, proves he is innocent. Had Mr. Simpson passed that lie detector test with flying colors, then I would have believed that he killed Ron and Nicole.

IMO, people who believe he is guilty ignore evidence that points to innocence.

[bobaugust]

bobaugust,

You want to say what is insulting to the group, The most insulting thing that I can remember that was insulting to the group and the memory of a beautiful young murder victim was when you repeatedly claimed that the civil verdict meant that Simpson was responsible for killing Ms. NBS. Just as I corrected that portion of your false posts, allow me to correct these. The evidence is contradicted thoroughly as to when Park first saw Kato, as Park said he saw Kato walking and Kato testified that he was running when the events were fresher in his mind and before he had been intimidated by Ms. Clark. Since you have to be right, you distort the evidence in this case. The evidence is that Park said he saw kato still standing in the position that he was for another minute after seeing Simpson (for the sake of argument) enter his home, before Kato proceeded to go to the gate box. Park marked that position and it is on the diagram, which was standing near the driveway near the Ashford path. There is no testimony that Park ever saw Kato standing near the gate box. Since you have previously agreed that Kato did not open the gate until after he finished his first cursory search, you have to come up with an illogical inference, when the evidence is that when Park saw Kato still standing he saw Simpson enter the house and the lights came on within. If you scenario is at all possible, then Kato would have been walking down the driveway at the same time the lights came on and would have seen them. However, he did not. Additionally, it did not take Simpson two minutes to enter the house and have Park's attention diverted to him for that amount of time. Looking from the Ashford gate, Park's view was that he was looking down the driveway. There is no way that he would not have seen Kato walking down the driveway, which Kato said he ran down. The evidence is that Park testified to seeing Kato standing on the sidewalk near Ashford for another minute after Simpson went in the house, before Kato proceeded to go to the gate box to let him in.

I disagree. What I find more insulting to this group as well as to the Brown family are your comments that when the civil trial jurors found that Simpson committed battery with oppression and malice against Nicole that somehow means to you that Simpson didn’t kill her.

Park may have recalled some minor details differently then Kaelin but that’s not unusual. Witnesses do not always agree on every detail but the information they both do agree on is usually more reliable. Whether or not Kaelin was running, walking, or walking briskly does not change the fact that Park saw him for the first time that night when Kaelin came from behind the house on the Ashford path with a flashlight. Walking or running does not change the fact that Kaelin testified that is exactly what he did after leaving his room to investigate the noises he had just heard.

The evidence is not that Kaelin was standing for a minute. The evidence is that Park mistakenly thought that Kaelin was standing for a minute when he testified in the grand jury and the preliminary hearing. We know Park was mistaken when he said that based on Park’s more detailed testimony in the criminal trial. We know from that testimony that after Park saw Simpson walk up and enter his house Park was not paying any attention to where Kaelin was and didn’t see Kaelin run past him on his way to the garage. We also know that Kaelin never said he stood anywhere for a minute or more.

Park testified that after Simpson entered his house lights came on downstairs in the house. Simpson evidently turned on his foyer light since Park saw the curtains in either the front office window or the living room window or both windows illuminate. Park said at that time Kaelin was still standing on the Ashford sidewalk. Park did indeed mark both Kaelin and Simpson’s positions on the prosecution diagram. Based on where Kaelin was he would not have been able to see Simpson enter his house nor was he looking at the front office and living room windows he had just past by. Kaelin said when he got to the driveway he saw the limo.

Park sitting in his limo could see everything from his position. Park could see Kaelin, Park could see Simpson, and Park could see the windows on the Ashford side of the house. If you look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate William you would know that.

No it didn’t take Simpson two minutes to enter the house. It took Kaelin about two minutes or less after Park had last seen him on the Ashford sidewalk to run past the front of the house, go behind the garage, turn around and go back to the driveway, and then go to the gate control box and open the gate.

After Park saw Simpson he finished his telephone conversation he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin and didn’t see him when he ran by the front of the house. There were no windows in the front of the house for Kaelin to see what Park saw when the curtains in the windows on the Ashford side of the house illuminated. Once again if you look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate William you would know that.

The evidence is that after Park saw Simpson enter his house he finished his phone conversation with his boss and then sat and waited to be let in the gate. The evidence is that Park then got out of the limo and rang the intercom for the fourth time that night and spoke with Simpson for the first time that night. The evidence is that Park went back to the limo and waited some more time before he saw Kaelin go to the gate control box and open the gate.

If you look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate you would see that when Park went to the use the intercom if Kaelin was still standing on the Ashford sidewalk he would have right in front of Park. Neither Park nor Kaelin ever said that.

You seem to rely on Park’s limited grand jury testimony and preliminary testimony more than Park’s more detailed criminal trial testimony. You have created an imagined scenario based on an obvious mistake by Park because he was unaware that after he first saw Kaelin that Kaelin had gone on to the garage. To make your scenario work you have imagined Kaelin returning to the Ashford path from his first trip to the garage and standing there for a couple of minutes and claim that was the first time Park saw Kaelin that night, when in fact Kaelin never said anything like that ever happened. Your imagined scenario is illogical and false, contradicted by Park’s detailed criminal trial testimony, contradicted by all of Kaelin’s testimony, and contradicted by the layout of the Rockingham estate.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9188521]

Then there was no light that Park could have seen come on that illuminated curtains. If it was the foyer light, Kato would have seen it.

There were no windows in the front of the house for the foyer light to illuminate.

[bobaugust]

You have previously admitted that there is not testimony and Kato never said he went directly to the gate box as you falsely claimed. In fact there are no questions as to the path Kato took to get to the gate box. However, see my previous response as Park tells us he saw Kato standing for another minute in the same position as he was before Kato proceeded to the gate box to let the limo in.

Your reliance on Park’s limited grand jury testimony while you ignore Park’s more detailed criminal trial testimony shows how weak your argument is. In the criminal trial Park estimated it was about two minutes or a little less between the time he last saw Kaelin on the Ashford sidewalk to the next time he saw Kaelin when Kaelin went to the gate control box and open the gate.

I did not quote what Kaelin said I paraphrased what he said. Kaelin didn’t say the word “directly” but that’s what he did. Kaelin consistently testified he came back out from behind the garage, saw that limo was still at the gate, and went to the gate control box.

Kaelin never said he went anywhere else. He didn’t say he went back to the Ashford sidewalk on the other side of the driveway from the gate control box and stand there for about two minutes before he went to the gate control box and opened the gate like you have imagined he did.

Anyone familiar with Rockingham estate layout understands how Kaelin went from the garage to the gate control box.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I posted the question Petrocelli tried to ask by using the phone records to indicate the time of the thumps, which was objected to and sustained. Ms. Clark got away with it in her closing because what she says is not evidence and she is allowed to attempt to persuade the jury to agree with how she saw the evidence fitting together. However, the evidence was that Kato testified to hearing the thumps in the time frame between ten forty and ten forty five. The judge in the civil trial did not allow the speculative answer that the time of the phone calls establishes the time of the thumps, only that they establish when Park first saw Kato.

In the civil trial Kaelin guessed the time of the noises was between 10:40 and 10:50. I have not seen where the civil trial judge did not allow the the time of the telephone call to established the time of the noises. Please post the date that happened or your message number where you say you posted it.

November 19, 1996 Kaelin

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Okay. Do you have an estimate of the time that you heard these noises?
A. In between the 10:40 to 10:50 hour.
Q. Okay. Now, is that -- what do you base that on?
A. The phone calls.
Q. All right. Did you at any time --
A. I didn't, I never looked at a clock.
Q. I can't hear you.
A. I didn't look at a clock.
Q. At any time?
A. No.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

"Q: AND ON ASHFORD, THERE'S A LARGE STREET LAMP; IS THERE NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT STREET LAMP ILLUMINATES THE AREA OF THE DRIVEWAY AND THE FRONT DOOR; DOES IT NOT?

A: THE STREETLIGHT -- YEAH, YOU CAN SEE THE STREETLIGHT WOULD LIGHT UP PART OF THE DRIVEWAY JUST A BIT, YEAH.

Q: AND THAT'S A VERY, VERY BRIGHT INTENSE STREETLIGHT; IS IT NOT?

A: YEAH. IT LIGHTS UP THAT CORNER, YEAH.

Q: YOU'VE PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED, HAVE YOU NOT, THAT YOU DON'T RECALL WHETHER OR NOT THE LIGHTS WERE ON DOWNSTAIRS?

A: YEAH. I WAS IFFY. I THINK I SAID THAT I THOUGHT THEY WERE ON AND MAYBE OFF, BUT I THOUGHT THEY WERE -- I THINK I SAID THEY WERE OFF AND ON AND THEN I THOUGHT I -- THE LAST THING I SAID IN THIS TESTIMONY WAS THAT THEY WERE OFF.

Q: ARE YOU -- HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED THAT YOU'RE NOT SURE WHETHER THEY WERE ON OR OFF?

A: YES, I DID THAT.

Q: AND WOULD THAT BE YOUR BEST ANSWER IN THIS CASE?

A: THAT I WASN'T SURE? YES.



I now have posted the testimony about Kato being asked about the downstairs lights, contrary to the assertion that he was not asked.

You just posted some partial testimony again without a date. Testimony referring to previous testimony does not make it clear if Kaelin is talking about seeing lights in the windows on the Ashford side of the house, at the back of the house, or the front of the house.

But I did find where Kaelin was asked in the civil trial about lights downstairs in the front of the house and Kaelin thought the downstairs was dark. The problem with that answer is that there were no windows in the front of the house for Kaelin to have seen the foyer light that illuminated the curtains in the windows on the Ashford side of the house that Park saw.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Bobaugust,

Do you think Simpson had curtains hanging on the outside walls of his home?

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

A: JUST SECONDS.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHICH LIGHTS WENT ON?

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

No, do you? Park said he saw the curtains illuminated in the windows on the Ashford side of the house. There were no windows in the front of the house that could be illuminated by the foyer light.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

This is from the preliminary hearing when the events would have been fresher in Park's mind. He was paying attention to Kato, who he said was standing there pretty much the whole time, and he did not recall Kato walking to the garage area. I don't know how you think you can explain to me what Park was aware of when he testified as to his awareness.


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

Park was mistaken. He didn’t know that Kaelin had gone to the garage he just thought Kaelin was standing on the Ashford sidewalk the whole time. But we know that didn’t happened because Kaelin never said that was what he did and in the criminal trial Park was never asked that again by Simpson’s attorneys.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Show me the questions, if kato was asked did he walk back to the Ashford pathway and stand there. If you say Kato never stood there for a minute let alone two minutes you are calling Park a liar. If you believe Park is a liar, then how can you believe that he saw Kato "walking from behind the house", when Kato, who you now want to give all credibility, says he was running?

Park testified that all the events, which you mentioned in your last paragraph, took place within a minute and a half.

Park was not a liar he was mistaken. In the criminal trial he was asked more detailed questions and based on the his answers it’s obvious he was not aware that Kaelin had gone on to the garage and didn’t open the gate until he returned from that short trip.

Kaelin was never asked if he went back to the Ashford sidewalk before he opened the gate. Kaelin was never asked if he stood there for two minutes. Kaelin was never asked if he saw a flying saucer that night. Dream up as many questions as you want to that Kaelin was never asked and create as many fantasies as you want to but the fact is that every time Kaelin was asked about this he said when he came back from behind the garage he saw the limo was still at the gate so he went to gate control box and opened the gate.

You keep saying Park said all the events I mentioned took place in a minute and a half. No, he estimated a total of about a minute and a half but he did not include in that estimation the time he took to go to the intercom, talk, to Simpson, and then return to the limo. If Kaelin ran to the garage his total trip to behind the garage and then back to the gate control box could very well have taken him less than two minutes.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Continuation of Park's preliminary hearing testimony from where I left off.

"09 Q Was the male white and the other person you
10 saw walking into the front door dressed in all dark
11 clothing, were they ever on the driveway at the same
12 point in time?
13 A I don't remember that. I wouldn't --
14 Q You don't remember seeing him on the driveway
15 at the same point --
16 A No --
17 Q -- At the same time?
18 A No.
19 MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, the witness has not had a
20 chance to complete his answer.
21 THE COURT: Yes.
22 Please let the witness finish entirely before
23 you make an additional statement.
24 BY MS. CLARK:
25 Q Had you completed your answer?
26 A Yes.
27 Q At some point did the male white open the gate
28 for you?
0032
01 A Yes, he did.
02 Q How long had you been waiting at this --
03 strike that. Let me ask you this.
04 After you spoke to the defendant on the
05 intercom, how long after that did you have to wait for
06 this other man to open the gate?
07 A 30 seconds or more.
08 Q What happened next?
09 A He came towards me and opened the gate. I
10 drove in.

Park's grand jury testimony

"Q. SO YOU MADE THE CALL TO YOUR BOSS AND THEN WHAT
7 HAPPENED?
8 A. HE CALLED ME BACK.
9 Q. WHAT TIME WAS IT WHEN YOU MADE THE CALL TO YOUR
10 BOSS?
11 A. I CALLED HIM FIRST AT ABOUT -- RIGHT IN BETWEEN
12 10:50 AND 10:55.
13 HE THEN CALLED ME BACK AT 10:55 AND I TOLD HIM
14 THAT I DID NOT THINK THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS HOME; THAT THERE
15 WERE NO LIGHTS ON DOWNSTAIRS, THERE WAS ONLY ONE LIGHT ON
16 UPSTAIRS AND THAT -- I JUST TOLD HIM I DIDN'T THINK HE WAS
17 HOME.
18 Q. WHILE YOU WERE TALKING TO YOUR BOSS, WERE YOU
19 FOCUSED ON THIS FRONT AREA OR WERE YOU LOOKING ALL AROUND?
20 A. NO, I WAS FOCUSED ON THE FRONT AREA.
21 Q. WHY WERE YOU FOCUSED ON THE FRONT AREA?
22 A. BECAUSE JUST THE WAY I WAS -- YOU KNOW, IT'S
23 JUST THE WAY THE CAR WAS FACING.
24 I WAS LOOKING STRAIGHT OUT THE FRONT WINDSHIELD
25 INTO HIS FRONT AREA, THE FRONT DOOR AND THE DRIVEWAY."

Park was correct when he said he never saw Kaelin and Simpson on the driveway at the same time. When Park saw Simpson enter his house he said Kaelin had already come down the Ashford path and stopped before he got to the driveway.

Park was correct when he said he saw Kaelin come “towards me” and opened the gate. Kaelin came down the driveway from the garage (or up the driveway from the garage depending on how you are looking at the diagram) to the gate control box that was to Park’s right as he sat in his limo.

