Random Discussions On The Case

[William Anthony]

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.

bobaugust

Kato was never asked whether or not he walked directly to the gate box, as you have admitted. Therefore, there is NO EVIDENCE BY KATO ON THAT ISSUE.
However, Park was asked about HIS OBSERVATIONS OF KATO. Park testified WERE HE SAW KATO AND HOW LONG HE SAW HIM STANDING THERE IN THE SAME POSITION AS HE WAS BEFORE HE PROCEEDED TO THE GATE BOX. Park testified HE SAW KATO WALKING DOWN THE ASHFORD PATH BUT kATO SAID HE WAS RUNNING DOWN THE ASHFORD PATH. THEREFORE, KATO DID CONTRADICT PARK. EVEN PARK HAD TO ADMIT TO THIS,

"Q: AND ON HOW MANY OCCASIONS WOULD YOU -- WELL, STRIKE THAT. TELL US WHEN DID YOU FIRST MEET MISS MARCIA CLARK, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AT THE FAR END OF THE TABLE?

A: THE FIRST TIME? I -- I REALLY DON'T REMEMBER.

Q: WAS IT BACK IN JUNE OF 1994?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU TALKED TO HER PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIMONY AT THE GRAND JURY; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IT WOULD BE A FAIR STATEMENT TO SAY YOU TALKED TO HER PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IT WOULD BE A FAIR STATEMENT TO SAY YOU TALKED AND GAVE A STATEMENT TO POLICE OFFICERS TIPPIN AND CARR ON OR ABOUT JUNE 15TH, 1994; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN YOU HAD A SECOND INTERVIEW WITH TIPPIN AND CARR ALSO ON JUNE 15TH, 1994 BY TELEPHONE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: AND PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIFYING HERE TODAY, YOU'VE HAD OCCASION IN THE RECENT PAST TO TALK TO MISS MARCIA CLARK, HAVE YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN DID YOU LAST TALK TO HER PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIMONY HERE TODAY, SIR?

A: UH, WOULD HAVE BEEN LAST FRIDAY.

Q: AND WHERE DID YOU TALK TO HER AT THAT POINT?

A: HERE.

Q: AND HERE IN THIS BUILDING?

A: YES.

Q: IN HER OFFICE?

A: YES.

Q: AND HOW LONG DID YOU TALK TO HER AT THAT TIME?

A: UH, IT WAS ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF, TWO HOURS.

Q: AND WHAT TIME OF DAY WAS THAT?

A: UH, WE MET AT 11:00 O'CLOCK.

Q: 11:00 O'CLOCK A.M.?

A: YES.

Q: AND IS YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION THAT YOU TALKED UNTIL PERHAPS ABOUT 12:30?

A: UH, SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE. WE WERE HERE A LITTLE LONGER, BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF DISTRACTIONS IN-BETWEEN. SO --

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AFTER THAT INTERVIEW WITH MISS CLARK ON FRIDAY AT ABOUT 11:00 O'CLOCK, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO TALK TO HER ALSO THIS MORNING BRIEFLY?

A: UH, JUST HERE IN THE COURTROOM, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU TALKED TO HER DURING THE BREAKS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU READ ANYTHING IN PREPARATION FOR YOUR TESTIMONY HERE TODAY, ANY OF THE TRANSCRIPTS FROM ANY OF THE EARLIER HEARINGS?

A: OF MY OWN, YES.

Q: YES. OF YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: YES.

Q: TELL US WHAT YOU'VE READ, SIR.

A: UH, I'VE READ EVERYTHING THAT -- THAT WAS TAKEN DOWN BY THE COURT REPORTER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU READ EVERYTHING THAT -- YOU READ YOUR TESTIMONY AT THE GRAND JURY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU READ YOUR TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YEAH. I WOULDN'T SAY ALL OF IT, BUT --

Q: BUT YOU WENT THROUGH IT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU READ YOUR TWO STATEMENTS TO OFFICERS TIPPIN AND CARR BACK ON JUNE 15TH; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AS WITH ALL OF US, I PRESUME THAT YOUR MEMORY WAS BETTER BACK IN JUNE OF 1994 FOR EVENTS THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE ON JUNE 12TH THAN IT IS NOW. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

A: THAT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY, YES. "

[William Anthony]

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.

bobaugust

Why is it now that you want to limit the discussion to evidence in the criminal trial but even if you do Park testified HE SAW KATO STANDING AND KATO STOPPED, WHICH KATO SAID HE DID NOT STOP OR STAND ON HIS WAY TO DO HIS FIRST CURSORY SEARCH? I though it was your position that we should consider all the information, including new information in the search for truth? As you will see Park's grand jury testimony and preliminary hearing testimony was referred to in the criminal trial.

[William Anthony]

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.

bobaugust

Park said that Kato stopped in his criminal trial testimony and was just standing there.

"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.

Q: OKAY.

A: SO I -- I TOLD DALE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY IS HOME.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME HAD YOU ALREADY LOOKED AT THE -- AT THE HOUSE, THE AREA THAT YOU WERE DIRECTED TO LOOK AT BY DALE ST. JOHN, TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY LIGHTS?

A: YES.

Q: AND AFTER YOU SAW THAT THERE WERE NO LIGHTS, WAS IT AFTER THAT POINT THAT YOU SAW THIS WHITE MALE?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: AND THAT PERSON THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING, HAVE YOU SINCE LEARNED WHAT HIS NAME IS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT IS HIS NAME?

A: KATO.

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."

I understand what you say but I chose to rely on what the witness said. You are not under oath. :)

[William Anthony]

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?

bobaugust

No, you are not correct as to what I say. Those are the reasonable inferences I draw from the testimonies BASED ON WHAT PARK AND KATO SAID. I DO NOT HAVE TO USE MAYBES AND COULD HAVES AND CAN JUST RELY ON THE TESTIMONY, PUTTING ALL OF TOGETHER TO DRAW THE REASONABLE INFERENCE THAT PARK DID NOT SEE KATO WALK FROM BEHIND THE HOUSE DOWN THE ASHFORD PATHWAY AND STOP AND STAND, SINCE KATO SAID HE RAN DOWN THE PATHWAY AND DID NOT STOP AND STAND. FURTHERMORE, THE GESTURE/WAVE/SIGNAL TELLS US WHEN PARK FIRST SAW KATO AS PARK TESTIFIED IT WAS WHEN KATO CAME DOWN THE PATHWAY BUT KATO SAID IT WAS AFTER HE FINISHED HIS FIRST CURSORY SEARCH AND WENT TO THE GATE BOX TO BUZZ THE LIMO IN. IT IS NOT WHAT I SAY BUT WHAT THE TESTIMONIES SAY.

[William Anthony]

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

I posted the testimony from the criminal trial where Kato was asked about the downstairs lights.

As to using common sense and Kato's flashlight, since the testimony support the reasonable inference that Park didn't see Kato as he ran down the Ashford pathway, then he could not have seen the flashlight in Kato's hand. I posted the testimony of how many times Park had met with Ms. Clark. Ms. Clark was well aware of Kato's and Park's testimonies, which is why I said that Park's memory was suggested. Ms. Clark used a clever lawyer trick in her questioning and was able to make it appear that Kato walked but she was a little tentative as she first said as you came down the Ashford pathway. Shipario missed the trick as it misstated the evidence and he should have objected but we have heard he was best known as settlement lawyer and not a trial lawyer. To his credit, I have had time to study the testimony but he should have taken time. Perhaps, he was doing other things related to the case and just wasn't as prepared as he should have been. When I read the depositions that I did, I noticed questions that should have been asked but were not. I memorize the parts of the depositions that are most important and write questions that I missed in the depositions in preparation for trial. I think the difference between running an walking, stopping, standing and not stopping or standing but continuing on were glaring. I have to agree with GreenIce as to the size of the defense's dog in the fight as they were not worried about Park or Kato, only that Kato could not say that Simpson was enraged and Park's observations of Simpson after he came out of the house and whether or not Park could have missed seeing the Bronco. I would have focused more on all the discrepancies to show that Park was very mistaken and used that to discredit his observations but the defense won and they had more experience than I have at trying cases. I think they made a tactical decision to handle him softly as he didn't hurt their defense. Like I said, I tend to over try an issue.:) I think that any reasonable person can see that I have proven my point and so with this post, I rest these issues and now will address Matheson.

[William Anthony]

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.

I am not sure about the flesh under her fingernails but will look to see.

How can you explain testimony that is contradicted by all the scientific references. I think any expert would have lost credibility trying to explain the preposterous and would not risk losing their reputation.

Yes, the defense had the articles that said it could not happen and Matheson could not cite one reference that supported his rate/route of degradation. In this instance, I don't think they needed a physical body. :)

[William Anthony]

Before anyone jumps to the erroneous conclusion that I believe there was a grand conspiracy to convict Simpson, let me just say that I believe that some people are of the ideology that LE arrests the right person and especially those that have some affiliation with LE. They often work on the premise that a defendant is guilty until prove innocent as another poster pointed out as opposed to innocent until proven guilty. I believe that their beliefs show up in their testimonies or their reports on the evidence.

[GreenIce]

Before anyone jumps to the erroneous conclusion that I believe there was a grand conspiracy to convict Simpson, let me just say that I believe that some people are of the ideology that LE arrests the right person and especially those that have some affiliation with LE. They often work on the premise that a defendant is guilty until prove innocent as another poster pointed out as opposed to innocent until proven guilty. I believe that their beliefs show up in their testimonies or their reports on the evidence.

William,

IMO, I do not believe their was a grand conspiracy to convict Simpson either. However I do believe that was the impression the DA's and the LAPD wanted to give. They wanted the jury to believe that in order for the evidence to be planted, 100's of cops, lab people would have be involved. We know that is not true.

Without a doubt there was a grand CYA operation and it started very early on. Wasn't Lt. Spangler the one who gave the order to go over to Rockingham at Bundy? If this the case, then it makes no sense. If he was the one to give an order that was going to create a lot of controversy, why idn't he just go Rockingham?

Isn't it the detectives job to, I don't know, detect crime scenes? Is it the job of the detectives to be the main messegers of death? If Simpson was not a suspect then a "uniform" should have told Simpson. A black white should have been on standby to either transport Mr. Simpson to collect his children or have the children brought back to him if he was to distressed to drive himself.

[GreenIce]

I am not sure about the flesh under her fingernails but will look to see.

How can you explain testimony that is contradicted by all the scientific references. I think any expert would have lost credibility trying to explain the preposterous and would not risk losing their reputation.

Yes, the defense had the articles that said it could not happen and Matheson could not cite one reference that supported his rate/route of degradation. In this instance, I don't think they needed a physical body. :)

William,

So in the science world, this could not have happend? There are no documented cases where Mathison's theory has been proven?

If that is the case, didn't the DA's and the LAPD suggest that someone's blood type morphed into Nicole's blood type? Didn't the DA's spend a lot of time with snide questions about Mr. Simpson's blood being able to turn into someone else's?

[GreenIce]

I posted the testimony from the criminal trial where Kato was asked about the downstairs lights.

As to using common sense and Kato's flashlight, since the testimony support the reasonable inference that Park didn't see Kato as he ran down the Ashford pathway, then he could not have seen the flashlight in Kato's hand. I posted the testimony of how many times Park had met with Ms. Clark. Ms. Clark was well aware of Kato's and Park's testimonies, which is why I said that Park's memory was suggested. Ms. Clark used a clever lawyer trick in her questioning and was able to make it appear that Kato walked but she was a little tentative as she first said as you came down the Ashford pathway. Shipario missed the trick as it misstated the evidence and he should have objected but we have heard he was best known as settlement lawyer and not a trial lawyer. To his credit, I have had time to study the testimony but he should have taken time. Perhaps, he was doing other things related to the case and just wasn't as prepared as he should have been. When I read the depositions that I did, I noticed questions that should have been asked but were not. I memorize the parts of the depositions that are most important and write questions that I missed in the depositions in preparation for trial. I think the difference between running an walking, stopping, standing and not stopping or standing but continuing on were glaring. I have to agree with GreenIce as to the size of the defense's dog in the fight as they were not worried about Park or Kato, only that Kato could not say that Simpson was enraged and Park's observations of Simpson after he came out of the house and whether or not Park could have missed seeing the Bronco. I would have focused more on all the discrepancies to show that Park was very mistaken and used that to discredit his observations but the defense won and they had more experience than I have at trying cases. I think they made a tactical decision to handle him softly as he didn't hurt their defense. Like I said, I tend to over try an issue.:) I think that any reasonable person can see that I have proven my point and so with this post, I rest these issues and now will address Matheson.

William,

I think Kato's flashlight was just a small one, like a pen light. I do remember he asked Simpson for a better flashlight. However, regardless of how dim his flashlight was, he still had to see, up close at least one of the gates that needed to be entered to get back behind the wall. He saw no evidence of it being moved---knowing that it would have had to have been moved.

When he sees Park and again asks about an earthquake and I think he asked Park if he had a stronger flashlight. He never asks Park or Simpson to go with him to check out the noises. Yet he claims that he was pretty upset about the noises---yet he does not persue this after Simpson's leaves, knowing he is the only one on the estate? He doesn't call the cops?

Also, when he called Rachel back that night, what did he say about the thumps? What happened that caused Kato to shrug them off?

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, I do not believe their was a grand conspiracy to convict Simpson either. However I do believe that was the impression the DA's and the LAPD wanted to give. They wanted the jury to believe that in order for the evidence to be planted, 100's of cops, lab people would have be involved. We know that is not true.

Without a doubt there was a grand CYA operation and it started very early on. Wasn't Lt. Spangler the one who gave the order to go over to Rockingham at Bundy? If this the case, then it makes no sense. If he was the one to give an order that was going to create a lot of controversy, why idn't he just go Rockingham?

Isn't it the detectives job to, I don't know, detect crime scenes? Is it the job of the detectives to be the main messegers of death? If Simpson was not a suspect then a "uniform" should have told Simpson. A black white should have been on standby to either transport Mr. Simpson to collect his children or have the children brought back to him if he was to distressed to drive himself.

It was very fortuitous that four detectives went to Rockingham to make notification and found probable cause to invade Simpson's curtilage and allegedly found the evidence they did. :)

[William Anthony]

William,

So in the science world, this could not have happend? There are no documented cases where Mathison's theory has been proven?

If that is the case, didn't the DA's and the LAPD suggest that someone's blood type morphed into Nicole's blood type? Didn't the DA's spend a lot of time with snide questions about Mr. Simpson's blood being able to turn into someone else's?

Again, allow me to check before responding. I know, if they said that, it is no wonder they lost credibility.

[William Anthony]

William,

I think Kato's flashlight was just a small one, like a pen light. I do remember he asked Simpson for a better flashlight. However, regardless of how dim his flashlight was, he still had to see, up close at least one of the gates that needed to be entered to get back behind the wall. He saw no evidence of it being moved---knowing that it would have had to have been moved.

When he sees Park and again asks about an earthquake and I think he asked Park if he had a stronger flashlight. He never asks Park or Simpson to go with him to check out the noises. Yet he claims that he was pretty upset about the noises---yet he does not persue this after Simpson's leaves, knowing he is the only one on the estate? He doesn't call the cops?

Also, when he called Rachel back that night, what did he say about the thumps? What happened that caused Kato to shrug them off?

I have been thinking about Kato's testimony and most people run away from danger not to it.

[William Anthony]

"MR. BLASIER: Item no. 42 is the sample taken from the area under Nicole Brown Simpson, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: And one of the arguments that the Prosecution is using to say that your test results on the nail scrapings are something other than they are--

THE COURT: Counsel, you need to rephrase that question.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. And for the record, this is People's 202, the chart.

MR. BLASIER: In your report that you prepared after your analysis, you determined that item 42 was inconclusive, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And what's the scientific definition or meaning of the term "inconclusive"?

MR. MATHESON: Inconclusive to me means that there's not a conclusive decision or conclusive statement that can be made about the results.

MR. BLASIER: Isn't it--doesn't it mean scientifically that you can make no statements about the source of the stain when it's inconclusive?

MR. MATHESON: Well, I would not--I don't report an inconclusive result. So yes, I would not make a statement about the source based on an inconclusive result.

MR. BLASIER: Now, but in this case, you're asking to make some conclusion about the source of the stain, of 42, even though it's an inconclusive, aren't you?

MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: That's argumentative, the way it's phrased.

MR. BLASIER: Now, on your final report, when you reported your findings on 84-A and B, does your report say B asterisk?

MR. MATHESON: No, it does not.

MR. BLASIER: It says B, doesn't it?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: It says B for both the left hand and the right hand, doesn't it?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do I understand that it's your position now from your testimony that you're asking that--or you're stating that the B is something other than a B?

MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the testimony too.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I'm not saying that the B that I observed is anything other than what I am seeing, and that's the two bands in the B area. I'm merely stating that there is possible other explanations in addition to it being a type B.

MR. BLASIER: Now, all of the other serological results that you've testified to, you testified that your results are accurate or you believe they're accurate, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: That also misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I believe all of my results are accurate.

MR. BLASIER: Is there any other tests that you did where you got a reading or a result that you reported that you're asking us to accept as being inaccurate except that one?

MR. MATHESON: I'm not stating that this one is inaccurate. I'm just stating that there is an alternate explanation for what I'm seeing on the gel.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. So it looks like a B, doesn't it?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.

MR. BLASIER: And what you're saying is that in your opinion, sometimes something else can look like a B that isn't a B, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And that's a BA, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: But in this case, you saw a B, didn't you?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did."

MR. BLASIER: And an EAP type B is a fairly common type, isn't it?

MR. MATHESON: I believe it is, yes.

MR. BLASIER: So can you give us--do you know what percentage of the population is a B?

MR. MATHESON: I would have to check another chart that I have.

MR. BLASIER: Why don't you do that.

(The witness complies.)

MR. MATHESON: According to our statistics that we use, it's approximately 50 percent of the general population.

MR. BLASIER: And would it be fair to infer from that that of the approximately 1500 times you've done this test, roughly half of them would come back EAP B?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And have you testified in Court before about EAP results that have come back as a B?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: And of course, in these approximately 750 cases, I assume you've written reports that have said, "I tested it. Looks like an EAP B to me," correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: In all of those reports, do you write down, "you know, it could be a BA"?

MR. MATHESON: Not in all those reports, no. I do include that disclaimer when the EAP is a source of elimination or exclusion in a sample.

MR. BLASIER: Have you testified in Court where an EAP B happens to be the type of the suspect and also the evidence you've tested, that it's an EAP type B without giving that disclaimer?

MR. MATHESON: Like I just mentioned, I will put that it's a B unless it's an exclusion of some type.

MR. BLASIER: Can I take that as a yes, you have so testified in cases that an EAP B result is a B when it incriminates a Defendant without saying that it could have been a BA?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

[weezer]

I have been thinking about Kato's testimony and most people run away from danger not to it.

I think Kato would have preferred to run the other direction but since orenthal wasn't interested and obviously unconcerned -- it was left to poor Kato to check it out. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Poor Kato started running to the danger before he let anyone know about the danger, other than his phone girlfriend, and when he came close to it he became afraid and backed out.

[weezer]

Poor Kato started running to the danger before he let anyone know about the danger, other than his phone girlfriend, and when he came close to it he became afraid and backed out.

such a range of weirdness here: orenthal had an alarm for his home, a separate alarm for his bedroom, paid for 24/7 security service -- yet on the night of the murders, he not only didn't investigate the noises on his premises, didn't call the security service and/or police to tell them to keep an eye on the place, he didn't tell Kato to call the security service and/or police -- he didn't even set the alarm to his home. :eek::shrug:

[William Anthony]

Kato did not call Simpson to report the thumps; he did not ask the limo driver, if he had seen one, he did not ask Simpson if he wanted the police called, Simpson called him back and saw that everything was alright and told him to set the alarm on his home, Kato armed himself with a small flashlight, did not check the area where he heard the thumps after running to check, backed out of the driveway and buzzed in a total stranger, who he thought may have been a limo driver.

[William Anthony]

Ron Shipp

Q: OKAY. NOW, A MOMENT AGO YOU TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS A TIME PERIOD IN WHICH YOU WOULD GO TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOUSE PERHAPS TWO TIMES A WEEK?

A: APPROXIMATELY.

Q: ON THOSE OCCASIONS WERE YOU ON DUTY?

A: I WOULD SAY HALF. SOME OF THE TIMES I WOULD COME BY IN THE PATROL CAR AND OTHER TIMES I WOULD GO BY THERE AND PLAY SOME TENNIS.

Q: YOU PLAYED TENNIS AT THE DEFENDANT'S HOME?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: ON HIS TENNIS COURT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: ON THOSE OCCASIONS WHEN YOU PLAYED TENNIS AT THE DEFENDANT'S HOME, WAS HE -- WAS HE AT THE HOME?

A: SOMETIME HE WOULD BE THERE AND SOMETIME HE WOULDN'T.

Q: DID YOU HAVE TO GET PERMISSION TO PLAY TENNIS ON HIS TENNIS COURT?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: YOU COULD JUST SHOW UP AND PLAY TENNIS?

A: YEAH. O.J. TRUSTED ME, SO I DIDN'T REALLY HAVE TO CALL.

The devil trusted the turkey and he flew.

Q: DID OTHER OFFICERS ALSO VISIT THE DEFENDANT AT HIS HOME?

A: TO MY KNOWLEDGE, UMM, NO, UNLESS THEY CAME OVER WITH ME.

Q: OKAY. WELL, DID YOU TAKE OFFICERS TO THE DEFENDANT'S HOME OTHER THAN CHUCK SMITH?

A: YES, I DID. IF I WAS ON PATROL, SOMETIME I WOULD TAKE PEOPLE OVER THERE. I USED TO GET A KICK OUT OF NOT TELLING THEM WHERE I WAS GOING AND RINGING THE DOORBELL AND HAVE O.J. COME OUT AND GREET THEM.

Q: HOW MANY OTHER OFFICERS WOULD YOU SAY YOU TOOK TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: WOW. I WOULD HAVE TO SAY APPROXIMATELY MAYBE -- MAYBE FORTY GUYS MAYBE.

Q: AND WERE THESE FORTY GUYS ALL MEMBERS OF THE LAPD'S WEST L.A. DIVISION OR STATION?

A: UMM, MOST OF THEM. MOST OF THEM WERE.

Q: WAS THERE EVER ANY ANIMOSITY OR HOSTILITY BETWEEN THOSE FORTY GUYS THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED AND THE DEFENDANT?

A: NO WAY. NO.

I would have objected to the last question, as it calls for speculation. Familiarity breeds contempt.

[William Anthony]

Side bars on Ron Shipp's testimony

"MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE ONE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. WAS THAT SO THERE WOULD BE AN LAPD INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION STARTING RIGHT TODAY? WAS HE BEING MEAN? WHAT WAS THE DEAL ON THAT?

THE COURT: I SUSPECT THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WILL BE WONDERING WHY LAPD OFFICERS ARE WANDERING AROUND AND PLAYING TENNIS.

MR. COCHRAN: YOU HAVEN'T HEARD ALL OF IT YET. YOU HAVEN'T HEARD THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. SO THEY START THE INVESTIGATION TODAY. SHALL WE CALL FOR IT AT LUNCHTIME LIKE WE DID BEFORE?

THE COURT: COUNSEL, UNNECESSARY TO OUR DISCUSSION HERE. INTERESTING POINT, THOUGH. "

"THE COURT: THE ONES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NOW, THE ONES THAT HE IS DESCRIBING, I DON'T HAVE A FOUNDATION FOR -- WITHOUT HEARSAY, UNLESS HE CAN SAY, YOU KNOW, HE SAW THE INJURY ON THE ARM AND SHE SHOWED HIM THE SAME INJURY, SO YOU KNOW, SO AT LEAST YOU HAVE SOME IDEA WHEN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE TIME FOUNDATION RIGHT NOW.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT'S RIGHT, BECAUSE BASICALLY HE CAN'T IDENTIFY THE PHOTOGRAPHS HE IS SHOWING HIM ALREADY, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE BACK OF THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, I KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT POLAROID PICTURES BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE NUMBER -- I REMEMBER IT FROM GERONIMO PRATT TWENTY SOME YEARS AGO -- THAT THE NUMBERS ARE SEQUENTIAL AND THEY ALL MEAN SOMETHING AND THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN ALL AT DIFFERENT TIMES, THEY ARE NOT FROM THE SAME BATCH, AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM. YOU HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH THOSE.