Park was correct when he said he was looking straight out the front windshield into the front area when he was talking to his boss and he could see the front door and the driveway. But he had peripheral vision and the flashlight Kaelin was using attracted his attention when Kaelin came from behind the house and down the Ashford path.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Continuation of Park's grand jury testimony


1 YOU FACE THE DIAGRAM THAT IS JUST ABOVE THE FRONT DOOR.
2 Q. AND HE WAS WALKING IN THAT AREA THERE?
3 A. YES.
4 Q. CAN YOU DESCRIBE HIM?
5 A. BLOND HAIR, SHOULDER-LENGTH HAIR, 5-10, 160
6 POUNDS, JEANS, T-SHIRT, AND HE HAD A FLASHLIGHT.
7 AT THAT POINT -- AT THAT POINT, HE JUST STOOD
8 THERE AND GAVE ME A SIGNAL THAT HE SAW ME. HE WAVED TO
9 ME.
10 AND JUST SECONDS AFTER THAT, I SAW A BLACK
11 MALE, 6 FOOT 1, 100 AND -- 200 POUNDS COME FROM -- THE AREA
12 THAT I SAW HIM FROM WAS ABOUT --
13 Q. PLEASE POINT TO IT ON THE DIAGRAM.
14 AND I WILL ASK YOU TO PUT AN "X" ON THAT AREA
15 WHERE YOU FIRST SAW HIM.
16 A. I SAW HIM ABOUT HERE.
17 MS. CLARK: FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS DONE SO.
18 THE WITNESS: I SAW HIM FROM THERE AND HE PROCEEDED
19 INTO THE FRONT DOOR.
20 Q. BY MS. CLARK: HOW WAS HE MOVING?
21 A. HE WAS NOT RUNNING, BUT HE WAS MOVING QUICKLY.
22 Q. WHAT WAS HE WEARING?
23 Q. FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, IT WAS DARK CLOTHES.
24 I CANNOT TELL WHAT KIND OF CLOTHES, SUIT OR
25 ANYTHING. IT WAS JUST A DARK SHIRT AND DARK PARTS.
26 Q. COULD YOU TELL IF THE SHIRT HAD LONG OR SHORT
27 SLEEVES?
28 A. NO, I COULDN'T.

258

1 Q. DID YOU SEE WHERE THIS MALE BLACK WENT?
2 A. HE WENT INTO THE FRONT DOOR AND ENTERED THE
3 HOUSE.
4 Q. WHEN YOU FIRST ARRIVED AT THE HOUSE, WERE THERE
5 ANY LIGHTS ON?
6 A. ONLY ONE UPSTAIRS.
7 Q. NONE DOWNSTAIRS?
8 A. NO.
9 Q. WHEN THE MALE BLACK WALKED INTO THE HOUSE, WHAT
10 HAPPENED NEXT?
11 A. SOME LIGHTS TURNED ON DOWNSTAIRS AND THE MALE
12 WHITE STILL DID NOT LET ME IN.
13 AND I GOT BACK OUT OF THE CAR AND I RANG THE
14 BELL AGAIN AND O.J. ANSWERED THE INTERCOM FROM THERE.
15 Q. YOU ARE SAYING, "O.J."
16 WHO ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
17 ARE YOU REFERRING TO MR. SIMPSON?
18 A. MR. SIMPSON.
19 Q. HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WAS HIS VOICE?
20 A. I JUST CAN TELL FROM JUST HEARING HIM FOR YEARS
21 AND YEARS ON T.V.
22 Q. WHEN YOU SAY, "THE BELL," YOU ARE RINGING "THE
23 BELL," WHERE IS THAT BELL?
24 A. IT'S RIGHT ABOUT HERE.
25 THERE'S A LITTLE INTERCOM.
26 Q. CAN YOU PLEASE CIRCLE THAT POINT ON THE
27 DIAGRAM.
28 A. (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

259

1 MS. CLARK: THE WITNESS HAS PLACED A BLUE CIRCLE AT
2 THE PORTION OF THE GATE WHERE HE INDICATES THE BELL WAS.
3 Q. I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES.
4 THIS IS THE DIAGRAM THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY MARKED,
5 OR PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 2.
6 CAN YOU TELL ME IF YOU RECOGNIZE THE LOCATION
7 DEPICTED THERE.
8 A. YES, I DO.
9 Q. WHAT IS IT?
10 A. WHAT IS WHAT?
11 Q. WHAT IS THAT LOCATION?
12 A. -A?
13 Q. NO.
14 DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE LOCATION?
15 HAVE YOU EVER BEEN THERE?
16 A. YES, I HAVE.
17 Q. OKAY.
18 WHAT LOCATION IS IT?
19 THE FOREPERSON: BE CAREFUL AND SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO
20 THE MICROPHONE, MR. PARK.
21 THEY ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY HEARING YOU.
22 THE WITNESS: I NOTICED IT TO BE 360 ROCKINGHAM LANE.
23 Q. BY MS. CLARK: IS THAT LOCATION YOU WENT TO?
24 A. YES, IT IS.
25 Q. THAT'S WHERE YOU WENT TO PICK UP MR. SIMPSON?
26 A. YES, IT IS.
27 Q. NOW, AFTER YOU SAW THE MALE BLACK ENTER THE
28 HOUSE, THE LIGHTS WENT ON, YOU RANG THE BELL AND YOU HAD A

260

1 CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE.
2 A. YES.
3 Q. YOU RECOGNIZED THAT PERSON WHO ANSWERED THE
4 BELL AS MR. SIMPSON?
5 A. YES, I DID.
6 Q. WHAT DID HE SAY?
7 A. HE SAID, "SORRY. I OVERSLEPT AND I JUST GOT
8 OUT OF THE SHOWER. I WILL BE DOWN IN A MINUTE."
9 Q. NOW, DO YOU SEE THE HEDGE THAT'S SHOWN IN -B,
10 PHOTOGRAPH -B?
11 A. YES, I DO.
12 Q. UNLESS YOU ARE IN FRONT OF THE GATE, IS YOUR
13 VIEW OF THE HOUSE PRETTY MUCH BLOCKED?
14 A. YES, IT IS.
15 Q. PHOTOGRAPH -A, IS THAT THE ASHFORD SIDE GATE
16 THAT YOU WAITED AT WHEN YOU FIRST GOT THERE?
17 A. YES, IT IS.
18 Q. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE MALE WHITE FOR US A LITTLE
19 BIT BETTER.
20 GIVE US A A FURTHER DESCRIPTION OF THE MALE
21 WHITE YOU SPOKE TO.
22 A. LIKE I SAID, HE WAS 5 FOOT 10, 160 POUNDS,
23 BLOND HAIR, SHOULDER-LENGTH, BLUE JEANS, T-SHIRT.
24 THAT'S ABOUT ALL I NOTICED.
25 Q. WAS HE CARRYING ANYTHING?
26 A. HE HAD A FLASHLIGHT.

Park recalled Kaelin stopping when he got to the driveway and waving to him. Kaelin said he didn’t stop or wave. As I said before Kaelin may have simply slowed down and paused and Park perceived that as stopping. Maybe Kaelin’s arms were swinging or maybe he unconsciously gestured to Park. It’s no big deal just a minor inconsistency between two different witnesses. Another minor inconsistency between these two witness was regarding running and walking fast or as Kaelin said in the civil trial walking briskly.

Park was correct when he said he saw the lights come on Kaelin did not let him in. We are talking about a matter of seconds here and things happening simultaneously.

Park was correct. From his position sitting in his limo parked at the gate he couldn’t see the front of the house but he could see up the driveway, he could see the front entranceway to the house, he could see the Ashford path, and he could see the front office windows and the living room windows on the Ashford side of the house.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Park's preliminary hearing testimony

Q And when they walked -- when that person
02 walked into the front door, what happened next?
03 A A couple lights came on and I was still
04 waiting, you know, just waiting for this white male to
05 open the gate or -- he was just standing there. I kind
06 of recognized him, he waved at me.

kato's grand jury testimony

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.

Of course Kaelin walked TOWARDS the Ashford gate. The gate control box was located near the Ashford gate under a tree to Kaelin’s left when he came down the driveway towards the gate. The Ashford path was to Kaelin’s right. Just so it’s clear I am using the word “down” the driveway when someone goes from the house to the street and “up” the driveway when someone goes form the street to the house. Unlike Clark who used “up” based on the orientation of the diagram.

Tell me William how the criminal trial jurors thought the same thing as you think when your imagined scenario is based only on the less detailed testimony’s from the grand jury and the preliminary hearing, not the criminal trial testimony.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I disagree. What I find more insulting to this group as well as to the Brown family are your comments that when the civil trial jurors found that Simpson committed battery with oppression and malice against Nicole that somehow means to you that Simpson didn’t kill her.

Park may have recalled some minor details differently then Kaelin but that’s not unusual. Witnesses do not always agree on every detail but the information they both do agree on is usually more reliable. Whether or not Kaelin was running, walking, or walking briskly does not change the fact that Park saw him for the first time that night when Kaelin came from behind the house on the Ashford path with a flashlight. Walking or running does not change the fact that Kaelin testified that is exactly what he did after leaving his room to investigate the noises he had just heard.

The evidence is not that Kaelin was standing for a minute. The evidence is that Park mistakenly thought that Kaelin was standing for a minute when he testified in the grand jury and the preliminary hearing. We know Park was mistaken when he said that based on Park’s more detailed testimony in the criminal trial. We know from that testimony that after Park saw Simpson walk up and enter his house Park was not paying any attention to where Kaelin was and didn’t see Kaelin run past him on his way to the garage. We also know that Kaelin never said he stood anywhere for a minute or more.

Park testified that after Simpson entered his house lights came on downstairs in the house. Simpson evidently turned on his foyer light since Park saw the curtains in either the front office window or the living room window or both windows illuminate. Park said at that time Kaelin was still standing on the Ashford sidewalk. Park did indeed mark both Kaelin and Simpson’s positions on the prosecution diagram. Based on where Kaelin was he would not have been able to see Simpson enter his house nor was he looking at the front office and living room windows he had just past by. Kaelin said when he got to the driveway he saw the limo.

Park sitting in his limo could see everything from his position. Park could see Kaelin, Park could see Simpson, and Park could see the windows on the Ashford side of the house. If you look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate William you would know that.

No it didn’t take Simpson two minutes to enter the house. It took Kaelin about two minutes or less after Park had last seen him on the Ashford sidewalk to run past the front of the house, go behind the garage, turn around and go back to the driveway, and then go to the gate control box and open the gate.

After Park saw Simpson he finished his telephone conversation he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin and didn’t see him when he ran by the front of the house. There were no windows in the front of the house for Kaelin to see what Park saw when the curtains in the windows on the Ashford side of the house illuminated. Once again if you look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate William you would know that.

The evidence is that after Park saw Simpson enter his house he finished his phone conversation with his boss and then sat and waited to be let in the gate. The evidence is that Park then got out of the limo and rang the intercom for the fourth time that night and spoke with Simpson for the first time that night. The evidence is that Park went back to the limo and waited some more time before he saw Kaelin go to the gate control box and open the gate.

If you look at the diagram of the Rockingham estate you would see that when Park went to the use the intercom if Kaelin was still standing on the Ashford sidewalk he would have right in front of Park. Neither Park nor Kaelin ever said that.

You seem to rely on Park’s limited grand jury testimony and preliminary testimony more than Park’s more detailed criminal trial testimony. You have created an imagined scenario based on an obvious mistake by Park because he was unaware that after he first saw Kaelin that Kaelin had gone on to the garage. To make your scenario work you have imagined Kaelin returning to the Ashford path from his first trip to the garage and standing there for a couple of minutes and claim that was the first time Park saw Kaelin that night, when in fact Kaelin never said anything like that ever happened. Your imagined scenario is illogical and false, contradicted by Park’s detailed criminal trial testimony, contradicted by all of Kaelin’s testimony, and contradicted by the layout of the Rockingham estate.

bobaugust

Correct, battery with oppression is not remotely similar to causing a wrongful death and the Browns have never received the closure or respect due their daughter's death and your false posts ignore that fact. The civil verdict meant that Simpson severely abused/battered Ms. NBS.

Please, provide the testimony where Park said he was not paying attention to Kato? The testimony is that he saw Kato standing in the same position as he was for another minute before Kato proceeded to open the gate.

If you look at the diagram, you will see that the intercom would be farther off to Park's left and if you see the position of B (where Kato was standing) kato would not have been in front of Park. Kato was standing near the driveway.

I rely on all the testimony and do not have to invent things from the testimony as you do, such as Park was unaware, Park wasn't paying attention, Park was mistaken but then won't to credit the part of Park's testimony that squares with what I want to believe, like you do. When I consider all the testimony and all the meetings that they would have had before testifying, it is easy for me to see that a lot of their testimony was probably suggested testimony. I can also see that the Prosecution asked questions that tried to change the testimonies.

[William Anthony]

No, do you? Park said he saw the curtains illuminated in the windows on the Ashford side of the house. There were no windows in the front of the house that could be illuminated by the foyer light.

bobaugust

Please, post the testimony where park said he saw lights go on on the Ashford side of the house as he was looking down the driveway?

[William Anthony]

Park was not a liar he was mistaken. In the criminal trial he was asked more detailed questions and based on the his answers it’s obvious he was not aware that Kaelin had gone on to the garage and didn’t open the gate until he returned from that short trip.

Kaelin was never asked if he went back to the Ashford sidewalk before he opened the gate. Kaelin was never asked if he stood there for two minutes. Kaelin was never asked if he saw a flying saucer that night. Dream up as many questions as you want to that Kaelin was never asked and create as many fantasies as you want to but the fact is that every time Kaelin was asked about this he said when he came back from behind the garage he saw the limo was still at the gate so he went to gate control box and opened the gate.

You keep saying Park said all the events I mentioned took place in a minute and a half. No, he estimated a total of about a minute and a half but he did not include in that estimation the time he took to go to the intercom, talk, to Simpson, and then return to the limo. If Kaelin ran to the garage his total trip to behind the garage and then back to the gate control box could very well have taken him less than two minutes.

bobaugust

I have previously included Park's criminal trial testimony and again you want to say Park was mistaken but in case you missed his criminal trial testimony on the issue, here it is.

Q: CAN YOU SHOW US ON THE DIAGRAM, DIRECT THE POINTER TO WHERE YOU SAW HIM ON THE SIDE YARD?

A: RIGHT THERE WHERE THE ARROW WAS WHERE THE PATH -- WHERE THE PATH COMES OUT FROM BEHIND THE HOUSE. HE CAME OUT TO JUST ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY, RIGHT THERE, (INDICATING).

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

A: NO, HE WAS OFF A COUPLE FEET.

Q: OKAY. TELL THE POINTER WHERE TO GO.

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

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

A: I COULDN'T SEE.

Q: YOU COULDN'T TELL?

A: NO.

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

A: YES.

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

A: AT THAT TIME, NO.

Q: WHAT WAS HE DOING WHEN YOU SAW HIM?

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

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

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

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

A: I WAS INSIDE THE CAR ON THE PHONE.

Q: TALKING TO YOUR BOSS?

A: YES. "

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9188757

Kaelin was never asked if he went back to the Ashford sidewalk before he opened the gate. Kaelin was never asked if he stood there for two minutes. Kaelin was never asked if he saw a flying saucer that night. Dream up as many questions as you want to that Kaelin was never asked and create as many fantasies as you want to but the fact is that every time Kaelin was asked about this he said when he came back from behind the garage he saw the limo was still at the gate so he went to gate control box and opened the gate.