MR. DARDEN: ACTUALLY, COUNSEL HAS IN HIS POSSESSION ANALYSIS OF THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, SO I'M NOT GOING TO CORRECT HIM AT THIS TIME, BUT IN ANY EVENT, I WILL AGREE WITH YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

MR. DARDEN: I WILL MOVE ON.

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE ALL THIS -- STRIKE THIS.

MR. DOUGLAS: STRIKE THIS AND ADMONISH THE JURY.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M TALKING. CAN WE MOVE TO STRIKE THAT ASPECT, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT MISLEADING, BUT QUESTION THESE QUESTIONS. THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING AT THIS POINT. BUT IF HE WANTS TO LINK THEM UP LATER, THAT IS FINE, BUT RIGHT NOW THEY SHOULD BE STRICKEN. WHAT IS FAIR IS FAIR.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ESTABLISH IS THAT THERE WERE ACTUALLY OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS OF -- EXCUSE ME.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. DARDEN: THAT THERE ARE OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS.

THE COURT: I DISREGARD THOSE KIND OF REACTIONS.

MR. DARDEN: OKAY.

MR. COCHRAN: I JUST LOOKED AT THE WALL.

MR. DARDEN: THE PERSON THAT TOOK THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS WILL BE HERE TO TESTIFY. BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO ESTABLISH IS WHETHER OR NOT THESE ARE THE ONES THAT HE SAW AND NOW HE SAYS THEY AREN'T THE ONES HE SAW SO APPARENTLY THERE ARE OTHERS, BUT TO STRIKE HIS TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS DISREGARD THE TESTIMONY -- THE TESTIMONY AS TO WHAT WAS IN THEM.

MR. DARDEN: WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?

THE COURT: STRIKE HIS TESTIMONY SO FAR AS HIS DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THEY WERE. THE FACT THAT HE SAW OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS WILL STAND.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS FINE. I THINK THAT IS FAIR.

THE COURT: OKAY. "

[weezer]

Kato did not call Simpson to report the thumps; he did not ask the limo driver, if he had seen one, he did not ask Simpson if he wanted the police called, Simpson called him back and saw that everything was alright and told him to set the alarm on his home, Kato armed himself with a small flashlight, did not check the area where he heard the thumps after running to check, backed out of the driveway and buzzed in a total stranger, who he thought may have been a limo driver.

orenthal wasn't home for Kato to call -- however, Kato (the guest) told orenthal (the homeowner) about noises outside and movement of the picture inside his room; Kato (the guest) had to ask -- and did not receive -- a larger flashlight; Kato asked the limo driver if there had been an earthquake; orenthal fled the property without even calling or instructing Kato to call security/police; orenthal fled in such a hurry that he forgot to set the alarm to the house. at least Kato 'man-upped' and pretended to look.

[William Anthony]

There is no evidence that Simpson was not home. In fact Park saw someone that fit Simpson's description walk into the entrance way and never saw that same someone walk up the driveway. There is blood leading from the Bronco into the front door, which is consistent with Simpson's story that he cut his hand earlier that night reaching into the Bronco. Kato must have realized that his flashlight was sub par, when he saw the limo, but did not ask the driver for a larger flashlight, he did not ask the limo driver how long he had been there, did he see anyone, instead he asked if there had been an earthquake and I think it is a valid point to say Kato pretended to search.:)

[William Anthony]

Ron Shipp

Shipp did not tell LE about the so called dream incident but look who he did tell.

"Q: ARE YOU ACQUAINTED WITH SOMEONE NAMED SHEILA WELLER?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: AND WHO IS SHEILA WELLER?

A: SHEILA WELLER IS AN AUTHOR OF THE BOOK RAGING HEART.

Q: SHE IS THE AUTHOR OF A BOOK CALLED RAGING HEART?

A: RIGHT.

Q: HAVE YOU READ THAT BOOK?

A: MOST OF IT. NOT ALL OF IT.

Q: WERE YOU INTERVIEWED BY SHEILA WELLER?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AND WERE YOU INTERVIEWED BY HER FOR THAT BOOK?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AND WHEN WERE YOU FIRST INTERVIEWED BY SHEILA WELLER?

A: I THINK IT WAS IN JULY.

Q: JULY OF 1994?

A: CORRECT.

Q: HOW MANY TIMES WERE YOU INTERVIEWED BY HER?

A: MAYBE SIX, SEVEN TIMES. MAYBE A LITTLE MORE. I CAN'T REMEMBER.

Q: DID YOU TELL HER ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT, THE STATEMENT THAT HE HAD HAD DREAMS OF KILLING NICOLE BROWN?

A: NOT THE FIRST TIME WHEN I TALKED TO HER.

Q: DID SHE ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEFENDANT ON JUNE 13?

A: SHE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT THEN.

Q: NOW, YOU SAY THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS BOOK RAGING HEART OR RATHER MOST OF IT?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND THERE IS A SCENARIO IN THE BOOK THAT DESCRIBES SOMEONE WHO IN THE BOOK IS CALLED OR NAMED LEO; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: HAVE YOU READ THAT PASSAGE?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: ARE YOU THE LEO?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: ARE YOU LEO, THE LEO THAT'S DESCRIBED IN THAT BOOK?

A: YEP. THAT'S ME.

Q: IS THE BEDROOM CONVERSATION YOU JUST DESCRIBED TO US TODAY DESCRIBED IN THE BOOK?

A: YES, IT IS. "

Some will do and say anything for fame and money.

[William Anthony]

"Q: SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. YOU MET FOR 90 MINUTES WITH PHIL AND MARCIA AND BILL AND NEVER MENTIONED THIS CONVERSATION, CORRECT?

A: NEVER DID.

Q: YOU MET FOR 25 MINUTES WITH JOE BROWN AND NEVER DISCUSSED THIS CONVERSATION, CORRECT?

A: DID NOT.

Q: YOU MET WITH ME IN YOUR ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR 45 MINUTES AND NEVER TALKED ABOUT THIS CONVERSATION, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT."

Q: AND YOU ARE MR. SIMPSON'S FRIEND AS FAR AS YOU THINK, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, YOU SAID THAT THE REASON WHY YOU DIDN'T TELL PHIL ABOUT THE CONVERSATION WAS BECAUSE OF WHAT?

A: I SAID I DIDN'T TELL PHIL BECAUSE AT THE TIME, I REALLY DID NOT WANT TO BE REALLY INVOLVED IN ALL OF THIS AND I DIDN'T WANT TO BE GOING DOWN AS A PERSON TO NAIL O.J.

Q: LET ME ASK YOU THIS. WELL, YOU'RE NOT. SO DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT. BUT LET ME ASK YOU THIS.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION TO THAT EDITORIAL.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. COUNSEL, YOU KNOW BETTER.

MS. CLARK: MOTION TO STRIKE.

THE COURT: THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD COUNSEL'S REMARK.

"Q: AND DID YOU HOPE TO EXERCISE THIS PAIN FROM YOUR BODY BY TALKING TO SHEILA WELLER?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: WHEN YOU TALKED TO MISS WELLER ABOUT THIS SUPPOSED CONVERSATION, DID YOU WANT TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS THEN?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID MISS WELLER INFORM YOU THAT SHE WAS WRITING A BOOK?

A: YES, SHE DID.

Q: AND DID SHE SUGGEST TO YOU THAT YOUR CONVERSATION WOULD BE IN THE BOOK?

A: YES, SHE DID.

Q: AND DID YOU INTERPRET BY THE FACT THAT YOUR CONVERSATION WOULD BE IN THE BOOK THAT YOU WOULD NO LONGER BE ANONYMOUS?

A: WELL, I FELT THE ONLY ONES THAT WOULD KNOW ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION WOULD BE ME AND O.J. "

Q: YOU DIDN'T THINK THAT YOU COULD EXERCISE THIS PAIN FROM YOUR BODY BY TALKING TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: WELL, AT THE TIME, I -- TRUTHFULLY, NO, I DID NOT. I DID NOT WANT TO PUT THEM IN A CERTAIN SITUATION KNOWING THEIR PROFESSION, HOW PROFESSIONAL THESE GUYS ARE.

Q: YOU DIDN'T WANT TO PUT THE POLICE IN THE POSITION OF KNOWING INFORMATION THAT YOU THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT CONCERNING THE DEATH OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: WELL, I KNOW IF I WOULD HAVE TOLD PHIL, "OKAY, HEY, PHIL, CONFIDENCE, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO SHARE SOMETHING WITH YOU," THERE'S NO WAY IN THE WORLD PHIL WOULD HAVE SAID, "YEAH, RON, I'M GOING TO BURY THIS." SO I --

Q: BUT YOU DID KNOW THAT WHEN THE BOOK CAME OUT, PHIL WOULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE IT OUT, TRUE?

A: LIKE I SAID, I FIGURED SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE, YEAH, THEY WOULD KNOW IT WAS ME. "

Talk about being trapped.:)

[tv]

there is no evidence that simpson was not home. In fact park saw someone that fit simpson's description walk into the entrance way and never saw that same someone walk up the driveway. There is blood leading from the bronco into the front door, which is consistent with simpson's story that he cut his hand earlier that night reaching into the bronco. Kato must have realized that his flashlight was sub par, when he saw the limo, but did not ask the driver for a larger flashlight, he did not ask the limo driver how long he had been there, did he see anyone, instead he asked if there had been an earthquake and i think it is a valid point to say kato pretended to search.:)

Q: Okay. And then what?

A: And so i asked the limo driver, i said, "do you have a better flashlight?" and he checked and he looked around and he didn't. And then i said, "o.j., do we have a better flashlight?" and, umm, when i told him about the noise, he was going to take one way, i was going to go another way, but that is when i said, "we have this lousy flashlight, we need another one" and so he was going to go inside and check.

[William Anthony]

Q: Okay. And then what?

A: And so i asked the limo driver, i said, "do you have a better flashlight?" and he checked and he looked around and he didn't. And then i said, "o.j., do we have a better flashlight?" and, umm, when i told him about the noise, he was going to take one way, i was going to go another way, but that is when i said, "we have this lousy flashlight, we need another one" and so he was going to go inside and check.

Kato saw the limo on his way to do his first cursory search. I think Kato was familiar enough with the area to know that the area behind his quarters was dark and his flashlight was sub par but yet he did not ask the driver for a larger flashlight at that time.

[tv]

Kato saw the limo on his way to do his first cursory search. I think Kato was familiar enough with the area to know that the area behind his quarters was dark and his flashlight was sub par but yet he did not ask the driver for a larger flashlight at that time.

You feel this is significant because...?

[William Anthony]

You feel this is significant because...?

For the same reason that others feel it is significant that Simpson didn't call his security of forgot to set the alarm on his home. Not significant but weird.

[tv]

For the same reason that others feel it is significant that Simpson didn't call his security of forgot to set the alarm on his home. Not significant but weird.
Simpson was the security conscious homeowner. The two situations aren't comparable.

[William Anthony]

Simpson was the security conscious homeowner. The two situations aren't comparable.

So, the laws of safety and self preservation only apply to homeowners. :)

[William Anthony]

MS. BROCKBANK: (Witness complies.) And then I mounted those hairs on a microscope slide with some water. Basically what that involves is just taking a clean microscope slide, just a piece of glass about so big, (Indicating), about one-inch-by-three-inches, put a little dab of water on it to secure the hairs. Placed the hairs on. Again I had gloves on my hands when I did this. And placed the hairs on the slide using my hands, and then covered that with a coverslip, which basically is another piece of very thin glass, and that allows me to examine it on the microscope. I take that over to a microscope, which will magnify things on the order of 100 to 400 times, and I examined those hairs on that microscope.

MS. CLARK: Now, at the time that you did this, were there any other items of hair or trace pertaining to this case in the vicinity?

MS. BROCKBANK: No, there were not.

MS. CLARK: Were there any items of hair or trace at all around these--around the coin envelope and the bindle marked as no. 19?

MS. BROCKBANK: No, there were not.

MS. CLARK: Now, with respect to the mounting in water, is that something that is favored? Is that a good idea, to mount hair or fibers on water?