You keep saying Park said all the events I mentioned took place in a minute and a half. No, he estimated a total of about a minute and a half but he did not include in that estimation the time he took to go to the intercom, talk, to Simpson, and then return to the limo. If Kaelin ran to the garage his total trip to behind the garage and then back to the gate control box could very well have taken him less than two minutes.

bobaugust[/QUOTE]

If the questions were never asked, then they were never answered. However, they can not negate Park's testimony, because they were never asked. :)

If he did not include that time in his estimation, then tell me how you know how long it took, unless it is by Park's testimony that Kato was still standing in the same position as he was for about another minute before Kato proceeded to walk to the gate box to let the limo in? I think that you are imagining some times.

[William Anthony]

Park was correct when he said he never saw Kaelin and Simpson on the driveway at the same time. When Park saw Simpson enter his house he said Kaelin had already come down the Ashford path and stopped before he got to the driveway.

Park was correct when he said he saw Kaelin come “towards me” and opened the gate. Kaelin came down the driveway from the garage (or up the driveway from the garage depending on how you are looking at the diagram) to the gate control box that was to Park’s right as he sat in his limo.

Park was correct when he said he was looking straight out the front windshield into the front area when he was talking to his boss and he could see the front door and the driveway. But he had peripheral vision and the flashlight Kaelin was using attracted his attention when Kaelin came from behind the house and down the Ashford path.

bobaugust

In the above post you said that Park was mistaken but now you say he is correct three times. It seems you select when Park is incorrect and correct. However, be that as it may, let's examine the obvious, Park never testified to seeing anyone on the driveway, IIRC, until after he was buzzed in.

Show me where Park testified that Kato's flashlight attracted his attention?

[William Anthony]

Park recalled Kaelin stopping when he got to the driveway and waving to him. Kaelin said he didn’t stop or wave. As I said before Kaelin may have simply slowed down and paused and Park perceived that as stopping. Maybe Kaelin’s arms were swinging or maybe he unconsciously gestured to Park. It’s no big deal just a minor inconsistency between two different witnesses. Another minor inconsistency between these two witness was regarding running and walking fast or as Kaelin said in the civil trial walking briskly.

Park was correct when he said he saw the lights come on Kaelin did not let him in. We are talking about a matter of seconds here and things happening simultaneously.

Park was correct. From his position sitting in his limo parked at the gate he couldn’t see the front of the house but he could see up the driveway, he could see the front entranceway to the house, he could see the Ashford path, and he could see the front office windows and the living room windows on the Ashford side of the house.

bobaugust

Of course it is no big deal to you, because you feel that you are justified in creating your imagined scenarios and not consider the actual contradictions in the evidence but want to insult others, who consider all the evidence to draw their inferences. There are so many may haves and maybes and perceptions in your post, which you say are no big deal. Maybe your maybes and may haves are not a big deal to you but I perceive them as such.:)

Yes, we are talking about a matter of seconds and things happening simultaneously, which negates the possibility that Kato would have had time to do his first cursory search while Park saw him standing and still standing.:)

[William Anthony]

Of course Kaelin walked TOWARDS the Ashford gate. The gate control box was located near the Ashford gate under a tree to Kaelin’s left when he came down the driveway towards the gate. The Ashford path was to Kaelin’s right. Just so it’s clear I am using the word “down” the driveway when someone goes from the house to the street and “up” the driveway when someone goes form the street to the house. Unlike Clark who used “up” based on the orientation of the diagram.

Tell me William how the criminal trial jurors thought the same thing as you think when your imagined scenario is based only on the less detailed testimony’s from the grand jury and the preliminary hearing, not the criminal trial testimony.

bobaugust

I think I have addressed your concerns in this post in my previous posts.

[William Anthony]

You just posted some partial testimony again without a date. Testimony referring to previous testimony does not make it clear if Kaelin is talking about seeing lights in the windows on the Ashford side of the house, at the back of the house, or the front of the house.

But I did find where Kaelin was asked in the civil trial about lights downstairs in the front of the house and Kaelin thought the downstairs was dark. The problem with that answer is that there were no windows in the front of the house for Kaelin to have seen the foyer light that illuminated the curtains in the windows on the Ashford side of the house that Park saw.

bobaugust

The testimony makes clear that he was talking about downstairs lights.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9188752]Your reliance on Park’s limited grand jury testimony while you ignore Park’s more detailed criminal trial testimony shows how weak your argument is.

Mr. August,

I disagree with you, William's argument on this issue is not weak.

However, your argument on this issue is extremely weak. Park's grand jury testimony and prelim testimony was given well before this case was even a month old. A person's recollection, however flawed it may be, will be more accurate in a grand jury and prelim hearing then it would be in criminal trial.

The bottom line question is why was Park's criminal trial testimony more detailed then his previous two trips to the witness stand? What reasons did Park give for his change in testimony? Clark had his cell phone records before the prelim hearing. Why did he change his testimony?

I personally do not believe Park's testimony is all that valuable to either side because he can only estimate how long someone was standing in place, how long it took this person to get from point A to point B. He can only give estimates on how long he was standing outside, etc. You make seem like while Park held his cell phone in one hand, he had a stop watch in the other was timing everyone he saw that night on the estate.

This is now the third person who's testimony you, yourself have discredited. Kato's, the nurse, and now Park's. Seems to me with every post, you are beginning to see the light, you are becoming an NG:)

And your sudden timeline switch, doesn't that mean you are also taking JS out of the picture? She can't be right if Park and Kato are right. So, does this mean JS is a liar? It appears to me that she was the only one who was paying attention to the time. So which is it? Who is wrong and who is right, because all three of them can't be right. IMO.

[William Anthony]

bobaugust,

Per your request, November 19th-Kato's examination

"Q. Okay. I'd like you to assume that based upon cell phone records and other evidence in the case, that the limousine driver saw you --

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to this, Your Honor.

MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me, your honor, I haven't finished my question.

MR. BAKER: I understand that. But there's no -- this is leading, suggestive, and hypothetical.

MR. PETROCELLI: It is not leading.

THE COURT: Sustained. I'll sustain it.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9188752]Your reliance on Park’s limited grand jury testimony while you ignore Park’s more detailed criminal trial testimony shows how weak your argument is.

Mr. August,

I disagree with you, William's argument on this issue is not weak.

However, your argument on this issue is extremely weak. Park's grand jury testimony and prelim testimony was given well before this case was even a month old. A person's recollection, however flawed it may be, will be more accurate in a grand jury and prelim hearing then it would be in criminal trial.

The bottom line question is why was Park's criminal trial testimony more detailed then his previous two trips to the witness stand? What reasons did Park give for his change in testimony? Clark had his cell phone records before the prelim hearing. Why did he change his testimony?

I personally do not believe Park's testimony is all that valuable to either side because he can only estimate how long someone was standing in place, how long it took this person to get from point A to point B. He can only give estimates on how long he was standing outside, etc. You make seem like while Park held his cell phone in one hand, he had a stop watch in the other was timing everyone he saw that night on the estate.

This is now the third person who's testimony you, yourself have discredited. Kato's, the nurse, and now Park's. Seems to me with every post, you are beginning to see the light, you are becoming an NG:)

And your sudden timeline switch, doesn't that mean you are also taking JS out of the picture? She can't be right if Park and Kato are right. So, does this mean JS is a liar? It appears to me that she was the only one who was paying attention to the time. So which is it? Who is wrong and who is right, because all three of them can't be right. IMO.

GreenIce,

I understand bobaugust's methodology and by calling my argument weak or saying other insulting things he will not run me off. The prosecution placed a lot of faith in Park's phone records and tried to tailor a story around them. However, the inconsistencies in the testimonies raised more reasonable doubt than the records could cure, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

GreenIce,

The argument is that Park saw Kato as he exited his quarters and that time could be based on Park's phone records. However, the judge in the civil trial realized that was not the case and did not allow the question. The jury had to determine from all the evidence when and where Park first saw Kato and from all the evidence arrive at the time that Kato heard the thumps. While it may have been fair to argue, it was not a proper line of questioning.

[Kate Sachel]

fgump2,

What evidence have NG's ignored? I don't believe that is true because we have explained why we see the evidence differently.

A perfect example is the lie detector test. While I do not believe in them, many people do and feel that since Simpson was said to have failed one, this must mean his guilt. However, Simpson's failed test, IMO, proves he is innocent. Had Mr. Simpson passed that lie detector test with flying colors, then I would have believed that he killed Ron and Nicole.

IMO, people who believe he is guilty ignore evidence that points to innocence.

Your first sentence speaks volumes, and I encourage you and others to think on it. That thought process goes both ways in that both sides have explained in great detail why they view evidence differently, and there are very valid reasons in that.

I respect all sides of a debate and I respect passionate debate; what I do not respect is petty and hostile personal jabs that are meant to be malicious and hurtful to other individuals. That behavior should neither be encouraged nor tolerated by anyone.

I do personally believe that there is some validity to lie detector tests, though I do not hold them to be a final word by any means. For me, the fact that OJ apparently failed a test is one of the least significant factors for me when I ponder those things that have lead me to be firm in my opinion that he is guilty of murdering two human beings.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

An interesting comment from Alan Dershowitz, who was one of OJ's defense counsel, regarding the prosecution in the criminal trial:

"I think they did have a very strong, winnable case without planting evidence. And they made a terrible blunder by allowing eight black women to serve on the jury. Marcia Clark believed that gender would trump race with black women, and it turned out that wasn't the case; that many of these women identified much more with their brothers and fathers and uncles, who had seen police harassment. They were black first and women second. ..."

Thoughts?

Kate

[William Anthony]

An interesting comment from Alan Dershowitz, who was one of OJ's defense counsel, regarding the prosecution in the criminal trial:

"I think they did have a very strong, winnable case without planting evidence. And they made a terrible blunder by allowing eight black women to serve on the jury. Marcia Clark believed that gender would trump race with black women, and it turned out that wasn't the case; that many of these women identified much more with their brothers and fathers and uncles, who had seen police harassment. They were black first and women second. ..."

Thoughts?

Kate

I disagree that the prosecution had a strong winnable case or there would have been no evidence of planting. I agree, if his comment was meant to mean that America treated Black women as Black first and women second. I think that they identified with all Blacks who had seen and been victims of police harassment.

[weezer]

I disagree that the prosecution had a strong winnable case or there would have been no evidence of planting. I agree, if his comment was meant to mean that America treated Black women as Black first and women second. I think that they identified with all Blacks who had seen and been victims of police harassment.

pssst -- there was NO evidence of planting! ;)

[tv]

I disagree that the prosecution had a strong winnable case or there would have been no evidence of planting. I agree, if his comment was meant to mean that America treated Black women as Black first and women second. I think that they identified with all Blacks who had seen and been victims of police harassment.

I don't always agree with Alan Dershowitz but I find him to be the most honest of all the defense attorneys in the civil trial.

It was unfair of the jury to render a not guilty verdict to pay back what they felt were past injustices. They neither liked nor sympathized with Nicole Brown Simpson. You're being unfair when you paint all Americans with the board brush of racism. I've been recently attacked by members of this forum and accused of being racist for believing in OJ Simpson's guilt. When you attach the label of racism and intolerance to anything that moves it begins to lose it's meaning and impact after a while. A few years ago I would have been incredulous to be called the things I've been called on this forum but now it's just par for the course.

Marcia Clark was advised by a jury consultant that black women wouldn't be sympathetic to Nicole but she wouldn't listen. In comments afterward, the jury made it clear that they didn't like MC either and they felt she talked down to them. Their dislike of Nicole and Marcia Clark and the mandate by Johnnie Cochran that they right past wrongs were the biggest reasons the case was lost by the prosecution, in my opinion.

[tv]

pssst -- there was NO evidence of planting! ;)

With the planting theory, it's second verse same as the first. No evidence, no proof, nothing.

[William Anthony]

I don't always agree with Alan Dershowitz but I find him to be the most honest of all the defense attorneys in the civil trial.

It was unfair of the jury to render a not guilty verdict to pay back what they felt were past injustices. They neither liked nor sympathized with Nicole Brown Simpson. You're being unfair when you paint all Americans with the board brush of racism. I've been recently attacked by members of this forum and accused of being racist for believing in OJ Simpson's guilt. When you attach the label of racism and intolerance to anything that moves it begins to lose it's meaning and impact after a while. A few years ago I would have been incredulous to be called the things I've been called on this forum but now it's just par for the course.

Marcia Clark was advised by a jury consultant that black women wouldn't be sympathetic to Nicole but she wouldn't listen. In comments afterward, the jury made it clear that they didn't like MC either and they felt she talked down to them. Their dislike of Nicole and Marcia Clark and the mandate by Johnnie Cochran that they right past wrongs were the biggest reasons the case was lost by the prosecution, in my opinion.

I guess some only agree with the portion of AD's statement that fits their opinion.

"I think they did have a very strong, winnable case without planting evidence.

One of the obvious implications behind this portion is that evidence was planted, or that they had no need to plant evidence even though they did. When viewed in this context the rest of his statement makes sense. I do not address this portion of my post to your post, Ms. Tvdinner.

Let me now address your post. You seem to have some indignation at being stereotyped because of your race. You may now feel a little of the pain that Blacks have endured, because of not only the stereotypes they faced but being treated less than human and denied any rights in a country that placed the utmost value on human rights and equality. As to being called a racist, I can only speak for myself and say that I did not read where anyone has called you that, because you believe Simpson to be guilty and, if that were the case, then every G would have been called a racist, imho. Just as the comments hurt you, we all bring different life experiences that allow for harm to be caused by others' statements be they intentional or not.

I think the biggest reason the prosecution lost the case was that they did not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I do believe that Ms. Clark lost credibility with the jury and that could have been, because she did not have the proof and expected the jury to identify with her simply because of her gender. I don't think the jury identified with the magnificent one simply because of his race as much as he had the ability as well as other Caucasian members of the dream team to point out the weaknesses in the prosecution's alleged mountain of evidence. I did not see the magnificent one's argument to be a mandate but a passionate appeal to the jury that they could set a standard, which would not allow defendants, be they Black or Caucasian, to be convicted when there was evidence of sloppy evidence handling, storage, and collection methods, breaks in the chain of custody of the evidence, things that did not square with the prosecution's theories, slanted testimony and outright perjury, imho. Ms. Clark took a calculated risk to ignore the jury consultant's advice. Whether she did not believe the consultant or whether she believed she could relate to the jury, it was her choice. She tried the case, taking on a calculated risk and lost.

[William Anthony]

With the planting theory, it's second verse same as the first. No evidence, no proof, nothing.

Just because you did not see it, doesn't mean it wasn't there. :)

[weezer]

Just because you did not see it, doesn't mean it wasn't there. :)

and just because you believe it was there, doesn't mean it was. :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

It mattered what the jury believed and they believed there was reasonable doubt after considering the testimony of a dead expert, magical socks, an expert who said blood degraded in a manner that was different from the scientific articles he relied on, missing blood, sloppy evidence handling, collection and storage techniques, magical envelopes, a lying detective, no bloody clothes, no eyewitness, no blood where there should have been blood, blood where there should not have been blood and gloves that did not fit and tapes of the lying detective admitting he had planted/manipulated/created evidence, just to name some.