MS. BROCKBANK: Not really.

MS. CLARK: And why is that?

MS. BROCKBANK: For--for a microscopic examination of hairs water is a poorer mounting medium because of what's called a refractive index which is what allows you to see through something. Basically there is a number assigned to different objects. Water has a refractive index of around 1.25. It is a number--but what happens is hair, when you are looking at that under a microscope, you need to mount it in a refractive index that is close to the refractive index of hair, and water is very far from a hair, so when you examine it under the microscope you don't get to see all of the really important details of the hair that help you to get a real good identification of that hair.

[bobaugust]

I posted the testimony from the criminal trial where Kato was asked about the downstairs lights.

As to using common sense and Kato's flashlight, since the testimony support the reasonable inference that Park didn't see Kato as he ran down the Ashford pathway, then he could not have seen the flashlight in Kato's hand. I posted the testimony of how many times Park had met with Ms. Clark. Ms. Clark was well aware of Kato's and Park's testimonies, which is why I said that Park's memory was suggested. Ms. Clark used a clever lawyer trick in her questioning and was able to make it appear that Kato walked but she was a little tentative as she first said as you came down the Ashford pathway. Shipario missed the trick as it misstated the evidence and he should have objected but we have heard he was best known as settlement lawyer and not a trial lawyer. To his credit, I have had time to study the testimony but he should have taken time. Perhaps, he was doing other things related to the case and just wasn't as prepared as he should have been. When I read the depositions that I did, I noticed questions that should have been asked but were not. I memorize the parts of the depositions that are most important and write questions that I missed in the depositions in preparation for trial. I think the difference between running an walking, stopping, standing and not stopping or standing but continuing on were glaring. I have to agree with GreenIce as to the size of the defense's dog in the fight as they were not worried about Park or Kato, only that Kato could not say that Simpson was enraged and Park's observations of Simpson after he came out of the house and whether or not Park could have missed seeing the Bronco. I would have focused more on all the discrepancies to show that Park was very mistaken and used that to discredit his observations but the defense won and they had more experience than I have at trying cases. I think they made a tactical decision to handle him softly as he didn't hurt their defense. Like I said, I tend to over try an issue.:) I think that any reasonable person can see that I have proven my point and so with this post, I rest these issues and now will address Matheson.

You have claimed Park was mistaken every time he testified he said he saw a white male come from behind the house with a flashlight. The fact is that part of Park’s testimony was not only corroborated by what Kaelin testified he did after leaving his room to investigate the noises he had just heard but as Clark said in her book before she had even met Park she read the police interview with the limo driver and in that interview Park said, “he saw a white male walk from the back of the house carrying a flashlight.”

Park’s statement in that police interview not only destroys your comments that Clark somehow unscrupulously tricked Park into say that, it also supports the logical inference that Kaelin had the flashlight on when he came behind the house.

You have claimed that when Kaelin came back out from behind the garage he went back to the Ashford path and stood there for a minute to two minutes and that was the first time Park saw him. Because Kaelin never said he did anything even remotely like that you argue that since Kaelin wasn’t never asked if he went directly to the gate control box then there is no evidence that Kaelin didn’t do what you imagine he did. Wow, talk about circular reasoning.

No attorney in this case ever asked Kaelin that question because every time Kaelin was asked what he did after he came back out from behind the garage his answer was perfectly clear that he went directly to the gate control box.

June 17, 1994 Grand Jury Kaelin
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.

July 5, 1994 Preliminary Hearing Kaelin
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
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.

Kaelin Deposition February 14, 1996
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—

March 22, 1995 Criminal 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.

After writing this response to you William it finally dawned on me that because your claims regarding this issue are so ridiculously wrong I think you’re simply playing with me. You very well know that the minor inconsistencies regarding Kaelin stopping, pausing, running, walking, walking briskly, waving or gesturing do not change Park’s testimony as to where Park said Kaelin was when he first saw him. Based on some of your more intelligent postings you have made in this discussion group I seriously doubt that you believe what you have imagined actually happened. I think you’re just arguing to argue and I also think you’re Pi--ed off that you’re on the wrong side of this argument and you don’t know how to gracefully get yourself out of it without admitting you are wrong.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You have claimed Park was mistaken every time he testified he said he saw a white male come from behind the house with a flashlight. The fact is that part of Park’s testimony was not only corroborated by what Kaelin testified he did after leaving his room to investigate the noises he had just heard but as Clark said in her book before she had even met Park she read the police interview with the limo driver and in that interview Park said, “he saw a white male walk from the back of the house carrying a flashlight.”

Park’s statement in that police interview not only destroys your comments that Clark somehow unscrupulously tricked Park into say that, it also supports the logical inference that Kaelin had the flashlight on when he came behind the house.

You have claimed that when Kaelin came back out from behind the garage he went back to the Ashford path and stood there for a minute to two minutes and that was the first time Park saw him. Because Kaelin never said he did anything even remotely like that you argue that since Kaelin wasn’t never asked if he went directly to the gate control box then there is no evidence that Kaelin didn’t do what you imagine he did. Wow, talk about circular reasoning.

No attorney in this case ever asked Kaelin that question because every time Kaelin was asked what he did after he came back out from behind the garage his answer was perfectly clear that he went directly to the gate control box.

June 17, 1994 Grand Jury Kaelin
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.

July 5, 1994 Preliminary Hearing Kaelin
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
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.

Kaelin Deposition February 14, 1996
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—

March 22, 1995 Criminal 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.

After writing this response to you William it finally dawned on me that because your claims regarding this issue are so ridiculously wrong I think you’re simply playing with me. You very well know that the minor inconsistencies regarding Kaelin stopping, pausing, running, walking, walking briskly, waving or gesturing do not change Park’s testimony as to where Park said Kaelin was when he first saw him. Based on some of your more intelligent postings you have made in this discussion group I seriously doubt that you believe what you have imagined actually happened. I think you’re just arguing to argue and I also think you’re Pi--ed off that you’re on the wrong side of this argument and you don’t know how to gracefully get yourself out of it without admitting you are wrong.

bobaugust

Don't go away. Give me a chance to respond. I think you will like it.:)

[William Anthony]

You have claimed Park was mistaken every time he testified he said he saw a white male come from behind the house with a flashlight. The fact is that part of Park’s testimony was not only corroborated by what Kaelin testified he did after leaving his room to investigate the noises he had just heard but as Clark said in her book before she had even met Park she read the police interview with the limo driver and in that interview Park said, “he saw a white male walk from the back of the house carrying a flashlight.”

Park’s statement in that police interview not only destroys your comments that Clark somehow unscrupulously tricked Park into say that, it also supports the logical inference that Kaelin had the flashlight on when he came behind the house.

You have claimed that when Kaelin came back out from behind the garage he went back to the Ashford path and stood there for a minute to two minutes and that was the first time Park saw him. Because Kaelin never said he did anything even remotely like that you argue that since Kaelin wasn’t never asked if he went directly to the gate control box then there is no evidence that Kaelin didn’t do what you imagine he did. Wow, talk about circular reasoning.

No attorney in this case ever asked Kaelin that question because every time Kaelin was asked what he did after he came back out from behind the garage his answer was perfectly clear that he went directly to the gate control box.

June 17, 1994 Grand Jury Kaelin
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.

July 5, 1994 Preliminary Hearing Kaelin
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
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.

Kaelin Deposition February 14, 1996
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—

March 22, 1995 Criminal 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.

After writing this response to you William it finally dawned on me that because your claims regarding this issue are so ridiculously wrong I think you’re simply playing with me. You very well know that the minor inconsistencies regarding Kaelin stopping, pausing, running, walking, walking briskly, waving or gesturing do not change Park’s testimony as to where Park said Kaelin was when he first saw him. Based on some of your more intelligent postings you have made in this discussion group I seriously doubt that you believe what you have imagined actually happened. I think you’re just arguing to argue and I also think you’re Pi--ed off that you’re on the wrong side of this argument and you don’t know how to gracefully get yourself out of it without admitting you are wrong.

bobaugust

I don't claim that Park was mistaken. I say that the evidence allows me to draw an inference that he was. You are the one that claimed Park was mistaken and wrong, because the testimony contradicts what you think is right. Have you asked yourself why Ms. Clark would put such an insignificant issue in her work of fiction and claim that it was in the police statement? Could she have included such a statement, because she realized the logical and reasonable inference was that Park couldn't have seen Kato when he claimed he had? Was this her feeble attempt to regain her credibility with those, other than the one's that did not believe there was reasonable doubt on the issue. She may have deceived those, who did not want to consider all the evidence on the issue to see if it fit. :) Now, you say that you infer there is a logical inference that the flashlight was on. However, I have posted the testimony as to the lighting in that area and another logical inference is that the small pen light would have added nothing to the lighting conditions in that area. This is not one instance where, if you don't use it you will lose it. :)

[William Anthony]

You have claimed Park was mistaken every time he testified he said he saw a white male come from behind the house with a flashlight. The fact is that part of Park’s testimony was not only corroborated by what Kaelin testified he did after leaving his room to investigate the noises he had just heard but as Clark said in her book before she had even met Park she read the police interview with the limo driver and in that interview Park said, “he saw a white male walk from the back of the house carrying a flashlight.”

Park’s statement in that police interview not only destroys your comments that Clark somehow unscrupulously tricked Park into say that, it also supports the logical inference that Kaelin had the flashlight on when he came behind the house.

You have claimed that when Kaelin came back out from behind the garage he went back to the Ashford path and stood there for a minute to two minutes and that was the first time Park saw him. Because Kaelin never said he did anything even remotely like that you argue that since Kaelin wasn’t never asked if he went directly to the gate control box then there is no evidence that Kaelin didn’t do what you imagine he did. Wow, talk about circular reasoning.

No attorney in this case ever asked Kaelin that question because every time Kaelin was asked what he did after he came back out from behind the garage his answer was perfectly clear that he went directly to the gate control box.

June 17, 1994 Grand Jury Kaelin
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.

July 5, 1994 Preliminary Hearing Kaelin
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
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.

Kaelin Deposition February 14, 1996
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—

March 22, 1995 Criminal 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.

After writing this response to you William it finally dawned on me that because your claims regarding this issue are so ridiculously wrong I think you’re simply playing with me. You very well know that the minor inconsistencies regarding Kaelin stopping, pausing, running, walking, walking briskly, waving or gesturing do not change Park’s testimony as to where Park said Kaelin was when he first saw him. Based on some of your more intelligent postings you have made in this discussion group I seriously doubt that you believe what you have imagined actually happened. I think you’re just arguing to argue and I also think you’re Pi--ed off that you’re on the wrong side of this argument and you don’t know how to gracefully get yourself out of it without admitting you are wrong.

bobaugust

Talk about circular reasoning. You have to discredit Park's observations of Kato in order to make your scenario fit. Let me see, if I have your reasoning correct? Because you believe that Park did not see Kato standing and still standing for another minute in the same position that Kato had been standing, you must say that Park was mistaken because you do not believe he saw Kato standing and still standing. Because you believe Kato did not stop, you must believe that Park was mistaken when he said that Kato stopped, because you believe that Kato did not stop. Because you believe that Kato ran from behind the house and down the Ashford pathway and driveway and it aids your beliefs, you must believe that Park was mistaken because he said he saw Kato walking down that pathway. Because you believe Park's aforementioned testimony was mistaken, you do not believe Park's testimony was suggested, even though Ms. Clark changed Kato's testimony to Kato walking down that Pathway with her question, because you believe Park was mistaken. Because you believe Park was correct about seeing Kato walk down the Ashford pathway coming from behind the house, you believe Park was wrong about seeing Kato walking, because you believe he was correct about seeing Kato coming from behind the house. It was your claim, not inference, that Kato went directly to the gate box. I asked you to support it but you could not. If your inference is true, then you must discredit Park's testimony that he saw Kato standing, which means that he did not see the figure he described as Simpson when he saw Kato standing. A lot of things are overlooked in the trial. If you don't believe me ask the prosecution.:)

I am not playing with you. I am having fun with you, seeing you try to squirm out of your statements by claiming when Park was right and when he was mistaken. The ridiculous and most comical thing about your assertions is Park is right or wrong depending on your beliefs.:) I never get p***ed off watching you squirm.:)

[William Anthony]

"MS. CLARK: Okay. Did you notice on this second observation in the company of Mr. Deedrick that there were actually eight hairs and not seven in this package?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Did you notice a difference in the number of hairs from what you had earlier noted when you examined the contents of the bindles at the FBI in August?