[weezer]

It mattered what the jury believed and they believed there was reasonable doubt after considering the testimony of a dead expert, magical socks, an expert who said blood degraded in a manner that was different from the scientific articles he relied on, missing blood, sloppy evidence handling, collection and storage techniques, magical envelopes, a lying detective, no bloody clothes, no eyewitness, no blood where there should have been blood, blood where there should not have been blood and gloves that did not fit and tapes of the lying detective admitting he had planted/manipulated/created evidence, just to name some.

unless and until credible evidence is produced to show that any of the allegations against LE actually happened, we can only assume that all of the 'stuff' is simply imagined by desparate NG's. I believe Petrocelli said the count was beyond 60 people who had to actively participate in lying for the criminal defense allegations of conspiracy and planting have happened. Good grief, on any given day you can't get three people to decide where to have lunch.

Besides, nothing could change someone else's DNA into orenthal's and vice versa. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
It mattered what the jury believed and they believed there was reasonable doubt after considering the testimony of a dead expert, magical socks, an expert who said blood degraded in a manner that was different from the scientific articles he relied on, missing blood, sloppy evidence handling, collection and storage techniques, magical envelopes, a lying detective, no bloody clothes, no eyewitness, no blood where there should have been blood, blood where there should not have been blood and gloves that did not fit and tapes of the lying detective admitting he had planted/manipulated/created evidence, just to name some.

Martz was dead by his own slanted testimony. The socks were not seen on the video in the bedroom when they should have been and later they revealed a blood stain that had EDTA in an amount equal to the dead expert. Mathesson excluded Ms. NBS, Mr. RG and Simpson from being contributors to the type B blood found under Ms. NBS's fingernails but slanted his testimony to include Ms. NBS by denying the degradation method of the articles he relied on to first exclude her. I think the rest of my above quote is common knowledge. I think that to ignore all this evidence and say it does not exist is an act of desperation to avoid the fact that the alleged mountain of evidence was destroyed and was nothing more than an ant hill. Credibility belongs to the jury. Contamination can put DNA where it should not have been and when did the DNA get deposited is the question and we must consider the missing blood.

[William Anthony]

?a: No. I met with my partner, detective lange, in the front there. We had a brief conversation.

Q: When you say that you met with detective lange in the front, do you mean that you met with him inside the house or outside the house?

A: Outside the house.

Q: Okay. Were you still on mr. Simpson's property at that time?

A: Yes, in his driveway.

Q: And what did you and detective lange do at that time, if anything?

A: Well, we -- we discussed what -- what had been found, the fact that we may have an extension of the crime scene from bundy, and we made a determination that detective lange would return to the bundy crime scene immediately and start that investigation.

Q: Okay. And did detective lange leave your presence at that time?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. Did you watch him leave?

A: Yes.

Q: What time was it when detective lange left rockingham that morning?

A: Approximately 6:45.

Q: Now, you say that you and detective lange discussed the idea that you now had an extension of the bundy crime scene?

A: Well, we believed at that point that the probability of what had been found, that we had an extension from the bundy crime scene.

Q: Okay. Now, did you walk detective lange to his car?

A: No.

Q: Okay. What, if anything, did you do after detective lange left?

A: I was in the driveway of the residence and i started looking around, and in the vicinity of the -- of one of the vehicles parked in the rockingham driveway i observed what -- what appeared to me to be a blood spot on the ground.

Q: You saw a blood spot?

A: What appeared to be a blood spot, yes.

Q: Did you say that you saw that blood spot in the vicinity of a parked vehicle?

A: That's correct.

Q: Can you describe this vehicle for us?

A: It was near the two vehicles that were parked in the driveway and i believe it was closest to the bentley that was parked there.

Q: Now, was that the first time that you noticed this blood drop or apparent blood drop?

A: That's correct, yes.

Q: And what significance, if any, did you attach to your observation of that apparent blood drop?

A: Well, seeing that blood drop obviously triggered the fact that i had seen what appeared to be a blood trail leaving the crime scene at bundy with someone that was either injured or carrying something bloody that was dripping, immediately made me think that i picked up the blood trail again from bundy.

Q: What did you do at that point? What, if anything, detective?

A: I walked west in the driveway concentrating on looking at the driveway to see if i could find any other blood drops or what appeared to be blood drops, and i did. I found approximately three or four more drops between the rear end of the bronco and the first one that i discovered.

Q: And at that time did you approach the bronco again?

A: I did, yes.

Q: What did you do at that time?

A: Well, seeing the -- what appeared to be another blood trail, i walked to the bronco to have a closer look at the bronco to see if there was any other blood i could see there. I looked in from the passenger side of the vehicle and i observed what appeared to be a blood smear along the passenger side of the console and what appeared to be blood on the inside of the driver's door of the vehicle.

Q: What happened next, detective?

A: i then walked back east in the driveway again looking at the -- what appeared to be blood drops, and followed them to the -- found an additional three or four drops that led to the front door of the location. "

[William Anthony]

"Q: OKAY. ALSO YESTERDAY YOU TOLD US THAT YOU AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WENT TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND THAT YOU SAW THE GLOVE THERE ON THE GROUND; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. HOW LONG DID YOU REMAIN ON THAT SOUTH WALKWAY?

A: NOT VERY LONG. I WALKED BACK OUT FRONT WITH FUHRMAN AND NOT VERY LONG, A MINUTE OR TWO.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WALKED TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE?

A: BACK OUT TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND AT THAT TIME DID YOU AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAVE A CONVERSATION?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU ASK HIM TO DO SOMETHING?

A: I DID.

Q: WHAT DID YOU ASK HIM TO DO?

A: I ASKED HIM TO GO BACK TO THE BUNDY LOCATION TO LOOK AT THE OTHER GLOVE AND TO MAKE SURE THAT I WAS SEEING WHAT I WAS SEEING.

Q: AND WHERE WAS DETECTIVE LANGE AT THAT TIME?

A: I BELIEVE DETECTIVE LANGE HAD COME OUT OF THE HOUSE. I BELIEVE HE HAD JUST LEFT ARNELLE SIMPSON, BUT I'M NOT POSITIVE OF THAT.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHY DID YOU TELL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TO GO BACK TO BUNDY AND VIEW THE GLOVE?

A: BECAUSE WHAT I HAD SEEN ORIGINALLY AT BUNDY AND WHAT I HAD SEEN AT ROCKINGHAM, IT APPEARED TO BE THE SAME TYPE GLOVE, A LEFT AND A RIGHT-HANDED GLOVE, MAN'S LEATHER GLOVE. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS ACTUALLY WHAT I WAS SEEING. I WANTED HIM TO GO BACK AND CONFIRM THAT THIS WAS A LEFT-HANDED MAN'S LEATHER GLOVE.

Q: AND DID DETECTIVE FUHRMAN LEAVE YOUR PRESENCE?

A: HE DID.

Q: DID YOU WATCH HIM AS HE LEFT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE WHERE HE WENT AT THAT TIME?

A: I OBSERVED HIM AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS EXIT THE ROCKINGHAM GATE TO -- OR I'M SORRY -- EXIT THE ASHFORD GATE TO GO TO THEIR VEHICLE THAT WAS PARKED THERE AND LEAVE THE LOCATION.

Q: WHAT TIME, IF YOU RECALL, DID PHILLIPS AND FUHRMAN LEAVE THE LOCATION?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 6:40 IN THE MORNING.



Five minutes later he Vannatter sends Lang to Bundy to take charge of that crime scene.:shrug:

[tv]

I guess some only agree with the portion of AD's statement that fits their opinion.



One of the obvious implications behind this portion is that evidence was planted, or that they had no need to plant evidence even though they did. When viewed in this context the rest of his statement makes sense. I do not address this portion of my post to your post, Ms. Tvdinner.

Let me now address your post. You seem to have some indignation at being stereotyped because of your race. You may now feel a little of the pain that Blacks have endured, because of not only the stereotypes they faced but being treated less than human and denied any rights in a country that placed the utmost value on human rights and equality. As to being called a racist, I can only speak for myself and say that I did not read where anyone has called you that, because you believe Simpson to be guilty and, if that were the case, then every G would have been called a racist, imho. Just as the comments hurt you, we all bring different life experiences that allow for harm to be caused by others' statements be they intentional or not.

I think the biggest reason the prosecution lost the case was that they did not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I do believe that Ms. Clark lost credibility with the jury and that could have been, because she did not have the proof and expected the jury to identify with her simply because of her gender. I don't think the jury identified with the magnificent one simply because of his race as much as he had the ability as well as other Caucasian members of the dream team to point out the weaknesses in the prosecution's alleged mountain of evidence. I did not see the magnificent one's argument to be a mandate but a passionate appeal to the jury that they could set a standard, which would not allow defendants, be they Black or Caucasian, to be convicted when there was evidence of sloppy evidence handling, storage, and collection methods, breaks in the chain of custody of the evidence, things that did not square with the prosecution's theories, slanted testimony and outright perjury, imho. Ms. Clark took a calculated risk to ignore the jury consultant's advice. Whether she did not believe the consultant or whether she believed she could relate to the jury, it was her choice. She tried the case, taking on a calculated risk and lost.

As I've already stated -- I don't agree with everything that Alan Dershowitz says.

You can feel what you want about Johnnie Cochran issuing a mandate to the jury. It's my opinon that he did. I also stated that Marcia Clark ignored the jury consultant and ended up with a jury hostile to Nicole and herself. I'm not indignant at being stereotyped due to my race nor am I hurt by the comments because I know it was done to discredit my opinion about OJ Simpson's guilt and to give other likeminded people a little vicarious pleasure. I thnk it reveals a lot about the person/persons that made the comments. I don't care whether you've read or acknowledged any accusations of racism on this board and I don't pretend that the comments allowed me to feel the pain that blacks felt at being treated less than human. If some posters want to use the murder of two people that just happen to be white by a man who just happens to be black to promote some agenda to justify retribution for past wrongs I say go for it. Johnnie had to use race to win the case because there was no proof or evidence that any planting by LE occurred.

[tv]

unless and until credible evidence is produced to show that any of the allegations against LE actually happened, we can only assume that all of the 'stuff' is simply imagined by desparate NG's. I believe Petrocelli said the count was beyond 60 people who had to actively participate in lying for the criminal defense allegations of conspiracy and planting have happened. Good grief, on any given day you can't get three people to decide where to have lunch.

Besides, nothing could change someone else's DNA into orenthal's and vice versa. :shrug:

The planting theory is just a smokescreen. There's no proof that any planting or framing occurred in this case.

[William Anthony]

As I've already stated -- I don't agree with everything that Alan Dershowitz says.

You can feel what you want about Johnnie Cochran issuing a mandate to the jury. It's my opinon that he did. I also stated that Marcia Clark ignored the jury consultant and ended up with a jury hostile to Nicole and herself. I'm not indignant at being sterotyped due to my race nor am I hurt by the comments. I thnk they reveal a lot about the person/persons that made the comments. I don't care whether you've read or acknowledged any accusations of racism on this board and I don't pretend that the comments allowed me to feel the pain that blacks felt at being treated less than human. If some posters want to use the murder of two people that just happen to be white by a man who just happens to be black to promote some agenda to justify retribution for past wrongs I say go for it. Johnnie had to use race to win the case because there was no proof or evidence that any planting by LE occurred.

Believe me, I was not trying to change your opinion on what the magnificent one said. I was simply stating my view of what he said. I know that you don't agree with all of what AD said and that is why my quote of him was not meant for you but for others, who may not have realized what he may have said. :) I just don't see that there is anything to support the fact that those Black female jurors thought of themselves as Black first and female second only that they thought of themselves as Black females. I agreed that they could have been treated by America as Black first and female second. I don't see any posters using this forum to promote the murder of Caucasians by Blacks to justify past wrongs. I see two posters, for the most part, who believe Simpson is not guilty and I believe they believe he is innocent. I know that he is not guilty and I believe there is reasonable doubt. I think you have now expressed your sincere point of view in that you feel that the magnificent one had to use race to win. While the N word does promote feelings of anger in Blacks, we have been accustomed to the use of it as an expression of hatred by ignorant members of all races and have come to realize that it is just their ignorance speaking. I think that MF's use of the N word as it relates to the other vile, despicable, reprehensible and demonic statements probably caused more anger in some, we are aware that such words are spoken by ignorant racists and those statements do not cause us to lose all common sense. It does alert us to the possible actions of those who make such statements and heightens our awareness of possible danger. I do not think that jury lost all their common sense when MF was exposed. To the contrary, I think they had listened to all the evidence that came before his exposure and rightly concluded based on all the evidence that there was reasonable doubt as to Simpson's guilt and, as admitted by the prosecution, there was no doubt as to MF's racism or his ability to fabricate evidence when it came to interracial couples, as Ms. NBS and Simpson were.

[William Anthony]

The planting theory is just a smokescreen. There's no proof that any planting or framing occurred in this case.

Evidence of. The jury determined what was proven or not proven. :) It may take more evidence to prove something to someone, depending on that person's persuasion, meaning how the person feels about certain things.

[William Anthony]

THE COURT: Was it the use or manner that offended you so much?

MS. SINGER: The manner more than the use. The use is bad, the manner is what got me.

MR. BAILEY: All right. And what, if any, expression can you recall being on his face as he described his treatment of black people?

THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the question. We are going beyond here.

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.

MR. BAILEY: All right.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BAILEY: Can you tell us, Miss Singer, what you mean when you say "The manner in which it was used," without going into any text?

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. SINGER: There are words that we can speak that don't--are not followed by--they are meaningless words. I can say a specific word and it doesn't hurt anybody because I don't mean it. When he says the things, he says it is bolstered by--

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, objection. Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. SINGER: It is bolstered and held up and pushed out of his mouth with hatred and arrogance and despicability and that is what hurts. That is what hurts.

[William Anthony]

MR. BAILEY: All right. At that point you say: "I don't know how the subject was raised but Officer Fuhrman said that when he sees an `n,' as he called it, driving with a white woman, he would pull them over." Now, there is no mention of Marcus Allen here. Do you now remember that his name was mentioned before this response?

MS. BELL: Yes, I do.

MR. BAILEY: Okay.

MS. BELL: And I also, excuse me, remember that he didn't say the "N" word--

MR. DARDEN: Objection, nonresponsive.

MS. BELL: --at first.

THE COURT: Hold on. Next question.

MR. BAILEY: You say: "I asked if he didn't have a reason and he said that he would find one."

MS. BELL: Yes.

This definitely does not comport with my understanding as to how a law abiding police officer functions.

[fgump2]

Mr. August,

From the testimony you posted, it is clear that Sydney did know her father was going out of town and when he was coming back.

It is logical to assume that Simpson called Sydney to congratulate her on her performance that evening because he would be out of town the next day and because of his schedule, he may not have been able to call her congratulate her the next day--hence the reason he called her knowing she may have already been asleep.

Sydney called her mother's home several times that night. She was obviously upset, she knew something terrible happened, she told the cops what she heard that night. It is perfectly logical for her to tell the police that her father was out of town and where he was.

You have no proof to suggest that Sydney was not aware of her father's travel plans.

However, according to you your total belief is the detective's and the LAPD's reason for going to Rockingham, they had no reason NOT to ask Sydney where her father was. In fact to suggest they did not ask Sydney where her father was supports the NG's belief that the cops always knew where he was and that he was a prime suspect.

In one of the books, not sure which one, but it says around 5:00 a.m. a male cop asked Sydney for phone numbers of a her sister, Arnelle. She knew that number and she gave it, what she didn't know this number at 1:00 a.m.? She didn't know her own father's telephone number.