MS. BROCKBANK: At that time, no, I didn't know there was a difference in count of hairs.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Did that come to your attention at some point?

MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And when was that?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation. Based on hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BROCKBANK: In a pretrial meeting with you.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And when you--did you make any effort to verify or to determine who was right; you or Mr. Deedrick?

MS. BROCKBANK: No.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Let me ask you this, Miss Brockbank. Did you add any hairs to the bindle--to the bindles after you finished collecting on the 23rd?

MS. BROCKBANK: No.

MS. CLARK: Did you add any fibers to the bindles after you finished collecting on June the 23rd?

MS. BROCKBANK: No.

MS. CLARK: Again, when you made your examination and you noted seven hairs, how did you make that observation?

MS. BROCKBANK: Based on my water mounts of those hairs.

MS. CLARK: Okay. And you indicated earlier to us the problem with the water mount. Could that also have any impact on your ability to discern how many hairs or fibers are present?

MS. BROCKBANK: It could.

MS. CLARK: And you also indicated earlier--

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: You also indicated earlier that it could have an impact on your ability to accurately determine the color of items that you're looking at?

MS. BROCKBANK: Yes."

[William Anthony]

Some more testimony on the junk crafts.

"MR. BLASIER: This is an example of some of the characteristics that you use to describe what you see when you look at a hair, correct?

MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And taking, for example, the curl category, it is only broken down into three different subgroups, right?

MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, as far as this form goes, the things that are listed in that area, using curl, you see tight, loose or none. They are general descriptions that you can use, but it is not limited just to that.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. So you have three categories on your form, but there could be others that you might use?

MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is that true with the other categories on there?

MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that these categories are very subjective in a sense that it is what you see, and you use a word to describe what you see that you feel comfortable with, correct?

MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: This particular form is not some sort of an industry standard form, is it?

MS. BROCKBANK: Not at all.

MR. BLASIER: There is no standardization at all, is there, in the area of hair analysis in terms of specific descriptions that you give to specific characteristics?

MS. CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I have seen guidelines for, you know, terminology to be used, but there is no hard and fast rule that you must use a certain terminology.

MR. BLASIER: So each examiner can choose pretty much what they feel comfortable with in terms of describing characteristics?

MS. BROCKBANK: Pretty much.

MR. BLASIER: And a lot of these characteristics are somewhat general in nature, are they not?

MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, yes, some of them are general.

MR. BLASIER: In other words, something that you might describe as heavy curl, someone else might say, ah, that is just a medium curl or a light curl?

MS. BROCKBANK: Yes."

[fgump2]

I have read some things that reflect badly on Johnnie Cochran, about his behavior toward the Goldman family.
Some years ago I read that Kim Goldman said that when she was at the trial and the verdict of innocence was read, Johnnie Cochran looked at her and smiled. I wondered if that happened, and if so, did anyone else notice it.
I was looking at a book by Domminick Dunne the other day which covered the Simpson criminal trial of 1995, and it described some of Johnnie Cochran’s behavior during his summation speech near the end of the trial. This description of Johnnie Cochran’s behavior was basically consistent with Kim Goldman’s description, and it reflects badly on Cochran’s moral character. I think the book was Justice: Crimes, Trials, Punishments.
Dunne said that in Cochran’s summations speech at the end of the trial he said ‘Some people can’t accept the truth’. As he said that he rested his eyes on the Goldmans, and then paused and smiled as he continued to look at them.
This raises some questions. As a lawyer for the army asked Senator Joe McCarthy many years ago: ‘Sir, have you no sense of decency?’ I don’t mean to say Cochran or anybody else should endorse everything or anything the Goldmans said, but that was shabby behavior.
It is also reasonable to ask why Cochran chose to rest his eyes on the Goldmans, why not the prosecutors or some of the police? Lange and Vannetter were there, why not them? Or why not some of the members of the press who had been writing that Simpson was guilty?
It is perfectly consistent with this behavior that as the verdict of innocence was read, Johnnie Cochran would look Kim Goldman in the eye and smile. I think it is reasonable to assume that Johnnie Cochran saw the Goldmans as the enemy as much as he saw the LAPD and the DAs as the enemy. I wonder if Johnnie Cochran explained anything about his attitudes toward the Goldmans in his misnamed book, Journey to Justice.
It is possible that Cochran was trying to provoke the Goldmans into some angry outbursts.
Of course Cochran’s attitudes and behavior is quite similar to Orenthal Simpson’s behavior. I think that OJS has criticized Fred Goldman far more often and more harshly than he criticized either the LAPD or the prosecutors. To me this shows that both Cochran and Simpson recognized that Orenthal was guilty, and it also shows that they don’t have much sense of right and wrong; and they didn’t have much class.
This is one of those issues where it would be interesting to get an outside neutral opinion from young people who have no knowledge of the trial would say about this. What can we conclude about Cochran and Simpson based on the fact that they seemed so combative toward the Goldmans? Cochran seemed combative toward the prosecutors and LAPD, but Simpson almost never did.
Johnnie Cochran repeatedly showed that he thought that Orenthal Simpson was guilty, so his lack of compassion for the Goldmans is hard to understand. Before he started working for Orenthal Simpson, he stated on TV that “it is obvious he is guilty”. The fans of Johnnie Cochran like to quote him as complaining about the LAPD “rush to judgment”; but they seldom talk about the fact that Cochran was a part of the rush to judgment. At least one NG on the board has said that he thought Cochran learned some new facts that changed his mind, but Cochran never said anything to support that assumption.
The only book written with inside information about the Simpson defense trial of 95 said that Johnnie Cochran repeatedly expressed feelings that Orenthal was guilty. I don’t think Johnnie Cochran or any of the other defense team members has ever refuted this.
When Johnnie Cochran was acting as a lawyer for Latrell Sprewell, a pro basketball player, Cochran wrote up a statement for sprewell to read to the press. Part of this statement was “I am not another OJ Simpson, I did not kill two people”. To me this is evidence that Cochran knew that Orenthal Simpson was a murderer and a psychopath as well.
I read on the internet that Sprewell is broke and living on the streets. If that is true I think we can be sure that none of the dream team members would waste their precious time or money helping him now.
Johnnie Cochran is probably one of the most admired and most despised lawyers in recent American history. What kind of a person he was matters. His moral character matters as does his legal skills. Opinions differ about his legal skills. Vince Bugliosi said he was at best a mediocre lawyer; I think he was mean spirited human being.

[William Anthony]

I have read some things that reflect badly on Johnnie Cochran, about his behavior toward the Goldman family.
Some years ago I read that Kim Goldman said that when she was at the trial and the verdict of innocence was read, Johnnie Cochran looked at her and smiled. I wondered if that happened, and if so, did anyone else notice it.
I was looking at a book by Domminick Dunne the other day which covered the Simpson criminal trial of 1995, and it described some of Johnnie Cochran’s behavior during his summation speech near the end of the trial. This description of Johnnie Cochran’s behavior was basically consistent with Kim Goldman’s description, and it reflects badly on Cochran’s moral character. I think the book was Justice: Crimes, Trials, Punishments.
Dunne said that in Cochran’s summations speech at the end of the trial he said ‘Some people can’t accept the truth’. As he said that he rested his eyes on the Goldmans, and then paused and smiled as he continued to look at them.
This raises some questions. As a lawyer for the army asked Senator Joe McCarthy many years ago: ‘Sir, have you no sense of decency?’ I don’t mean to say Cochran or anybody else should endorse everything or anything the Goldmans said, but that was shabby behavior.
It is also reasonable to ask why Cochran chose to rest his eyes on the Goldmans, why not the prosecutors or some of the police? Lange and Vannetter were there, why not them? Or why not some of the members of the press who had been writing that Simpson was guilty?
It is perfectly consistent with this behavior that as the verdict of innocence was read, Johnnie Cochran would look Kim Goldman in the eye and smile. I think it is reasonable to assume that Johnnie Cochran saw the Goldmans as the enemy as much as he saw the LAPD and the DAs as the enemy. I wonder if Johnnie Cochran explained anything about his attitudes toward the Goldmans in his misnamed book, Journey to Justice.
It is possible that Cochran was trying to provoke the Goldmans into some angry outbursts.
Of course Cochran’s attitudes and behavior is quite similar to Orenthal Simpson’s behavior. I think that OJS has criticized Fred Goldman far more often and more harshly than he criticized either the LAPD or the prosecutors. To me this shows that both Cochran and Simpson recognized that Orenthal was guilty, and it also shows that they don’t have much sense of right and wrong; and they didn’t have much class.
This is one of those issues where it would be interesting to get an outside neutral opinion from young people who have no knowledge of the trial would say about this. What can we conclude about Cochran and Simpson based on the fact that they seemed so combative toward the Goldmans? Cochran seemed combative toward the prosecutors and LAPD, but Simpson almost never did.
Johnnie Cochran repeatedly showed that he thought that Orenthal Simpson was guilty, so his lack of compassion for the Goldmans is hard to understand. Before he started working for Orenthal Simpson, he stated on TV that “it is obvious he is guilty”. The fans of Johnnie Cochran like to quote him as complaining about the LAPD “rush to judgment”; but they seldom talk about the fact that Cochran was a part of the rush to judgment. At least one NG on the board has said that he thought Cochran learned some new facts that changed his mind, but Cochran never said anything to support that assumption.
The only book written with inside information about the Simpson defense trial of 95 said that Johnnie Cochran repeatedly expressed feelings that Orenthal was guilty. I don’t think Johnnie Cochran or any of the other defense team members has ever refuted this.
When Johnnie Cochran was acting as a lawyer for Latrell Sprewell, a pro basketball player, Cochran wrote up a statement for sprewell to read to the press. Part of this statement was “I am not another OJ Simpson, I did not kill two people”. To me this is evidence that Cochran knew that Orenthal Simpson was a murderer and a psychopath as well.
I read on the internet that Sprewell is broke and living on the streets. If that is true I think we can be sure that none of the dream team members would waste their precious time or money helping him now.
Johnnie Cochran is probably one of the most admired and most despised lawyers in recent American history. What kind of a person he was matters. His moral character matters as does his legal skills. Opinions differ about his legal skills. Vince Bugliosi said he was at best a mediocre lawyer; I think he was mean spirited human being.

Whatever negative things that may be said about the magnificent one cannot diminish the fact the he led the dream team to a magnificent win. Despite his feelings, if he felt that Simpson was guilty, he had the moral character to uphold his oath, to give his client the best defense possible, unlike some others who took and oath to serve and protect and committed perjury, due to a severe lack of moral character.

[fgump2]

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.
Most likely came from shoes? According to who? The FBI foot print and shoe expert said that wasn't true? What was the m ost useful piece of evidence that was lost?

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?
There is a lot I don't know about this case. I read a true crime book 'Relentless Pursuit' by a guy named Flynn. He wrote at the end of the book, that if the trial ends in a hung jury and is retried, some of the evidence is always lost. This supports the notion that carelessness is a part of life we have to accept. I don't know all there is to know about lost evidence in this case, and if I did, I still wouldn't have a frame of reference to judge it. I doubt you do either, but you may know more about lost evidence on this cases than I do.

What about the other 5 blood drops that were found by the jeep? Who's blood drops are those?

I don't know about the 5 blood drops found by the jeep. I may have gone to far iin writing that you said too much about other people's motives in this case, but that is partly because I realize that is because I don't care to study all of the posting you have made, and also study the transcrips to do serious thinking about it.

[William Anthony]

I realize that is because I don't care to study all of the posting you have made, and also study the transcrips to do serious thinking about it.

An interesting part of a quote.

[fgump2]

Whatever negative things that may be said about the magnificent one cannot diminish the fact the he led the dream team to a magnificent win. Despite his feelings, if he felt that Simpson was guilty, he had the moral character to uphold his oath, to give his client the best defense possible, unlike some others who took and oath to serve and protect and committed perjury, due to a severe lack of moral character.

I realize what I wrote doesn't directly provide evidence of Mr. Simpson's guilt. The fact that he seemed to think of the Goldmans as part of the enemy is an indirect indication that Mr. Cochran wasn't convinced of the existence of a frameup by the LAPD. In any case, if a large number of people regard Johnnie Cochran as a hero, then his moral character matters. This is espescially true for people who care about race relations.

After the 1995 acquittal Mr. Simpson expressed more anger at Fred Goldman than he did against the LAPD. That is a strong indication of guilt.

[William Anthony]

I realize what I wrote doesn't directly provide evidence of Mr. Simpson's guilt. The fact that he seemed to think of the Goldmans as part of the enemy is an indirect indication that Mr. Cochran wasn't convinced of the existence of a frameup by the LAPD. In any case, if a large number of people regard Johnnie Cochran as a hero, then his moral character matters. This is espescially true for people who care about race relations.

After the 1995 acquittal Mr. Simpson expressed more anger at Fred Goldman than he did against the LAPD. That is a strong indication of guilt.

I watched the trial and I did not see that from the magnificent one. However, as far as Simpson is concerned, with the Goldmans suing him and, if he is innocent, then I can understand his anger. It is one thing to show anger at a person that is a citizen as you are and another to show anger at a group that have the power to plant evidence, frame you and take away your liberty. The wise know when to hold their tongue, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY TO ALL THE MOTHERS!

:rose:

[GreenIce]

I have read some things that reflect badly on Johnnie Cochran, about his behavior toward the Goldman family.
Some years ago I read that Kim Goldman said that when she was at the trial and the verdict of innocence was read, Johnnie Cochran looked at her and smiled. I wondered if that happened, and if so, did anyone else notice it.
I was looking at a book by Domminick Dunne the other day which covered the Simpson criminal trial of 1995, and it described some of Johnnie Cochran’s behavior during his summation speech near the end of the trial. This description of Johnnie Cochran’s behavior was basically consistent with Kim Goldman’s description, and it reflects badly on Cochran’s moral character. I think the book was Justice: Crimes, Trials, Punishments.
Dunne said that in Cochran’s summations speech at the end of the trial he said ‘Some people can’t accept the truth’. As he said that he rested his eyes on the Goldmans, and then paused and smiled as he continued to look at them.
This raises some questions. As a lawyer for the army asked Senator Joe McCarthy many years ago: ‘Sir, have you no sense of decency?’ I don’t mean to say Cochran or anybody else should endorse everything or anything the Goldmans said, but that was shabby behavior.
It is also reasonable to ask why Cochran chose to rest his eyes on the Goldmans, why not the prosecutors or some of the police? Lange and Vannetter were there, why not them? Or why not some of the members of the press who had been writing that Simpson was guilty?
It is perfectly consistent with this behavior that as the verdict of innocence was read, Johnnie Cochran would look Kim Goldman in the eye and smile. I think it is reasonable to assume that Johnnie Cochran saw the Goldmans as the enemy as much as he saw the LAPD and the DAs as the enemy. I wonder if Johnnie Cochran explained anything about his attitudes toward the Goldmans in his misnamed book, Journey to Justice.
It is possible that Cochran was trying to provoke the Goldmans into some angry outbursts.
Of course Cochran’s attitudes and behavior is quite similar to Orenthal Simpson’s behavior. I think that OJS has criticized Fred Goldman far more often and more harshly than he criticized either the LAPD or the prosecutors. To me this shows that both Cochran and Simpson recognized that Orenthal was guilty, and it also shows that they don’t have much sense of right and wrong; and they didn’t have much class.
This is one of those issues where it would be interesting to get an outside neutral opinion from young people who have no knowledge of the trial would say about this. What can we conclude about Cochran and Simpson based on the fact that they seemed so combative toward the Goldmans? Cochran seemed combative toward the prosecutors and LAPD, but Simpson almost never did.
Johnnie Cochran repeatedly showed that he thought that Orenthal Simpson was guilty, so his lack of compassion for the Goldmans is hard to understand. Before he started working for Orenthal Simpson, he stated on TV that “it is obvious he is guilty”. The fans of Johnnie Cochran like to quote him as complaining about the LAPD “rush to judgment”; but they seldom talk about the fact that Cochran was a part of the rush to judgment. At least one NG on the board has said that he thought Cochran learned some new facts that changed his mind, but Cochran never said anything to support that assumption.
The only book written with inside information about the Simpson defense trial of 95 said that Johnnie Cochran repeatedly expressed feelings that Orenthal was guilty. I don’t think Johnnie Cochran or any of the other defense team members has ever refuted this.
When Johnnie Cochran was acting as a lawyer for Latrell Sprewell, a pro basketball player, Cochran wrote up a statement for sprewell to read to the press. Part of this statement was “I am not another OJ Simpson, I did not kill two people”. To me this is evidence that Cochran knew that Orenthal Simpson was a murderer and a psychopath as well.
I read on the internet that Sprewell is broke and living on the streets. If that is true I think we can be sure that none of the dream team members would waste their precious time or money helping him now.
Johnnie Cochran is probably one of the most admired and most despised lawyers in recent American history. What kind of a person he was matters. His moral character matters as does his legal skills. Opinions differ about his legal skills. Vince Bugliosi said he was at best a mediocre lawyer; I think he was mean spirited human being.

fgump2,

JC did explain why he looked at the Goldmans and said what he did in his closing arguments. They were lied to and they have not been able to accept the facts. Even single lie, every single missed report, every single half butted report, every single chink in the DA's case was exposed and that was the truth. The Goldmans' during the trial constantly mouthed words of contempts at the defense team and Simpson. IMO, I think it was right of Cochran to look them in they eye to tell them how he feels---they were lied to.

But lets talk about Marica's moral compass, shall we? What about her set up with Fred Goldman and her signal to him to start his rampage against JC after the tapes were heard? That man was so enraged he was spitting mad. Which, I understand his rage---however, the defense didn't call him to the stand. He was not a defense witness.

He was Marcia Clark's hero and star witness. He was the witness who Clark had the nerve to ask his feelings about all the press he was getting, etc. She let Fred Goldman rant and rave about JC over an issue her star witness brought into the case?!

One more thing, when Clark was denouncing MF, the lab people and the LAPD, she should have been looking right at both families. The fact she kept her eyes glued jury while making her statements just doesn't cut it IMO. She should have apologized to the families for the case she put on. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I don't know about the 5 blood drops found by the jeep. I may have gone to far iin writing that you said too much about other people's motives in this case, but that is partly because I realize that is because I don't care to study all of the posting you have made, and also study the transcrips to do serious thinking about it.

fgump2,

I understand. However, too many G's have also have the same choices you have made and therefore hurting their own positions on much of the evidence.

The bottom line is that NG's have the facts, science and the testimony on our side while G's have only their gut feelings and such a huge amount of trust in the DA's and the LAPD that can't be measured.

In regards to your posts about people motives, how I have explained why I doubt them and what I have used to back them up. You have done nothing to explain your position on these issues, only that they were tired, didn't like to write notes, didn't like to follow procedures, didn't like to do any of the job requirements and all agencies are perfectly happy with their employees who are careless.

Perhaps you should move to the civil trial thread where you are able to defend your position. In the criminal case, Gumby and Pokey were not allowed to be called as witnesses, in the civil trial, they were, along with Elvis and the Wizard of Oz. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I watched the trial and I did not see that from the magnificent one. However, as far as Simpson is concerned, with the Goldmans suing him and, if he is innocent, then I can understand his anger. It is one thing to show anger at a person that is a citizen as you are and another to show anger at a group that have the power to plant evidence, frame you and take away your liberty. The wise know when to hold their tongue, IMHO.

William,

What always bothered me is the lack of anger the Browns and the Goldmans had at the DA's and the LAPD. If anyone deserved the Browns outrage it was the LAPD. Their anger at the DA's is more personal and I understand that but I just don't understand how neither family expressed any outrage at the LAPD.

[William Anthony]

William,

What always bothered me is the lack of anger the Browns and the Goldmans had at the DA's and the LAPD. If anyone deserved the Browns outrage it was the LAPD. Their anger at the DA's is more personal and I understand that but I just don't understand how neither family expressed any outrage at the LAPD.

GreenIce,

You have publicly shared some of your history. In fairness to the Browns and Goldmans, they may not have had the same experiences with some members of LE that some interracial couples have experienced. It may be that they did not believe that LE was capable or had a reason to act in the manner that was alleged. I remember, driving home from work with my father and I had let my Afro grow out and was dating a White woman. My father told me you have let your hair grow and a dating a White woman, please don't buy a Cadillac. The sad part is that he was serious and correct, as I would have been a target for LE.

[GreenIce]

I realize what I wrote doesn't directly provide evidence of Mr. Simpson's guilt. The fact that he seemed to think of the Goldmans as part of the enemy is an indirect indication that Mr. Cochran wasn't convinced of the existence of a frameup by the LAPD. In any case, if a large number of people regard Johnnie Cochran as a hero, then his moral character matters. This is espescially true for people who care about race relations.

After the 1995 acquittal Mr. Simpson expressed more anger at Fred Goldman than he did against the LAPD. That is a strong indication of guilt.

Fgump2,

Mr. Simpson's anger at Goldman started during the depositions in the civil trial. He knows better then anyone how the Goldmans and Browns were lied to.

Mr. Cochran always believed that evidence was planted in this case. Because of this belief, all the evidence is questionable. As has been posted before, even if all the evidence was planted, does that mean Simpson did not kill Ron and Nicole?

Also, as been posted before, if there is evidence the clearly points to at least one other person being at Bundy that night, does this mean Simpson is innocent?

The bottom line, as Mr. Cochran has said many times, "I was not there, you were not there".

[William Anthony]

This is from the magnificent one's closing.

You've heard lie after lie after lie that has been exposed and when a witness lies in a material part of his testimony, you can wipe out all of his testimony as a judge of the facts. That is your decision again. Nobody can tell you about that. Lest you feel that a greater probability of truth lies in something else, they said wipe it out. This applies not only to Fuhrman, it applies to Vannatter and then you see what trouble their case is in, because they lied to get in there to do these things when Vannatter carries that blood. They can't explain to you why he did that, because they were setting this man up, and that glove, anybody among you think that glove was just sitting there, just placed there, moist and sticky after six and a half hours? The testimony is it will be dried in three or four hours, according to MacDonell. We are not naive. You understand there is no blood on anything else. There is no blood trail. There is no hair and fiber. And you get the ridiculous explanation that Mr. Simpson was running into air conditioners on his own province.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

You have publicly shared some of your history. In fairness to the Browns and Goldmans, they may not have had the same experiences with some members of LE that some interracial couples have experienced. It may be that they did not believe that LE was capable or had a reason to act in the manner that was alleged. I remember, driving home from work with my father and I had let my Afro grow out and was dating a White woman. My father told me you have let your hair grow and a dating a White woman, please don't buy a Cadillac. The sad part is that he was serious and correct, as I would have been a target for LE.

William,

I should have explained it better, I don't why the Browns' weren't mad at the LAPD for those allegled 911 phone calls Nicole made. According to Edwards and Resnick, were up to 38 that were not recorded or reported. Could you let that go?

In regards to the Goldmans, it is that MC used Fred to cover her putting on a witness that every DA knew he was lying as well as members of the LAPD.

As you know, I have always posted that if Ron was in the defendant's chair, his father would be just as vocal pointing out the very issues we NG's have been pointing out for years. There is no way Mr. Goldman would have kept out MF's anti-semite remarks and cartoons. There is no way he would have dropped the nazi symbols painted on another cop's locker because he married a Jew.

So much focus has been put on MF's hatered of blacks and browns, no paid attention how his hatered extended to differences that can't be seen. You can't use a person's skin color to determine if they are a Jew. IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

I should have explained it better, I don't why the Browns' weren't mad at the LAPD for those allegled 911 phone calls Nicole made. According to Edwards and Resnick, were up to 38 that were not recorded or reported. Could you let that go?

In regards to the Goldmans, it is that MC used Fred to cover her putting on a witness that every DA knew he was lying as well as members of the LAPD.

As you know, I have always posted that if Ron was in the defendant's chair, his father would be just as vocal pointing out the very issues we NG's have been pointing out for years. There is no way Mr. Goldman would have kept out MF's anti-semite remarks and cartoons. There is no way he would have dropped the nazi symbols painted on another cop's locker because he married a Jew.