Sydney was woken up by police officers, taken out of the house, knew something was horribly wrong, told the police about what she heard that night. Do you really think she would not have offered this information? Don't you think that Sydney wanted someone from her family to come and get her and explain what is going on?


You are living in a fantasy world to even suggest that Sydney was deaf and mute to the events that night. You are treating her like she was incompetent to give logical answers to very basic questions.

IMO, the reason why you remain so stubborn on this issue is because you realize that all your defense of the LAPD and the detectives falls apart and you have to deal with the obvious--the cops lied and knowing where Simpson was and what time he left, provides the means and the opportunity for evidence to be transfered from one crime scene to another--and it was not OJ Simpson. Again, IMO.

************************************************** ****
I think you really don't know and can't know what was on the mind of the cops. You have repeatedly written that your are sure of some motivation of the cops, and I think it is a mistake to be so quick to judge what was on another person's mind, especially people you haven't met who are doing work you don't understand.

There were at least 14 cops there, and they had to be upset to see two murder victims. The cops who took care of the children may not have been in close contact with the cops who wanted to know where Mr. Simpson was. Some of the cops didn't know each other, and even if they did, it would have been a situation in which the left hand and the right hand are ignorant of what the other hand is doing.

I can understand you thinking that maybe some of them should have thought that the two children might know the phone number of Mr. Simpson, but the cops who made the decision to go to Mr. Simpson's home, may not have thought of that. As for a previous assumption you made about the cops being able to call the airlines and ask if he was on a flight. I don't know how easy that would have been to do, and I don't think you do either. I don't know if the airlines would have given out that information on a Sunday night. Just finding out how many airlines fly out of LA ex might be hard to find out on a Sunday night. In any case they may not have realized that there was a good chance he would be on an air plane.

You definitely have a habit of shooting from the hip at the LAPD, and also of anyone defending them. It is hard enough to decide what they did wrong, and what they should have done differently. To also describe the states of minds of cops, criminologists, and DAs, is going too far. You have written that LAPD employees who made mistakes did so 'because they didn't care'. Does this describe the various mistakes you have made?

Another example of you making insulting assumptions about the police is a remark you made about the motives of the police who wanted to put a sheet over Nicole's body and maybe Ron as well. If you had written you thought the cops made some mistakes, I could understand that. But to make a bunch of insulting assumptions about their motives for covering the body (bodies?) is clearly unjustified. I have spent too much time around people who think of themselves as mind readers. I think you wrote that getting a bunch of cops to surround the bodies would have been better idea than putting a blanket over it. There are at least two things wrong with this. First of all, if they want to keep gawkers away, having a bunch of cops surround a body, or anything else is not a good way to do it; it would attract gawkers, and perhaps the press. Secondly, getting a bunch of cops there would take time, and one of the cops thought that having a press photo of the crime scene might compromise the investigation.

The original idea of getting a clean sheet from the condo linen closet was a good idea, not much chance of contamination. Getting a blanket wasn't a good an idea. I suppose in the future detectives should have clean sheets in the trunks of their cars.

You seem to think I am going to far when I say that Simpson's lack of anger against the police is an indication of guilt. I think that is more of a red flag than anything the police said or did.

[GreenIce]

I disagree that the prosecution had a strong winnable case or there would have been no evidence of planting. I agree, if his comment was meant to mean that America treated Black women as Black first and women second. I think that they identified with all Blacks who had seen and been victims of police harassment.

William,

The quote by AD, IMO, he believes evidence was planted. Early on when he joined the team, he said that Clark will never call MF to the stand.

[GreenIce]

************************************************** ****
I think you really don't know and can't know what was on the mind of the cops. You have repeatedly written that your are sure of some motivation of the cops, and I think it is a mistake to be so quick to judge what was on another person's mind, especially people you haven't met who are doing work you don't understand.

There were at least 14 cops there, and they had to be upset to see two murder victims. The cops who took care of the children may not have been in close contact with the cops who wanted to know where Mr. Simpson was. Some of the cops didn't know each other, and even if they did, it would have been a situation in which the left hand and the right hand are ignorant of what the other hand is doing.

I can understand you thinking that maybe some of them should have thought that the two children might know the phone number of Mr. Simpson, but the cops who made the decision to go to Mr. Simpson's home, may not have thought of that. As for a previous assumption you made about the cops being able to call the airlines and ask if he was on a flight. I don't know how easy that would have been to do, and I don't think you do either. I don't know if the airlines would have given out that information on a Sunday night. Just finding out how many airlines fly out of LA ex might be hard to find out on a Sunday night. In any case they may not have realized that there was a good chance he would be on an air plane.

You definitely have a habit of shooting from the hip at the LAPD, and also of anyone defending them. It is hard enough to decide what they did wrong, and what they should have done differently. To also describe the states of minds of cops, criminologists, and DAs, is going too far. You have written that LAPD employees who made mistakes did so 'because they didn't care'. Does this describe the various mistakes you have made?

Another example of you making insulting assumptions about the police is a remark you made about the motives of the police who wanted to put a sheet over Nicole's body and maybe Ron as well. If you had written you thought the cops made some mistakes, I could understand that. But to make a bunch of insulting assumptions about their motives for covering the body (bodies?) is clearly unjustified. I have spent too much time around people who think of themselves as mind readers. I think you wrote that getting a bunch of cops to surround the bodies would have been better idea than putting a blanket over it. There are at least two things wrong with this. First of all, if they want to keep gawkers away, having a bunch of cops surround a body, or anything else is not a good way to do it; it would attract gawkers, and perhaps the press. Secondly, getting a bunch of cops there would take time, and one of the cops thought that having a press photo of the crime scene might compromise the investigation.

The original idea of getting a clean sheet from the condo linen closet was a good idea, not much chance of contamination. Getting a blanket wasn't a good an idea. I suppose in the future detectives should have clean sheets in the trunks of their cars.

You seem to think I am going to far when I say that Simpson's lack of anger against the police is an indication of guilt. I think that is more of a red flag than anything the police said or did.

fgump2,

How many times have you posted about the motivation of the jurors? How many times have you posted about the motivation of the LAPD and their Lab? How many times have you posted about the motivations of the DA's?

I understand their work and I understand why SOP's are written. I understand why and how laws have been enacted to make our system the fairest possible.

The difference between you and me is that I explain my position with facts and the events that were filmed on TV. The LAPD is supposed to be a team of people who have sworn to serve and protect. While there are personality conflicts on every team, professionals put them aside when the "game is on". Any comments made by Sydney or Justin that night that the two police officers heard he say, if it would help with getting these kids to a family member was relayed. If as VA claimed that Simpson was no more of a suspect then Robert Shapiro, then they would have gone to Rockingham much quicker.

Why are comments unjustified regarding covering Nicole's body? Why are they insulting? What did I say that was untrue?

Detective Lange said he covered Nicole's body out of respect for Nicole and her family, he wanted to protect them from the "looky loos" and the media. If this is true, then why did he not treat the Bundy crime scene as the primary scene and call the ME's office to take away both bodies ASAP? Why didn't Fung and Mozzola report to Bundy first, so the ME's could collect the bodies? Or why not have two teams, one at Bundy and one at Rockingham.

Isn't it fair to say that the media is a big factor in all of this? Isn't it also fair to say that Detective Lange could have shielded Nicole's body without covering it? Do I think Lange was happy about the media and the game he was forced to play? No, I don't. However, as angry as he was and no matter how much compassion he had for the situation, he still introduced contamination into the scene. He still pissed off the ME's office and pissed of the LAPD crime lab people. Why? Aren't they supposed to be working together?

What is your definition of "careless"? How do you explain the incompleted forms? How do you explain them not inventorying every blood swatch?

Remember, Riske used Nicole's phone because he knew the media attention, the order to go to Simpson's house was made under the guise that they wanted Simpson to find out before he found out from the media. The explainations they gave did not match their actions.

You just can't throw out the SOP's. They were written for a reason, they were written in the interest of justice. Not one of the detectives or the lab people have any excuses for their piss poor performance. They had right to let professional pissing contests over ride their duties.

You do bring up an interesting point about some cops being ignorant of what another cops hands were doing--which goes right to the heart of planting evidence. You have just proved that it was possible for a cop to plant evidence and other cops not seeing it. IMO.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9188774]

GreenIce,

I understand bobaugust's methodology and by calling my argument weak or saying other insulting things he will not run me off. The prosecution placed a lot of faith in Park's phone records and tried to tailor a story around them. However, the inconsistencies in the testimonies raised more reasonable doubt than the records could cure, IMHO.

William,

IMO, Park and Kato's testimony on this issue was nothing more then a well planned ping-pong game by the DA's. I think they did this on purpose and were hoping that the longer the ping pong game went on in front the jurors, it would somehow help their case.

The weakness in Mr. August's case on this issue is he forgets why the DA's were so insistent that murders happened at 10:15 and why they wanted Kato's 10:40 to 10:45 time--the DA's built Simpson getting rid of the evidence before he went to Rockingham.

Another weakness is the fact that he stated Park's time was more detailed in the criminal trial. Why? Why would several months make his memory better or remember how long someone stood still?

IMO, the phone records only provide a base because the time is recorded, however, were the lengths of the phone calls entered into the equation? How long were Park's conversations? Anything that was not recorded is just a guess.

Another weakness in Mr. August's case is that he decides when the person's testimony is dead on but when the same person does get something wrong, he uses they had no reason to pay attention to error or that the error was made because they were still upset about something so their mind wasn't as sharp.

[bobaugust]

Correct, battery with oppression is not remotely similar to causing a wrongful death and the Browns have never received the closure or respect due their daughter's death and your false posts ignore that fact. The civil verdict meant that Simpson severely abused/battered Ms. NBS.

Please, provide the testimony where Park said he was not paying attention to Kato? The testimony is that he saw Kato standing in the same position as he was for another minute before Kato proceeded to open the gate.

If you look at the diagram, you will see that the intercom would be farther off to Park's left and if you see the position of B (where Kato was standing) kato would not have been in front of Park. Kato was standing near the driveway.

I rely on all the testimony and do not have to invent things from the testimony as you do, such as Park was unaware, Park wasn't paying attention, Park was mistaken but then won't to credit the part of Park's testimony that squares with what I want to believe, like you do. When I consider all the testimony and all the meetings that they would have had before testifying, it is easy for me to see that a lot of their testimony was probably suggested testimony. I can also see that the Prosecution asked questions that tried to change the testimonies.

The civil trial verdict that Simpson committed battery with oppression and malice against both Ron and Nicole means that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole despite the fact that the question of wrongful death pertained only to Ron.

There was no testimony in the criminal trial that Kaelin was standing for “another minute” before Kaelin opened the gate. Not from Park and not ever from Kaelin. Park testified that when he was talking to his boss most of the time he was looking at the driveway area but he also said that he “might have looked at the dashboard or something here or there.” Its obvious Park wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin after Park saw Simpson enter his house because he never saw Kaelin run past the front of Simpson’s house to the garage.

If you look at the diagram you will see that the intercom is at the edge of the driveway and when Park used it both he and Kaelin would have seen each if Kaelin was still standing on the sidewalk near the driveway. (A and B on the diagram) Neither Park nor Kaelin ever said that.

No I don’t give any credibility to your imagined scenario based only on minor inconsistencies in Park’s pre criminal trial testimony because both Park and Kaelin’s criminal trial testimony as well as the layout of the Rockingham estate all contradicts what you have imagined happened.

Park was mistaken in his pre criminal trial testimony when he thought Kaelin simply stood on the Ashford path before Kaelin went to the gate control box and opened the gate for him. In the criminal trial Park never said that. Maybe the prosecutors did understand Park’s earlier mistakes and that’s why Clark asked questions about what Park did after he saw Simpson enter his house before Kaelin returned from behind the garage and opened the gate. I would think Simpson’s attorneys would have done the same thing for one of their witnesses.

Your claim that Park was mistaken and did not see Kaelin come from behind the house down the Ashford path with a flashlight is outright false and wrong. Your claim that the criminal trial jurors also believed what your have imagined happened is also false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Please, post the testimony where park said he saw lights go on on the Ashford side of the house as he was looking down the driveway?

You already posted Park’s testimony where he said that the windows and curtains illuminated. The only windows Park could see from where he was parked were the windows on the Ashford side of the house.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have previously included Park's criminal trial testimony and again you want to say Park was mistaken but in case you missed his criminal trial testimony on the issue, here it is.

Q: CAN YOU SHOW US ON THE DIAGRAM, DIRECT THE POINTER TO WHERE YOU SAW HIM ON THE SIDE YARD?

A: RIGHT THERE WHERE THE ARROW WAS WHERE THE PATH -- WHERE THE PATH COMES OUT FROM BEHIND THE HOUSE. HE CAME OUT TO JUST ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY, RIGHT THERE, (INDICATING).

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

A: NO, HE WAS OFF A COUPLE FEET.

Q: OKAY. TELL THE POINTER WHERE TO GO.

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

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

A: I COULDN'T SEE.

Q: YOU COULDN'T TELL?

A: NO.

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

A: YES.

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

A: AT THAT TIME, NO.

Q: WHAT WAS HE DOING WHEN YOU SAW HIM?

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

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

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

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

A: I WAS INSIDE THE CAR ON THE PHONE.

Q: TALKING TO YOUR BOSS?

A: YES. "

Park testified what he perceived Kaelin to have done. Kaelin testified as to what he remembered doing. There was a minor discrepancy between these two witnesses as to standing. Kaelin could have unconsciously slowed down or paused or Park could have misinterpreted what Kaelin did. You should know that witness do not always agree on every detail but what they do agree on is more reliable yet you have used these small discrepancies to claim what these two witness did agreed on was not correct.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

If the questions were never asked, then they were never answered. However, they can not negate Park's testimony, because they were never asked. :)

If he did not include that time in his estimation, then tell me how you know how long it took, unless it is by Park's testimony that Kato was still standing in the same position as he was for about another minute before Kato proceeded to walk to the gate box to let the limo in? I think that you are imagining some times.

The questions that were not asked do not change Kaelin’s testimony that after coming back from behind the garage he saw the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

The questions that were not asked do not change Park’s testimony that he first saw a white male come from behind the house on the Ashford path with a flashlight.

The questions that were not asked do not change Kaelin’s testimony that he left his room about two to three minutes after hearing the noises and went around the house and down the Ashford path with a flashlight.

How do I know how much time it took from when Park said he last saw Kaelin standing on the sidewalk to when Park said he saw him again go to the gate control box and open the gate? By Park’s time estimates regarding what he did between those to sightings and my own time estimate for what Park didn’t give a time estimate for when Park said he got out of the limo, rang the intercom, had a conversation with Simpson, and then retuned to the limo.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

In the above post you said that Park was mistaken but now you say he is correct three times. It seems you select when Park is incorrect and correct. However, be that as it may, let's examine the obvious, Park never testified to seeing anyone on the driveway, IIRC, until after he was buzzed in.

Show me where Park testified that Kato's flashlight attracted his attention?

That’s right, Park was mistaken in his pre criminal trial testimony because he was unaware that Kaelin had gone on to the garage. Park said he saw Kaelin coming towards him when Kaelin went to the gate control box. Park wasn’t asked where Kaelin was coming from but Kaelin said after he came out from behind the garage, he saw the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. To do that Kaelin would have come down the driveway walking towards the Ashford gate. You posted Kaelin’s grand jury testimony where he said that.

Park testified his attention was attracted. Common sense tells us that since that side of the house was dark the flashlight Kaelin was using is the first thing Park would have seen that attracted his attention.

March 28, 1995 Park

Q AT SOME POINT DURING YOUR PHONE CONVERSATION WITH DALE ST. JOHN DID SOMETHING ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION?
A YES. A WHITE MALE WALKED FROM BEHIND THE HOUSE AREA ON A PATHWAY AND HE HAD A FLASHLIGHT IN HIS HAND AND HE STOPPED -- HE STOPPED BEFORE HE GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Of course it is no big deal to you, because you feel that you are justified in creating your imagined scenarios and not consider the actual contradictions in the evidence but want to insult others, who consider all the evidence to draw their inferences. There are so many may haves and maybes and perceptions in your post, which you say are no big deal. Maybe your maybes and may haves are not a big deal to you but I perceive them as such.:)

Yes, we are talking about a matter of seconds and things happening simultaneously, which negates the possibility that Kato would have had time to do his first cursory search while Park saw him standing and still standing.:)

My maybes and may haves are regarding opinions about movements, running, walking, standing, pausing, arms swinging. They do not change where Kaelin said he went or where Park said Kaelin was when he first saw him that night.

The matter of seconds and things happening simultaneously were regarding Park seeing both Kaelin and Simpson for the first time that night. They have nothing to do with Kaelin testifying where he went after Park saw him and what he did when he returned to open the gate.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I think I have addressed your concerns in this post in my previous posts.

You claim that when the criminal trial jurors asked for a read back of Park’s testimony they could see what you have seen. Yet you have based your claims where Park first saw Kaelin on the less detailed grand jury and preliminary hearing testimony, not Park or Kaelin’s criminal trial testimony. So tell us William how could the criminal trial jurors see what you have supposedly seen?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9188777]

William,

IMO, Park and Kato's testimony on this issue was nothing more then a well planned ping-pong game by the DA's. I think they did this on purpose and were hoping that the longer the ping pong game went on in front the jurors, it would somehow help their case.

The weakness in Mr. August's case on this issue is he forgets why the DA's were so insistent that murders happened at 10:15 and why they wanted Kato's 10:40 to 10:45 time--the DA's built Simpson getting rid of the evidence before he went to Rockingham.

Another weakness is the fact that he stated Park's time was more detailed in the criminal trial. Why? Why would several months make his memory better or remember how long someone stood still?

IMO, the phone records only provide a base because the time is recorded, however, were the lengths of the phone calls entered into the equation? How long were Park's conversations? Anything that was not recorded is just a guess.

Another weakness in Mr. August's case is that he decides when the person's testimony is dead on but when the same person does get something wrong, he uses they had no reason to pay attention to error or that the error was made because they were still upset about something so their mind wasn't as sharp.

GreenIce, I agree Clark was working on a flawed theory as to when the murders were committed. I believe she eventually realized that and in her closing argument Clark tried to correct some of her mistakes.

It wasn’t that Park’s memory was better in the criminal trial it was the additional questions that he was asked that brought out more details. The questions asked in the grand jury and preliminary hearing were purposely limited to divulge as little information to the defense as possible.

The phone records documented the time calls were placed and the time calls were ended.

The fact is that all witness make mistakes and errors. Different people perceive things differently. Two or more people can witness the same event yet there will always be discrepancies between each of their versions. That is a common problem with eye witness testimony. The information that is the most reliable is what different witnesses agree on or if there is other evidence to support what a witness says.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

The civil trial verdict that Simpson committed battery with oppression and malice against both Ron and Nicole means that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole despite the fact that the question of wrongful death pertained only to Ron.

There was no testimony in the criminal trial that Kaelin was standing for “another minute” before Kaelin opened the gate. Not from Park and not ever from Kaelin. Park testified that when he was talking to his boss most of the time he was looking at the driveway area but he also said that he “might have looked at the dashboard or something here or there.” Its obvious Park wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin after Park saw Simpson enter his house because he never saw Kaelin run past the front of Simpson’s house to the garage.

If you look at the diagram you will see that the intercom is at the edge of the driveway and when Park used it both he and Kaelin would have seen each if Kaelin was still standing on the sidewalk near the driveway. (A and B on the diagram) Neither Park nor Kaelin ever said that.

No I don’t give any credibility to your imagined scenario based only on minor inconsistencies in Park’s pre criminal trial testimony because both Park and Kaelin’s criminal trial testimony as well as the layout of the Rockingham estate all contradicts what you have imagined happened.

Park was mistaken in his pre criminal trial testimony when he thought Kaelin simply stood on the Ashford path before Kaelin went to the gate control box and opened the gate for him. In the criminal trial Park never said that. Maybe the prosecutors did understand Park’s earlier mistakes and that’s why Clark asked questions about what Park did after he saw Simpson enter his house before Kaelin returned from behind the garage and opened the gate. I would think Simpson’s attorneys would have done the same thing for one of their witnesses.

Your claim that Park was mistaken and did not see Kaelin come from behind the house down the Ashford path with a flashlight is outright false and wrong. Your claim that the criminal trial jurors also believed what your have imagined happened is also false.

bobaugust

The civil verdict was that Simpson caused the wrongful death of Mr. RG and that he committed battery and oppression on Ms. NBS, nothing more, despite your incorrect assertion. That is what is insulting, which is to claim that the civil verdict meant Simpson murdered Ms. NBS, to her memory, her family and the members of this group.

I have never said there was testimony in the criminal trial that Kato was standing for another minute but the was testimony that Park saw Kato standing. Kato testified that he did not stop when he left his room. Therefore, the inference can be drawn that Park did not see Kato walking as he ran from his room. Ms. Clark cleverly didn't ask how long he saw Kato standing as she realized the discrepancy, since they had access as did the defense to all Park's testimony. You must think that Park had a fixation with the dashboard. You see, you have to imagined the obvious, where I rely on the testimonies. It is obvious that Park did not see Kato run down the Ashford pathway, as Kato testified to doing, so Park did not see Kato when he did his first cursory search.

The diagram I looked at shows the intercom father off to the left of A as Park was looking down the driveway, which would have been farther of to the right of B, where Park had Kato standing and still standing there. So, you see Park did testify as to where Kato was. In fact, Park goes farther and says Kato was looking toward the Rockingham gate. Kato was never asked, IIRC, if he saw Park at the intercom.

Just as I suspected, in what you have allegedly called "this search for truth based on all the information and new information we have learned since the trial", you want to consider only that evidence which supports what you have concluded happened and not consider all the evidence. Thanks for the admission. :) The fact is that, if you consider all the evidence, it is contradicted that Park could have seen Kato walk down the Ashford path when Kato exited his room. You need to alter the testimony to have Kato walking down the Ashford pathway and then running down the driveway.

I have posted the criminal trial testimony where Park said he saw Kato standing. You must have been standing next to Park to know that he was mistaken or is it that you have concluded that Park was mistaken, because that is the only way your conclusion can be right?

I base my inferences from all the testimonies considering the discrepancies. I have asked you for the testimony where you claim Park's attention was drawn to Kato's flashlight as he walked down the Ashford pathway/walkway. Do you have that testimony and, if you do, please, post it?:)

[William Anthony]

You already posted Park’s testimony where he said that the windows and curtains illuminated. The only windows Park could see from where he was parked were the windows on the Ashford side of the house.

bobaugust

I have windows on all sides of my house and remember you were intimating that I was wrong about Kato being asked about the downstairs lights. I simply posted testimony where Kato was asked about those lights.

[William Anthony]

Park testified what he perceived Kaelin to have done. Kaelin testified as to what he remembered doing. There was a minor discrepancy between these two witnesses as to standing. Kaelin could have unconsciously slowed down or paused or Park could have misinterpreted what Kaelin did. You should know that witness do not always agree on every detail but what they do agree on is more reliable yet you have used these small discrepancies to claim what these two witness did agreed on was not correct.

bobaugust

Park was not asked what he "perceived" Kato to be doing. He was asked "could he tell what Kato was doing." Park responded standing, looking at him and then Kato looked toward Rockingham. You see you have "could have unconsciously", could have misinterpreted" and "what he perceived" to justify what you think happened, when I simply rely on the "reality of the actual testimonies" and do not have to imagine could haves, unconscious acts and distort observations to perceptions.:)

[William Anthony]

The questions that were not asked do not change Kaelin’s testimony that after coming back from behind the garage he saw the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

The questions that were not asked do not change Park’s testimony that he first saw a white male come from behind the house on the Ashford path with a flashlight.

The questions that were not asked do not change Kaelin’s testimony that he left his room about two to three minutes after hearing the noises and went around the house and down the Ashford path with a flashlight.

How do I know how much time it took from when Park said he last saw Kaelin standing on the sidewalk to when Park said he saw him again go to the gate control box and open the gate? By Park’s time estimates regarding what he did between those to sightings and my own time estimate for what Park didn’t give a time estimate for when Park said he got out of the limo, rang the intercom, had a conversation with Simpson, and then retuned to the limo.

bobaugust

If the questions were not asked of Kato, then we have to rely on Park's testimony of his observations of Kato to determine what Kato did and how long Park saw Kato standing and still standing where he was before coming to open the gate as well as how long Kato was standing and still standing before Kato proceeded to the gate box, which was another minute. See how easy things become when we don't invent evidence, which the jury was not allowed to do, just draw reasonable inferences from all the evidence?:)

[William Anthony]

That’s right, Park was mistaken in his pre criminal trial testimony because he was unaware that Kaelin had gone on to the garage. Park said he saw Kaelin coming towards him when Kaelin went to the gate control box. Park wasn’t asked where Kaelin was coming from but Kaelin said after he came out from behind the garage, he saw the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. To do that Kaelin would have come down the driveway walking towards the Ashford gate. You posted Kaelin’s grand jury testimony where he said that.

Park testified his attention was attracted. Common sense tells us that since that side of the house was dark the flashlight Kaelin was using is the first thing Park would have seen that attracted his attention.

March 28, 1995 Park

Q AT SOME POINT DURING YOUR PHONE CONVERSATION WITH DALE ST. JOHN DID SOMETHING ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION?
A YES. A WHITE MALE WALKED FROM BEHIND THE HOUSE AREA ON A PATHWAY AND HE HAD A FLASHLIGHT IN HIS HAND AND HE STOPPED -- HE STOPPED BEFORE HE GOT TO THE DRIVEWAY.

bobaugust

Was Park mistaken or are you? Please, post the testimony where Kato said he turned the flashlight on? I remember testimony about the street light illuminating the area and lights in the trees.

[William Anthony]

My maybes and may haves are regarding opinions about movements, running, walking, standing, pausing, arms swinging. They do not change where Kaelin said he went or where Park said Kaelin was when he first saw him that night.

The matter of seconds and things happening simultaneously were regarding Park seeing both Kaelin and Simpson for the first time that night. They have nothing to do with Kaelin testifying where he went after Park saw him and what he did when he returned to open the gate.

bobaugust

You may haves and maybes are to justify the conclusion you reached, which you think must be the right conclusion, IMHO.:) I know that you may not be aware that some people say "went to" to mean purpose and does not mean that they did not do other things on the way to going to do that purpose. Park tells us what Kato did before he proceeded to open the gate, which was stand in the same position as he was for another minute. You may want the testimonies to have nothing to do with it in order to justify your conclusion and choose to ignore it based on who you think is correct, in that they support your conclusion. I have noticed that you have not called Park wrong, as you do me. You say Park is mistaken? Why is that, bobaugust? I believe I know.:)

[William Anthony]

You claim that when the criminal trial jurors asked for a read back of Park’s testimony they could see what you have seen. Yet you have based your claims where Park first saw Kaelin on the less detailed grand jury and preliminary hearing testimony, not Park or Kaelin’s criminal trial testimony. So tell us William how could the criminal trial jurors see what you have supposedly seen?

bobaugust

Because, as I have posted, Park said he saw Kato standing and stopped, Kato never testified to standing and stopping when he came from the Ashford path and wasn't asked if he stopped or stood on his way to open the gate.:) Maybe, it is because of Black experiences such as those depicted in the screenplay, that we look at all the evidence to see if the prosecution proved it case, smile.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9188997]

GreenIce, I agree Clark was working on a flawed theory as to when the murders were committed. I believe she eventually realized that and in her closing argument Clark tried to correct some of her mistakes.

It wasn’t that Park’s memory was better in the criminal trial it was the additional questions that he was asked that brought out more details. The questions asked in the grand jury and preliminary hearing were purposely limited to divulge as little information to the defense as possible.

The phone records documented the time calls were placed and the time calls were ended.

The fact is that all witness make mistakes and errors. Different people perceive things differently. Two or more people can witness the same event yet there will always be discrepancies between each of their versions. That is a common problem with eye witness testimony. The information that is the most reliable is what different witnesses agree on or if there is other evidence to support what a witness says.

bobaugust

Since I have the benefit of having studied law, the preliminary hearing is not the same as the grand jury in that the opposing side gets to cross examine witnesses and they are designed for more than limiting the amount of information. I will not bore you with the other purposes, other than it is a chance for the other side to gain information. I just wanted to correct your statement on legal concepts.:)

As to your statement about phone records, you are correct and that is their limited purpose.

[William Anthony]

Q: About the lighting conditions at the rockingham home of mr. Simpson, the trees are all lit with professional lighting; are they not?

A: Yes. There's some lights hit the -- yes. There's lights from the bottom and i think they go up.

Q: And also, at the front entrance, there are coach lights on either side of the door?

A: I think so.

Q: And on ashford, there's a large street lamp; is there not?

A: Yes.

Q: And that street lamp illuminates the area of the driveway and the front door; does it not?

A: The streetlight -- yeah, you can see the streetlight would light up part of the driveway just a bit, yeah.

Q: And that's a very, very bright intense streetlight; is it not?

A: Yeah. It lights up that corner, yeah.

[weezer]

Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
It mattered what the jury believed and they believed there was reasonable doubt after considering the testimony of a dead expert, magical socks, an expert who said blood degraded in a manner that was different from the scientific articles he relied on, missing blood, sloppy evidence handling, collection and storage techniques, magical envelopes, a lying detective, no bloody clothes, no eyewitness, no blood where there should have been blood, blood where there should not have been blood and gloves that did not fit and tapes of the lying detective admitting he had planted/manipulated/created evidence, just to name some.