So much focus has been put on MF's hatered of blacks and browns, no paid attention how his hatered extended to differences that can't be seen. You can't use a person's skin color to determine if they are a Jew. IMO.

I understand what you are saying and I agree, although the last name of a defendant is sometimes a clue to their ethnicity. I am sure they would have used MF's negative remarks about Jews if Mr. RG was on trial. My point is that I don't think that Mr. Goldman believed that LE could or would act in the manner that was alleged, because of his life experiences with LE. Perhaps, he was aware of those facts but, because it was his son that was a victim, he chose not to believe them. I have experienced some of the things MF talked about on those tapes because of my dating choice, which is what I was trying to say.

[William Anthony]

When I'm concluded, for Miss Clark's convenience, should she decide to deal with these very troublesome questions, I'm going to leave her a written list of these questions here when I conclude. Let me go over these fifteen questions with you just briefly.

1. Why, there on the monitor, did the blood show up on the sock almost two months after a careful search for evidence? And why, as demonstrated by Dr. Lee and Professor MacDonell was the blood applied when there was no foot in it? Do you think that is a fair question in this case? Let's see if she can answer that question.

Question no. 2. Why was Mark Fuhrman, a detective who had been pushed off the case, a person who went by himself to the Bronco over the fence to interrogate Kato to discover the glove and the thump, thump, thump area?

No. 3. Why was the glove still moist when Fuhrman found it if Mr. Simpson had dropped it seven hours earlier? As Agent Bodziak told you, as herb MacDonell has told you, blood dries very rapidly.

4. If Mark Fuhrman, who speaks so openly about his intense genocidal racism to a relative stranger such as Kathleen Bell, how many of his co-workers, the other detectives in this case, were also aware that he lied when he denied using the "N" word yet failed to come forward? Part of Barry Scheck's fourth C of continuing cover-up.

5. Why did the Prosecution not call a single police officer to rebut police photographer Rokahr's testimony that Detective Fuhrman was pointing at the glove, before, before Fuhrman went to Rockingham? That is around 4:30 in the morning.

6. If the glove had been dropped on the walkway at Rockingham ten minutes after the murder, why is there no blood or fiber on that south walkway or on the leaves the glove was resting on? Why is there no blood in the 150 feet of narrow walkway or on the stucco wall abutting it? And you ever been back there.

No. 7. For what purpose was Vannatter carrying Mr. Simpson's blood in his pocket for three hours and a distance of 25 miles instead of booking it down the hall at Parker Center?

[GreenIce]

I understand what you are saying and I agree, although the last name of a defendant is sometimes a clue to their ethnicity. I am sure they would have used MF's negative remarks about Jews if Mr. RG was on trial. My point is that I don't think that Mr. Goldman believed that LE could or would act in the manner that was alleged, because of his life experiences with LE. Perhaps, he was aware of those facts but, because it was his son that was a victim, he chose not to believe them. I have experienced some of the things MF talked about on those tapes because of my dating choice, which is what I was trying to say.

William,

I agree with you to a point. However, the Goldmans heard the 4 lead detectives say that Simpson was not a suspect. To me, they knew enough to know that his was a lie and it should have raised some questions in their mind. They also heard the differences in the lead detectives testimony. They could not under estimated the consequences of these contradictions as well as the in-house pissing contests that were being waged from day one.

The only explaination I can give to the Goldmans is perhaps the same one given to G's---many people feel our laws are too tough on the police and therefore any omission or "oversight" on their part is done in the "interest of justice".

Also, they saw the nurse's video tape, how could they not ask questions?

fgump2 explains every single "mistake" the LAPD and crime lab people made as "harmless" and "careless", shouldn't every victim's family be outraged that these professionals don't act professional when it comes to their child or loved one?

It appears to me that many people are willing to overlook these "mistakes" because these mistakes don't impact the evidence---but they do. They impact the credibility of the whole investigation.

IMO, I think Mr. Goldman should have made very strong public statements to the DA's office and to Clark and Darden and issue his famous, "How dare you", to them for putting MF on the stand. For putting a cop on the stand they knew was committing perjury.

[William Anthony]

No. 8. Why did Deputy District Attorney Hank Goldberg, in a desperate effort to cover up for the missing 1.5 milliliters of Mr. Simpson's blood, secretly go out to the home of police nurse Thano Peratis without notice to the Defense and get him to contradict his previous sworn testimony at both the grand jury and the preliminary hearing? Peratis was never sworn. We were never given notice.

9. Why, if according to Miss Clark he walked into his own house wearing the murder clothes and shoes, there is not any soil or so much as a smear or drop of blood associated with the victims on the floor, the white carpeting, the doorknobs, the light switches and his bedding?

10. If Mr. Simpson had just killed Mr. Goldman in a bloody battle involving more than two dozen knife wounds where Mr. Goldman remains standing and struggling for several minutes, how come there is less than seven/tenths of one drop of blood consistent with Mr. Goldman found in the Bronco?

No. 11. Why, following a bitter struggle allegedly with Mr. Goldman, were there no bruises or marks on O.J. Simpson's body? And you will have those photographs back in the jury room.

No. 12. Why do bloodstains with the most DNA not show up until weeks after the murder, those on the socks, those on the back gate, those on--those are the two major areas.

No. 13. Why did Mark Fuhrman lie to us? Why did Phil Vannatter lie to us?

And finally 15. Given Professor MacDonell's testimony that the gloves would not have shrunk no matter how much blood was smeared on them, and given that they never shrank from June 21st, 1994, until now, despite having been repeatedly frozen and thawed, how come the gloves just don't fit?

I'm going to leave those questions for Miss Clark and we'll see what she chooses to do with and about them. That will be her choice. But I think you have a right to demand answers if you are going to do your job in this case. It seems to me you will need to have answers to those questions. Now, there are many, many, many more, but as with everything in this case, there comes a time when you can only do so much. We took fifteen as representatives, but I can tell you we had more than fifty questions, but fifteen will be enough, don't you think? I think so. In this case, when we started out a long time ago, we talked a lot about truth. And I always like, in a circular fashion, that you kind of end up where you started out. The truth is a wonderful commodity in this society. Some people can't stand the truth. But you know what? That notwithstanding, we still have to deal with truth in this society. Carlisle said that no lie can live forever. We have seen a number of big lies in this case, in this so-called rush to judgment. We have seen lie after lie, so much so that at least two of the major witnesses, Vannatter and Lange--Vannatter and--strike that--and Fuhrman, their testimony by you may be totally disregarded, further dismantling the People's case. You have that right, you know, in this search for truth. In times like these we often turn to the bible for some answers to try to figure out when you've got situations like this and you want to get an answer and you want to try to understand. I happen to really like the book of proverbs and in proverbs it talks a lot about false witnesses. It says that a false witness shall not be unpunished and he that speaketh lies shall not escape. That meant a lot to me in this case because there was Mark Fuhrman acting like a choirboy, making you believe he was the best witness that walked in here, generally applauded for his wonderful performance. It turns out he was the biggest liar in this courtroom during this process, for the bible had already told us the answer, that a false witness shall not be unpunished and he that speaketh lies shall not escape. In that same book it tells us that a faithful witness will not lie but a false witness will utter lies. Finally in proverbs it says that he that speaketh the truth showeth the forthrightfulness but a false witness shows deceit. So when we are talking about truth, we are talking about truth and lies and conspiracies and cover-ups, I always think about one of my favorite poems, which I think is so very appropriate for this case. You know when things are at the darkest there is always light the next day. In your life, in all of our lives, you have the capacity to transform Mr. O.J. Simpson's dark yesterday into bright tomorrow. You have that capacity. You have that power in your hand. And James Russell Lowell said it best about wrong and evil. He said that truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the thrown, yet that scaffold sways the future and beyond the dim unknown standeth God within the shadows, keeping watch above his own. You walk with that everyday, you carry that with you and things will come to you and you will be able to reveal people who come to you in uniforms and high positions who lie and are corrupt. That is what happened in this case and so the truth is now out. It is now up to you. We are going to pass this baton to you soon. You will do the right thing. You have made a commitment for justice. You will do the right thing. I will some day go on to other cases, no doubt as will Miss Clark and Mr. Darden. Judge Ito will try another case some day, I hope, but this is O.J. Simpson's one day in court. By your decision you control his very life your hands. Treat it carefully. Treat it fairly. Be fair. Don't be part of this continuing cover-up. Do the right thing remembering that if it doesn't fit, you must acquit, that if these messengers have lied to you, you can't trust their message, that this has been a search for truth. That no matter how bad it looks, if truth is out there on a scaffold and wrong is in here on the throne, when that scaffold sways the future and beyond the dim unknown standeth the same God for all people keeping watch above his own. He watches all of us and he will watch you in your decision. Thank you for your attention. God bless you.

THE COURT: Thank you very much, Mr. Cochran. All right. Let me see counsel over at the side bar without the court reporter.

[William Anthony]

William,

I agree with you to a point. However, the Goldmans heard the 4 lead detectives say that Simpson was not a suspect. To me, they knew enough to know that his was a lie and it should have raised some questions in their mind. They also heard the differences in the lead detectives testimony. They could not under estimated the consequences of these contradictions as well as the in-house pissing contests that were being waged from day one.

The only explaination I can give to the Goldmans is perhaps the same one given to G's---many people feel our laws are too tough on the police and therefore any omission or "oversight" on their part is done in the "interest of justice".

Also, they saw the nurse's video tape, how could they not ask questions?

fgump2 explains every single "mistake" the LAPD and crime lab people made as "harmless" and "careless", shouldn't every victim's family be outraged that these professionals don't act professional when it comes to their child or loved one?

It appears to me that many people are willing to overlook these "mistakes" because these mistakes don't impact the evidence---but they do. They impact the credibility of the whole investigation.

IMO, I think Mr. Goldman should have made very strong public statements to the DA's office and to Clark and Darden and issue his famous, "How dare you", to them for putting MF on the stand. For putting a cop on the stand they knew was committing perjury.

GreenIce,

There are some, like I said, due to their life experiences give unquestioned credibility to LE, meaning that Mr. Goldman probably believed it took four detectives to make a personal notification. Look at the posters on this board who say that that they feel the carelessness, sloppiness, human errors and mistakes and perjury committed by LE should have still prompted a conviction.

LE has a presumption that they have acted in a professional manner and that they are not corrupt. Some seem to forget that there are laws that protect LE, which isn't to say that they don't deserve our respect and gratitude as a whole but those that lie and are corrupt deserve our scorn, IMHO.

The nurse worked for LE and they may have erroneously attached that presumption to him.

I don't think that any defendant should be convicted on the carelessness, sloppiness, lies and perjury of LE.

As to your last paragraph, I totally agree and, if the prosecution's claim is that they didn't know about MF, then they should have.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

There are some, like I said, due to their life experiences give unquestioned credibility to LE, meaning that Mr. Goldman probably believed it took four detectives to make a personal notification. Look at the posters on this board who say that what they carelessness, sloppiness, human errors and mistakes and perjury committed by LE should have still prompted a conviction.

LE has a presumption that they have acted in a professional manner and that they are not corrupt. Some seem to forget that there are laws that protect LE, which isn't to say that they don't deserve our respect and gratitude as a whole but those that lie and are corrupt deserve our scorn, IMHO.

The nurse worked for LE and they may have erroneously attached that presumption to him.

I don't think that any defendant should be convicted on the carelessness, sloppiness, lies and perjury of LE.

As to your last paragraph, I totally agree and, if the prosecution's claim is that they didn't know about MF, then they should have.

William,

IMO, it appears to me that G's have gone to great lengths attempting to explain the unexplainable and to justify the unjustifable.

I do believe that the police are the most valuable asset of our justice system. However, they have highjacked our system to the point where judges and DA's are more afraid of them then the criminals are. IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, it appears to me that G's have gone to great lengths attempting to explain the unexplainable and to justify the unjustifable.

I do believe that the police are the most valuable asset of our justice system. However, they have highjacked our system to the point where judges and DA's are more afraid of them then the criminals are. IMO.

It seems to boil down to what we consider credible. Again, I think that is a result of our individual life experiences.

It seems to be turning into a full fledged war on our streets and I do believe that a lot of that is due to how LE and the judicial system has treated some of America's citizens.