Martz was dead by his own slanted testimony. The socks were not seen on the video in the bedroom when they should have been and later they revealed a blood stain that had EDTA in an amount equal to the dead expert. Mathesson excluded Ms. NBS, Mr. RG and Simpson from being contributors to the type B blood found under Ms. NBS's fingernails but slanted his testimony to include Ms. NBS by denying the degradation method of the articles he relied on to first exclude her. I think the rest of my above quote is common knowledge. I think that to ignore all this evidence and say it does not exist is an act of desperation to avoid the fact that the alleged mountain of evidence was destroyed and was nothing more than an ant hill. Credibility belongs to the jury. Contamination can put DNA where it should not have been and when did the DNA get deposited is the question and we must consider the missing blood.

the blood that was found belonged to the two victims -- Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown -- and their murderer -- orenthal james simpson. nothing LE did could change anyone else's DNA into orenthal's and vice versa.

common sense would tell a reasonable person that if all of the other blood belonged to the three people involved and one of the victims was lying in her own blood, the explanation of as to the degradation of the blood from AB to B is more than plausible. The NG's like to point to this as a 'gotcha' moment yet are unable to produce evidence to the contrary.

common sense would tell a reasonable person that had the prosecution witness intended to deceive the jury in his testimony concerning EDTA, he could have done so easily. After all, he was at the forefront of developing the testing for EDTA.

common sense would tell a reasonable person that IF the miniscule amount of blood they allege to be 'missing' would not be enough to place everywhere orenthal's blood was found.

[weezer]

Q: About the lighting conditions at the rockingham home of mr. Simpson, the trees are all lit with professional lighting; are they not?

A: Yes. There's some lights hit the -- yes. There's lights from the bottom and i think they go up.

Q: And also, at the front entrance, there are coach lights on either side of the door?

A: I think so.

Q: And on ashford, there's a large street lamp; is there not?

A: Yes.

Q: And that street lamp illuminates the area of the driveway and the front door; does it not?

A: The streetlight -- yeah, you can see the streetlight would light up part of the driveway just a bit, yeah.

Q: And that's a very, very bright intense streetlight; is it not?

A: Yeah. It lights up that corner, yeah.

doesn't sound like the lighting was that great to me. In fact, if the lighting had been so good, why would anyone need flashlights?

[William Anthony]

Common sense tells me that a person would not have to make excuses for the testimony or say what the most likely explanations (preponderance standard) were, if they were interested in accepting the evidence as it was presented and not in finding a reason to convict.

[William Anthony]

They would not need to have a flashlight on until they reached a point that was not lit up, like below the area that was lit up. :)

[William Anthony]

MR. MATHESON: Yes. It says: "Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson. However, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain if the EAP type B observed on the items were degraded from a type BA."

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. So would it be a fair reading of the report if someone were to say that this categorically excluded Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson of being a donor of the material underneath the fingernail?

MR. MATHESON: Well, categorically excludes two of them. It does not absolutely exclude Nicole Simpson or Nicole Brown.

MR. GOLDBERG: What about Nicole Brown? Okay. Now, when you wrote that second sentence, that Nicole Brown could not be excluded as a possible donor, why did you write that?

MR. MATHESON: The reason that it's in there is first off, there's two markers that were identified in those items, the PGM subtype and the EAP. Used the PGM subtype to eliminate the other two parties involved. That left Nicole Brown. And then this issue knowing that a BA can be degraded into a B, I wanted to include that in there so that there was no confusion as to an absolute statement of exclusion on her part.

MR. GOLDBERG: That's fine.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I'm dealing with the EAP ones first and then some of them deal with a different phase of block diagrams. It says, "When BA degrades bands disappear from top down." My understanding that that is not true based upon my own reading of the scientific literature and my discussions with Mr. Matheson. And then there are some charts here that says that a degraded BA only has one B band as opposed to two B bands, and I'm only aware of a footnote in one article that somewhat supports this view. But this is the kind of thing again where in order to be able to intelligently answer this issue Mr. Matheson might want to go back and look at that one footnote and also some of the other articles and also determine whether or not these block diagrams are correct.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor--

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm not really qualified to do that.

MR. BLASIER: I will suggest--I will give Mr. Matheson every article that I intend to refer to. I will give that to you now so that he can refer to them for tomorrow.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: What he is suggesting may not be scientifically correct, and I would object to the Defense putting something up on the screen for which there will never be my foundation laid, not through Mr. Matheson or any Defense expert.

THE COURT: Well, counsel is offering to give this to you at this point. What is the identity of the articles, Mr. Blasier?

MR. BLASIER: These are all articles on EAP systems. Do you want me to identify them on the record?

THE COURT: Just so we know what you are giving.

MR. BLASIER: One is Dr. George Sensabaugh. The title is "The utilization of polymorphic enzymes in forensic science." There is a second article by Dr. Sensabaugh. "Isoenzymes in forensic science." There is an article by Brian Wraxall and Elizabeth Emes, e-m-e-s, "Erythrocite acid phosphatase in blood stains." There is a technical note by D.V. Yeshion, y-e-s-h-I-o-n, titled "Thermal degradation of erythrocyte acid phosphatase isoenzymes in case sample."

THE COURT: I read that.

MR. BLASIER: And finally, I believe, is an article by Jill Luffman and Harry Harris titled "A comparison of some properties of human red cell acid phosphatase in different phenotypes.”

MR. BLASIER: Now I want to ask you--I want to talk about packaging and unpackaging materials for purposes of DNA testing or preparation for DNA testing. Now, there's been considerable testimony about the use of plastic bags to transport blood samples. Are you aware of that?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is it your understanding that it is appropriate to transport wet blood samples in plastic bags prior to booking?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: What is the--what can happen to blood if it's transport--or if it's kept in plastic while it's moist?

MR. MATHESON: Well, the plastic doesn't allow any drying process to occur. So it stays moist, and as I mentioned before, a moist or damp environment leads towards degradation.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that the proper procedure is, after collection of a bloodstain by using swatches, you should try to dry it as fast as possible or as soon as possible?

MR. MATHESON: I believe it should be dried as soon as practically possible, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And the crime scene truck that your criminalists use has a refrigerator in it; does it not?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated on direct that that refrigerator is used for chemicals and is not used for evidence samples. Did I hear that right?

MR. MATHESON: As a rule, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: The--is it available to use for evidence samples if the criminalist wants to use it?

MR. MATHESON: Yes. They're not denied. We don't say don't put evidence in there.

MR. BLASIER: Would storing evidence in plastic bags, wet bloodstains if they were put in that refrigerator, would that retard any degradation that might go on?

MR. MATHESON: Yes. If you can lower the temperature at all, it helps slow the degradation process. It doesn't stop it.

MR. BLASIER: Is there any standard period of time beyond which you should not keep wet bloodstains sealed or in plastic bags?

MR. MATHESON: I don't believe there's a fixed time frame. We suggest as soon as possible.

MR. BLASIER: And is seven hours acceptable?

MR. MATHESON: Depends on the circumstances. I don't believe that's excessive. I would like if it was possible to get them back in the lab and dried before that.

MR. BLASIER: How about seven hours in the back of a truck on a June day?

MR. MATHESON: Still I don't--if that's the condition in which they're working and that's how they had to be kept, I don't think that's unacceptable.

MR. BLASIER: Have you done any studies to determine how fast blood degrades under those conditions?

MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.

MR. BLASIER: Those are the banding patterns from the fingernails, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes. That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And could we put an arrow over by 42 as well? Can we affix one there?

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that the banding patterns for 84-A and B are much more distinctive than 42?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that's why you read 84-A and B and did not report anything other than inconclusive for 42?

MR. MATHESON: That's one of the reasons, yes.

[weezer]

MR. MATHESON: Yes. It says: "Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson. However, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain if the EAP type B observed on the items were degraded from a type BA."

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. So would it be a fair reading of the report if someone were to say that this categorically excluded Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson of being a donor of the material underneath the fingernail?

MR. MATHESON: Well, categorically excludes two of them. It does not absolutely exclude Nicole Simpson or Nicole Brown.

MR. GOLDBERG: What about Nicole Brown? Okay. Now, when you wrote that second sentence, that Nicole Brown could not be excluded as a possible donor, why did you write that?

MR. MATHESON: The reason that it's in there is first off, there's two markers that were identified in those items, the PGM subtype and the EAP. Used the PGM subtype to eliminate the other two parties involved. That left Nicole Brown. And then this issue knowing that a BA can be degraded into a B, I wanted to include that in there so that there was no confusion as to an absolute statement of exclusion on her part.

MR. GOLDBERG: That's fine.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I'm dealing with the EAP ones first and then some of them deal with a different phase of block diagrams. It says, "When BA degrades bands disappear from top down." My understanding that that is not true based upon my own reading of the scientific literature and my discussions with Mr. Matheson. And then there are some charts here that says that a degraded BA only has one B band as opposed to two B bands, and I'm only aware of a footnote in one article that somewhat supports this view. But this is the kind of thing again where in order to be able to intelligently answer this issue Mr. Matheson might want to go back and look at that one footnote and also some of the other articles and also determine whether or not these block diagrams are correct.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor--

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm not really qualified to do that.

MR. BLASIER: I will suggest--I will give Mr. Matheson every article that I intend to refer to. I will give that to you now so that he can refer to them for tomorrow.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: What he is suggesting may not be scientifically correct, and I would object to the Defense putting something up on the screen for which there will never be my foundation laid, not through Mr. Matheson or any Defense expert.

THE COURT: Well, counsel is offering to give this to you at this point. What is the identity of the articles, Mr. Blasier?

MR. BLASIER: These are all articles on EAP systems. Do you want me to identify them on the record?

THE COURT: Just so we know what you are giving.

MR. BLASIER: One is Dr. George Sensabaugh. The title is "The utilization of polymorphic enzymes in forensic science." There is a second article by Dr. Sensabaugh. "Isoenzymes in forensic science." There is an article by Brian Wraxall and Elizabeth Emes, e-m-e-s, "Erythrocite acid phosphatase in blood stains." There is a technical note by D.V. Yeshion, y-e-s-h-I-o-n, titled "Thermal degradation of erythrocyte acid phosphatase isoenzymes in case sample."

THE COURT: I read that.

MR. BLASIER: And finally, I believe, is an article by Jill Luffman and Harry Harris titled "A comparison of some properties of human red cell acid phosphatase in different phenotypes.”

MR. BLASIER: Now I want to ask you--I want to talk about packaging and unpackaging materials for purposes of DNA testing or preparation for DNA testing. Now, there's been considerable testimony about the use of plastic bags to transport blood samples. Are you aware of that?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is it your understanding that it is appropriate to transport wet blood samples in plastic bags prior to booking?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: What is the--what can happen to blood if it's transport--or if it's kept in plastic while it's moist?

MR. MATHESON: Well, the plastic doesn't allow any drying process to occur. So it stays moist, and as I mentioned before, a moist or damp environment leads towards degradation.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that the proper procedure is, after collection of a bloodstain by using swatches, you should try to dry it as fast as possible or as soon as possible?

MR. MATHESON: I believe it should be dried as soon as practically possible, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And the crime scene truck that your criminalists use has a refrigerator in it; does it not?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated on direct that that refrigerator is used for chemicals and is not used for evidence samples. Did I hear that right?

MR. MATHESON: As a rule, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: The--is it available to use for evidence samples if the criminalist wants to use it?

MR. MATHESON: Yes. They're not denied. We don't say don't put evidence in there.

MR. BLASIER: Would storing evidence in plastic bags, wet bloodstains if they were put in that refrigerator, would that retard any degradation that might go on?

MR. MATHESON: Yes. If you can lower the temperature at all, it helps slow the degradation process. It doesn't stop it.

MR. BLASIER: Is there any standard period of time beyond which you should not keep wet bloodstains sealed or in plastic bags?

MR. MATHESON: I don't believe there's a fixed time frame. We suggest as soon as possible.

MR. BLASIER: And is seven hours acceptable?

MR. MATHESON: Depends on the circumstances. I don't believe that's excessive. I would like if it was possible to get them back in the lab and dried before that.

MR. BLASIER: How about seven hours in the back of a truck on a June day?

MR. MATHESON: Still I don't--if that's the condition in which they're working and that's how they had to be kept, I don't think that's unacceptable.

MR. BLASIER: Have you done any studies to determine how fast blood degrades under those conditions?

MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.

MR. BLASIER: Those are the banding patterns from the fingernails, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes. That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And could we put an arrow over by 42 as well? Can we affix one there?

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that the banding patterns for 84-A and B are much more distinctive than 42?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that's why you read 84-A and B and did not report anything other than inconclusive for 42?

MR. MATHESON: That's one of the reasons, yes.

you inaccurately stated in your original post that ". . . Mathesson excluded Ms. NBS, Mr. RG and Simpson from being contributors to the type B blood found under Ms. NBS's fingernails but slanted his testimony to include Ms. NBS by denying the degradation method of the articles he relied on to first exclude her. . . ."

Matheson did not exclude Nicole Brown. There is and has never been evidence that anything done by LE did or could change someone else's DNA into orenthal's and vice versa.

[weezer]

Common sense tells me that a person would not have to make excuses for the testimony or say what the most likely explanations (preponderance standard) were, if they were interested in accepting the evidence as it was presented and not in finding a reason to convict.

it was the jury looking for a reason not to convict that was the problem -- the rest of the world understood the evidence and understood the verdict.

[William Anthony]

There is nothing inaccurate in my post.

"MR. MATHESON: Yes. It says: "Item no. 84-A and 84-B could not have come from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson."

Here is the slant of the testimony, "However, Nicole Brown Simpson cannot be excluded as a source of the stain if the EAP type B observed on the items were degraded from a type BA."

[William Anthony]

Common sense tells me that the jury followed their oath and held the prosecution to its burden of proof, no matter how many of a different persuasion, which I have already stated how I use the word, disagreed. :)

[William Anthony]

"MR. BLASIER: So under this scientific literature, if this BA was a degraded--I'm sorry--if your B under the fingernails was a degraded BA, it wouldn't look like the results you got, would it?

MR. MATHESON: If my sample or the samples that I analyzed were under those conditions in those studies and run in the same way, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Can you cite me to a single scientific article that states that the degradation route taken by a BA when it degrades would ever get you to the point where you're going to have a b-1 and a b-2 without the a-1?

MR. MATHESON: And we're talking specifically about articles at this point?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: No, I can not."

"MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that under the scientific literature that we've reviewed here, that the blood under Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails cannot be a degraded BA?

MR. MATHESON: If you look strictly at the literature and if the conditions under the fingernails are the same as the way those studies were done in the literature and the technique used to identify it was the same as I used in my testing, then it does not follow that degradation route, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And if that's true, then it has to have come from somebody else, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Given all of the considerations that I mentioned, they would all have to be the same, and if--like I said, in fact if it did follow that same degradation route, then it would have to be a B and it would have to come from somebody else."

"MR. BLASIER: Did you ever consider doing a retest of those fingernail scrapings, an EAP test, to see whether your original results were wrong?

MR. MATHESON: Did I consider it?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: I considered it, yes.

MR. BLASIER: You wanted to do it, didn't you?

MR. MATHESON: I felt that there was other tests that could give more information. I did not want to consume any more of the sample just to repeat the exact same thing again.

MR. BLASIER: So you've done no retesting to demonstrate whether this EAP is anything other than a B or someone other than Mr. Simpson, correct?

MR. MATHESON: There has never been any other testing I--excuse me. I have not repeated or done any other EAP testing, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: No further questions."

"MR. BLASIER: Now, let me ask you first of all, the only article that you referred to on direct was the Zajac, Grunbaum and Crim article, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: That's irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: That was the only one presented to me, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me show you that article. When's the last--have you read that recently?

MR. MATHESON: I've read this and--yes. It's been within the last several days.

MR. BLASIER: And you've given testimony on redirect about the manner of degradation of an EAP; have you not?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry. Of a BA.

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that that particular article that you referred to, nowhere in it talks about how a BA degrades in terms of what happens to the bands, does it?

MR. MATHESON: Did you ask whether or not it makes any reference to any form of specific type of degradation?

MR. BLASIER: No. My question is, it doesn't tell you which bands you lose in what order when you degrade a BA, does it?

MR. MATHESON: No, it does not."

"MR. BLASIER: Can you cite me to a single scientific reference that says that a BA can degrade to the point where you have two B bands and nothing else?

MR. MATHESON: No, I can not."

"MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, California Association of Criminalists has a Code of Ethics; do they not?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, we do.

MR. BLASIER: I ask you to look at that and read the highlighted paragraph to yourself.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is irrelevant, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: And do you agree that those highlighted paragraphs are two paragraphs from the code of ethics from the California association of criminalists?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: And you are a member of that organization?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: And you consider yourself to be bound by those ethics?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm wondering if we should print out a copy of that last demo I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I object to that because there was no foundation for a scientist looking at something that's covered up like that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Could we have slide f, please?

THE COURT: Let's proceed with a little alacrity.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, would you agree that the code of ethics of your organization that you are a member of provide that: "The criminalist will be alert to recognize the significance of a test result as it may relate to the investigative aspects of a case. In this--" I'm sorry. I got it backwards. Let me read the other one. Would you agree that one of those provisions provides that: "Where test results are capable of being interpreted to the advantage of either side of a case, the criminalist will not choose that interpretation favoring the side which he is employed merely as a means of justifying his employment"? Do you agree that that's one of the provisions of your code of ethics?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: Could we see the next slide, please?

MR. BLASIER: Do you also agree that one of the provisions of your code of ethics is that: "The criminalist will be alert to recognize the significance of a test result as it may relate to the investigative aspects of a case. In this respect, however--in this respect, he will, however, scrupulously avoid confusing scientific fact with investigative theory in his interpretations"? Do you agree that that's one of the provisions of your code of ethics?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: And do you agree that there is no scientific support for your testimony that a BA can degrade to the point where you have two B bands remaining?

MR. MATHESON: No, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: Isn't that what you're doing in this case, Mr. Matheson, is violating this code of ethics?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is totally argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: I have no further questions."

[fgump2]

"MR. BLASIER: So under this scientific literature, if this BA was a degraded--I'm sorry--if your B under the fingernails was a degraded BA, it wouldn't look like the results you got, would it?

MR. MATHESON: If my sample or the samples that I analyzed were under those conditions in those studies and run in the same way, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Can you cite me to a single scientific article that states that the degradation route taken by a BA when it degrades would ever get you to the point where you're going to have a b-1 and a b-2 without the a-1?

MR. MATHESON: And we're talking specifically about articles at this point?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: No, I can not."

"MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that under the scientific literature that we've reviewed here, that the blood under Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails cannot be a degraded BA?

MR. MATHESON: If you look strictly at the literature and if the conditions under the fingernails are the same as the way those studies were done in the literature and the technique used to identify it was the same as I used in my testing, then it does not follow that degradation route, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And if that's true, then it has to have come from somebody else, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Given all of the considerations that I mentioned, they would all have to be the same, and if--like I said, in fact if it did follow that same degradation route, then it would have to be a B and it would have to come from somebody else."

"MR. BLASIER: Did you ever consider doing a retest of those fingernail scrapings, an EAP test, to see whether your original results were wrong?

MR. MATHESON: Did I consider it?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: I considered it, yes.

MR. BLASIER: You wanted to do it, didn't you?

MR. MATHESON: I felt that there was other tests that could give more information. I did not want to consume any more of the sample just to repeat the exact same thing again.

MR. BLASIER: So you've done no retesting to demonstrate whether this EAP is anything other than a B or someone other than Mr. Simpson, correct?

MR. MATHESON: There has never been any other testing I--excuse me. I have not repeated or done any other EAP testing, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: No further questions."

"MR. BLASIER: Now, let me ask you first of all, the only article that you referred to on direct was the Zajac, Grunbaum and Crim article, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: That's irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: That was the only one presented to me, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me show you that article. When's the last--have you read that recently?

MR. MATHESON: I've read this and--yes. It's been within the last several days.

MR. BLASIER: And you've given testimony on redirect about the manner of degradation of an EAP; have you not?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry. Of a BA.

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that that particular article that you referred to, nowhere in it talks about how a BA degrades in terms of what happens to the bands, does it?

MR. MATHESON: Did you ask whether or not it makes any reference to any form of specific type of degradation?

MR. BLASIER: No. My question is, it doesn't tell you which bands you lose in what order when you degrade a BA, does it?

MR. MATHESON: No, it does not."

"MR. BLASIER: Can you cite me to a single scientific reference that says that a BA can degrade to the point where you have two B bands and nothing else?

MR. MATHESON: No, I can not."

"MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, California Association of Criminalists has a Code of Ethics; do they not?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, we do.

MR. BLASIER: I ask you to look at that and read the highlighted paragraph to yourself.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is irrelevant, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: And do you agree that those highlighted paragraphs are two paragraphs from the code of ethics from the California association of criminalists?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: And you are a member of that organization?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: And you consider yourself to be bound by those ethics?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm wondering if we should print out a copy of that last demo I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I object to that because there was no foundation for a scientist looking at something that's covered up like that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Could we have slide f, please?

THE COURT: Let's proceed with a little alacrity.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, would you agree that the code of ethics of your organization that you are a member of provide that: "The criminalist will be alert to recognize the significance of a test result as it may relate to the investigative aspects of a case. In this--" I'm sorry. I got it backwards. Let me read the other one. Would you agree that one of those provisions provides that: "Where test results are capable of being interpreted to the advantage of either side of a case, the criminalist will not choose that interpretation favoring the side which he is employed merely as a means of justifying his employment"? Do you agree that that's one of the provisions of your code of ethics?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: Could we see the next slide, please?

MR. BLASIER: Do you also agree that one of the provisions of your code of ethics is that: "The criminalist will be alert to recognize the significance of a test result as it may relate to the investigative aspects of a case. In this respect, however--in this respect, he will, however, scrupulously avoid confusing scientific fact with investigative theory in his interpretations"? Do you agree that that's one of the provisions of your code of ethics?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: And do you agree that there is no scientific support for your testimony that a BA can degrade to the point where you have two B bands remaining?

MR. MATHESON: No, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: Isn't that what you're doing in this case, Mr. Matheson, is violating this code of ethics?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is totally argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: I have no further questions."
***************************************
I suppose I should give up the biochemistry questions, but if you say that the fingernail blood meant a fourth person, then this raises some questions:
Why was there no DNA from a fourth person?
Why were there no foot prints from a fourth person?
People who have been injured often put their hands on the injured part, so we would expect Nicole to put at least one hand near her throat and get some of her own blood on it, and yet there was not type BA blood on her fingers. This is odd.
Henry Lee claimed that there were footprints from a fourth person, but the FBI foot print man disagreed with that, and after that Mr. Lee made no attempt to defend his comments about another person's foot prints. And yet people still write about a fourth person's footprints. So if there was a fourth person, they left no DNA, and no foot prints.

[William Anthony]

***************************************
I suppose I should give up the biochemistry questions, but if you say that the fingernail blood meant a fourth person, then this raises some questions:
Why was there no DNA from a fourth person?
Why were there no foot prints from a fourth person?
People who have been injured often put their hands on the injured part, so we would expect Nicole to put at least one hand near her throat and get some of her own blood on it, and yet there was not type BA blood on her fingers. This is odd.
Henry Lee claimed that there were footprints from a fourth person, but the FBI foot print man disagreed with that, and after that Mr. Lee made no attempt to defend his comments about another person's foot prints. And yet people still write about a fourth person's footprints. So if there was a fourth person, they left no DNA, and no foot prints.

How many people trampled through the Bundy crime scene and left no footprints and DNA? I don't understand your point. We know that the expert had to slant his testimony and disagree with all the scientific "reference" on how BA blood degrades to a B. This allows a reasonable inference that there was another person at Bundy other than Ms. NBS and Mr. RG. and other than the prosecution's claim that Simpson was there.

[GreenIce]

***************************************
I suppose I should give up the biochemistry questions, but if you say that the fingernail blood meant a fourth person, then this raises some questions:
Why was there no DNA from a fourth person?
Why were there no foot prints from a fourth person?
People who have been injured often put their hands on the injured part, so we would expect Nicole to put at least one hand near her throat and get some of her own blood on it, and yet there was not type BA blood on her fingers. This is odd.
Henry Lee claimed that there were footprints from a fourth person, but the FBI foot print man disagreed with that, and after that Mr. Lee made no attempt to defend his comments about another person's foot prints. And yet people still write about a fourth person's footprints. So if there was a fourth person, they left no DNA, and no foot prints.

fgump,

There are patterns that more then likely came from shoes. However, the most useful piece of this evidence that would have solved this was never discovered.

Have you ever honestly added up all the evidence that was "lost" in this case? Do you have any explaination on how this could have happened?

What about the other 5 blood drops that were found by the jeep? Who's blood drops are those?

[GreenIce]

How many people trampled through the Bundy crime scene and left no footprints and DNA? I don't understand your point. We know that the expert had to slant his testimony and disagree with all the scientific "reference" on how BA blood degrades to a B. This allows a reasonable inference that there was another person at Bundy other than Ms. NBS and Mr. RG. and other than the prosecution's claim that Simpson was there.

William,

What about the flesh that was found under her fingernails, this was lost, correct?

In reading Matheson's testimony that you posted, it makes no sense to me what the DA's did not call an expert in, as in a Dr. to explain this testimony.

Did the defense have a witness who said that this could not have happened?
I don't remember.

[bobaugust]

The civil verdict was that Simpson caused the wrongful death of Mr. RG and that he committed battery and oppression on Ms. NBS, nothing more, despite your incorrect assertion. That is what is insulting, which is to claim that the civil verdict meant Simpson murdered Ms. NBS, to her memory, her family and the members of this group.

I have never said there was testimony in the criminal trial that Kato was standing for another minute but the was testimony that Park saw Kato standing. Kato testified that he did not stop when he left his room. Therefore, the inference can be drawn that Park did not see Kato walking as he ran from his room. Ms. Clark cleverly didn't ask how long he saw Kato standing as she realized the discrepancy, since they had access as did the defense to all Park's testimony. You must think that Park had a fixation with the dashboard. You see, you have to imagined the obvious, where I rely on the testimonies. It is obvious that Park did not see Kato run down the Ashford pathway, as Kato testified to doing, so Park did not see Kato when he did his first cursory search.

The diagram I looked at shows the intercom father off to the left of A as Park was looking down the driveway, which would have been farther of to the right of B, where Park had Kato standing and still standing there. So, you see Park did testify as to where Kato was. In fact, Park goes farther and says Kato was looking toward the Rockingham gate. Kato was never asked, IIRC, if he saw Park at the intercom.

Just as I suspected, in what you have allegedly called "this search for truth based on all the information and new information we have learned since the trial", you want to consider only that evidence which supports what you have concluded happened and not consider all the evidence. Thanks for the admission. :) The fact is that, if you consider all the evidence, it is contradicted that Park could have seen Kato walk down the Ashford path when Kato exited his room. You need to alter the testimony to have Kato walking down the Ashford pathway and then running down the driveway.

I have posted the criminal trial testimony where Park said he saw Kato standing. You must have been standing next to Park to know that he was mistaken or is it that you have concluded that Park was mistaken, because that is the only way your conclusion can be right?

I base my inferences from all the testimonies considering the discrepancies. I have asked you for the testimony where you claim Park's attention was drawn to Kato's flashlight as he walked down the Ashford pathway/walkway. Do you have that testimony and, if you do, please, post it?:)

William, we both agree part of Park’s testimony regarding what Kaelin did was mistaken. We know that from Kaelin’s consistent testimony telling us what he did that night. But the part you want to believe Park was mistaken about is what Kaelin said he actually did and didn’t contradict what Park said and the part you want to believe Park was correct about was what Kaelin never said he did and did contradict what Park said.

The evidence in the criminal trial is that Park was talking on the phone with his boss when he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house, and down the Ashford sidewalk with a flashlight. Park said when Kaelin got to the driveway he stopped and almost simultaneously Park saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up into the front entranceway, enter the house, and lights come on downstairs. Park testified to what he did after that while waiting about two minutes to be let into the estate; he finished his phone conversation with his boss, sat and waited, got out of the limo and went to the intercom and spoke with Simpson, went back to the limo and continued to sit and wait until he saw Kaelin go to the gate control box and open the gate.

The evidence in the criminal trial is that Kaelin testified he left his room about two to three minutes after hearing the noises on his back wall, went around the house, and down the Ashford sidewalk with a flashlight. He said when he got to the driveway he saw the limo parked at the gate. Kaelin said he continued on past the front of Simpson's house to the garage, went behind the garage, turned around and went back to the driveway, saw that the limo was still there, went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

I SAY that Park was mistaken in his pre criminal trial testimony when he said that after Kaelin stopped on the Ashford sidewalk Kaelin just stood there before going to the gate control box and opening the gate. I SAY that Park only thought that because after Park saw Simpson enter his house Park did not pay any attention to Kaelin when he finished his phone conversation with his boss and never saw Kaelin continue on past the front of the house. I SAY Park was unaware that Kaelin had continued on to the garage and in the criminal trial and the next time he saw Kaelin was when Kaelin returned from behind the garage came down the driveway and go to the gate control box and opened the gate.

YOU SAY Kaelin left his room about two to three minutes after hearing the noises on his back wall and went around the house and down the Ashford sidewalk with a flashlight. When he got to the driveway he saw the limo parked at the gate and then continued on to the garage. YOU SAY Park did not see Kaelin come down the Ashford sidewalk or when Kaelin continued on past the front of Simpson’s house to the garage. Kaelin went behind the garage, turned around and went back to the driveway, saw the limo was still there, and YOU SAY Kaelin then went back to the Ashford sidewalk and stood there. YOU SAY that was when Park first saw Kaelin that night and then almost simultaneously Park saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up into the front entranceway, enter the house, and lights come on downstairs. YOU SAY that Kaelin continued standing on the Ashford sidewalk while Park finished his phone conversation with his boss, sat and waited to be let in, got out of the limo and went to the intercom and spoke with Simpson, didn’t see or say anything to Kaelin who was still standing on the sidewalk in front of him, went back to the limo to sit and wait and then Park saw Kaelin go to the gate control box and open the gate.

Am I correct as to what you say William?

I said the testimony you posted did not make it clear what downstairs windows Kaelin was referring to. The only time I recall Kaelin being asked if he saw any lights on in the front of the house that faces the driveway was in the civil trial and Kaelin answered no. There were no windows in the front of Simpson’s house that faces the driveway that Kaelin could have seen the foyer light on.

As to Kaelin’s flashlight, let’s use a little common sense here. Park testified that when he saw Kaelin come from around the house down the Ashford path Kaelin had a flashlight in his hand. Kaelin testified the flashlight he had was very small. How do you think Park could have seen that small flashlight in Kaelin’s hand if the flashlight wasn’t on?

bobaugust