[GreenIce]

It seems to boil down to what we consider credible. Again, I think that is a result of our individual life experiences.

It seems to be turning into a full fledged war on our streets and I do believe that a lot of that is due to how LE and the judicial system has treated some of America's citizens.

William,

I agree with you, but the problem is what is credible when considering the actions of our police, judges and DA's? Unlike you, I am still stunned to know that many honest people believe that if a cop is caught in a lie on the stand, then it is because they "have to". I am appalled that these same honest people do not understand how, in this case, MF was able to hold agency hostage and if that wasn't bad enough, he bragged about it on the tapes.

I know you have asked G's about his comments about the glove on the tapes, but not one of them answered it, have they? Not to answer this question, IMO, is one of the problems. IMO.

Our rules and laws in justice system were developed to prevent past abuses of the system. For example the Miranda Right reading, why we have double jeopardy laws, etc. It is because people in the position of power have abused it and laws have been enacted to prevent it.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9189545]GreenIce,

The nurse worked for LE and they may have erroneously attached that presumption to him.

I don't think that any defendant should be convicted on the carelessness, sloppiness, lies and perjury of LE.

William,

IMO, I do not think that sloppiness and carelessness was a factor in this trial. IMO, there was too much of it to consider it a reasonable explaination.
For instance, when Adrea M. was asked about the back gate, she said she didn't even know there was back gate. I don't understand her response.

I think the public totally underestimates what happens to a cop or a detective or a crime lab person who goes against the grain of the cops' story in a case. Remember that crime scene specialist the defense had, Larry Regiel (sp?) and when he went to shake to VA's hand and VA refused to because he called him a traitor? Why this comment from VA? Why did he consider this expert a traitor---because he told the truth on what his findings were?

As I have posted before, I believe it is a mistake to attach our own morals and ethics to any state witness in this case. I also think it is a mistake to ignore what we now know when it comes to evidence that the state witness may feel was planted or tampered with. If you can't name who, what, when and why, then you better keep your mouth shut--because if you do open it and stand by it, you will regret it because then you are accusing one of your "own" of a serious crime.


In the civil trial motions, it is clear that Petrocelli is not claiming that evidence wasn't planted or tampered with, he only says the defense had not provided an eye witness to the planting and tampering. As Petrocelli stated, his rules were different and he was able to set a different standard to this.

[William Anthony]

William,

I agree with you, but the problem is what is credible when considering the actions of our police, judges and DA's? Unlike you, I am still stunned to know that many honest people believe that if a cop is caught in a lie on the stand, then it is because they "have to". I am appalled that these same honest people do not understand how, in this case, MF was able to hold agency hostage and if that wasn't bad enough, he bragged about it on the tapes.

I know you have asked G's about his comments about the glove on the tapes, but not one of them answered it, have they? Not to answer this question, IMO, is one of the problems. IMO.

Our rules and laws in justice system were developed to prevent past abuses of the system. For example the Miranda Right reading, why we have double jeopardy laws, etc. It is because people in the position of power have abused it and laws have been enacted to prevent it.

I think that I have told this story before but when I was in the service, there was a White GI that was fanatically patriotic, IMHO. He once wanted to fight over some statements I made. I realized that he would not have been much of a contest for me, so I smiled and walked away. He went on leave and to my amazement came back a hippie.:) I think he honestly believed in both set of values and some life experience he had while on leave changed his former view.

I am likewise stunned when the response to my questions is that MF was embellishing events for a screenplay. However, they want to give him credit for telling the truth about Ito's wife in order to say that Ito was biased when he allowed the tapes to be played. I think the reason Ito allowed the tapes to be played was a socio political decision as he knew the world was watching the trial and do disallow them to be played would have produced such outrage if they were played by the media.

I agree with your last paragraph completely and would only add that liberty is one of America's most valued privileges and that is why the standard to take it away is the highest legal standard, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We cannot allow the standard to be lowered, which is what I think was the crux of the magnificent one's summation, because of a belief that a defendant is guilty but that a defendant must be proven guilty by the aforesaid standard. To allow anything less, reverts back to the former abuses you speak of in your post.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9189545]GreenIce,

The nurse worked for LE and they may have erroneously attached that presumption to him.

I don't think that any defendant should be convicted on the carelessness, sloppiness, lies and perjury of LE.

William,

IMO, I do not think that sloppiness and carelessness was a factor in this trial. IMO, there was too much of it to consider it a reasonable explaination.
For instance, when Adrea M. was asked about the back gate, she said she didn't even know there was back gate. I don't understand her response.

I think the public totally underestimates what happens to a cop or a detective or a crime lab person who goes against the grain of the cops' story in a case. Remember that crime scene specialist the defense had, Larry Regiel (sp?) and when he went to shake to VA's hand and VA refused to because he called him a traitor? Why this comment from VA? Why did he consider this expert a traitor---because he told the truth on what his findings were?

As I have posted before, I believe it is a mistake to attach our own morals and ethics to any state witness in this case. I also think it is a mistake to ignore what we now know when it comes to evidence that the state witness may feel was planted or tampered with. If you can't name who, what, when and why, then you better keep your mouth shut--because if you do open it and stand by it, you will regret it because then you are accusing one of your "own" of a serious crime.


In the civil trial motions, it is clear that Petrocelli is not claiming that evidence wasn't planted or tampered with, he only says the defense had not provided an eye witness to the planting and tampering. As Petrocelli stated, his rules were different and he was able to set a different standard to this.

I understand what you are saying and I don't believe the jury believed that all of the discrepancies were the result of sloppiness and carelessness nor that it did not matter. Perhaps, AM was too disgruntled about the fact that DF was getting paid and taking credit for her work and was not listening when they showed her the gate.:)

Possibly, the expert broke, the Blue Wall of Silence and Vannatter made him pay the price. You know my feelings on some of the rulings in the socio political production, IMHO, and that is reinforced by the judge's statement, "Basically, this is a civil murder trial."

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9189565]

I understand what you are saying and I don't believe the jury believed that all of the discrepancies were the result of sloppiness and carelessness nor that it did not matter. Perhaps, AM was too disgruntled about the fact that DF was getting paid and taking credit for her work and was not listening when they showed her the gate.:)

Possibly, the expert broke, the Blue Wall of Silence and Vannatter made him pay the price. You know my feelings on some of the rulings in the socio political production, IMHO, and that is reinforced by the judge's statement, "Basically, this is a civil murder trial."

William,

IMO, Andrea would not have been disgruntled about Fung getting paid and taking credit for her work. First off, she had to know that she and Fung were on a different pay scale. Second of all, IMO, Fung should have taken responsibilty to her job performance. She was still in training and any mistakes made by her were Fung's responsibility.

However, she may have realized that Fung was protecting her and was not throwing her under the bus.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9189568]

William,

IMO, Andrea would not have been disgruntled about Fung getting paid and taking credit for her work. First off, she had to know that she and Fung were on a different pay scale. Second of all, IMO, Fung should have taken responsibilty to her job performance. She was still in training and any mistakes made by her were Fung's responsibility.

However, she may have realized that Fung was protecting her and was not throwing her under the bus.

You may be right but I didn't attach such benevolence to his human errors/mistakes/lies.

[fgump2]

fgump2,

I understand. However, too many G's have also have the same choices you have made and therefore hurting their own positions on much of the evidence.

The bottom line is that NG's have the facts, science and the testimony on our side while G's have only their gut feelings and such a huge amount of trust in the DA's and the LAPD that can't be measured.
That is self congratulatory and insulting. There is so much material on this 9 month trial that nobody is going to try to be an expert unless they get paid for it. I don't completelyl trust LAPD dept employees completely, or any other grop of people; but most people won't cheat on their income taxes if they think their returns will be audited and reaudited dozens of times, and this imore or less what would happen if they tried to frame a popular celebrity. You stated in antoher post that the defense destroyed all the evidence against Simpson. If that is true then why did Cochran express doubts about OJS's innocence during the trial, and why did he imply that OJS was guilty after the criminal trial?/B]

In regards to your posts about people motives, how I have explained why I doubt them and what I have used to back them up. You have done nothing to explain your position on these issues, only that they were tired, didn't like to write notes, didn't like to follow procedures, didn't like to do any of the job requirements and all agencies are perfectly happy with their employees who are careless. [B]You are distorting my views. I think a certain amt of carelessness is going to be part of all work. I am not enough of a law enforcement expert to evaluate the overall performance of the LAPD on the Simpson trial, and I don't think you are either. I think the overall evidence is that Orenthal was guilty
http://walraven.org/simpson/#transcripts

Perhaps you should move to the civil trial thread where you are able to defend your position. In the criminal case, Gumby and Pokey were not allowed to be called as witnesses, in the civil trial, they were, along with Elvis and the Wizard of Oz. IMO.
************************************************** *******
I think you should take a look at your own posts. As far as backing things up with logic, science, and facts, how about saying about me and others that they got it "from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend". I am not hurt by remarks like that, but I feel disrespect. To use terms like Elvis and the Wizard of Oz is childish. And especially from someone who complains about the bad manners of others.

[GreenIce]

************************************************** *******
I think you should take a look at your own posts. As far as backing things up with logic, science, and facts, how about saying about me and others that they got it "from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend". I am not hurt by remarks like that, but I feel disrespect. To use terms like Elvis and the Wizard of Oz is childish. And especially from someone who complains about the bad manners of others.

fgump2,

I am sorry if you felt disrespect. Some times posts that have been written with humor do get misunderstood. I deserve the comments you have made you have made in the above posts.

I again, I am sorry.

[GreenIce]

You are distorting my views. I think a certain amt of carelessness is going to be part of all work. I am not enough of a law enforcement expert to evaluate the overall performance of the LAPD on the Simpson trial, and I don't think you are either. I think the overall evidence is that Orenthal was guilty

fgump2,

I do not think I was distorting your views. Yes, you did say that there are certain amounts of carelessness to be a part of all work. I disagree because all professions are not equal, all mistakes are not equal and the results of those mistakes are not equal.

IMO, you have every right to state your opinons on the police departments and their job performance. Members of LE paychecks come from the people who they have sworn to serve and protect. IMO, every person has the right to express their support for LE. However, the people who do not trust their work and have given example upon example of why they do not trust the evidence, also have the same right to express their views.

You say that you are not an expert on the LAPD to judge their job performance, yet you are judging their job performance because you feel that they proved that Simpson was guilty. You have judged their job performance but giving your reason why the "mistakes" made in this case were nothing but honest mistakes.

Again, if you or your son was sitting the defendant's chair, would you be so forgiving of the "mistakes"? Would you still believe that the "mistakes" made were honest ones?

Also, as I have posted before, I don't think there were many careless mistakes. The pattern of the "mistakes" was just to obvious in this case. The most damning blood evidence was found weeks and months later. How many times can this happen in one case?

One more thing, if you are not an expert on the LAPD to judge their job performance then you are not an expert on juries and therefore your criticism of them is unwarranted, IMO.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9189574]

You may be right but I didn't attach such benevolence to his human errors/mistakes/lies.

William,

I believe Fung could have thrown Mozzola under a fleet of buses. He did not do that. What did he have to gain by taking responsibility for her errors?

IMO, I believe Fung strongly believed that something was wrong was with the evidence. For example, what if Fung saw Andrea write her initals on those bindles? Fung knew how this game was played, as a trainee Andrea did not understand the rules.


Also, we do not know what Fung was told to do by his supervisors. IMO, we already know one member of the police department, the head or a high ranking member of the LAPD's IA committed perjury to protect MF, so it is that big leap of logic that Fung was told he was going to take the fall of the all the mistakes? That the focus would be on Andrea and the mistakes she made was because she was not supervised?

You know, I just thought of this, I don't remember Michelle Kestler ever come out and say that she was proud of her department's work on this case. She may have but I don't remember it.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9189575]

William,

I believe Fung could have thrown Mozzola under a fleet of buses. He did not do that. What did he have to gain by taking responsibility for her errors?

IMO, I believe Fung strongly believed that something was wrong was with the evidence. For example, what if Fung saw Andrea write her initals on those bindles? Fung knew how this game was played, as a trainee Andrea did not understand the rules.


Also, we do not know what Fung was told to do by his supervisors. IMO, we already know one member of the police department, the head or a high ranking member of the LAPD's IA committed perjury to protect MF, so it is that big leap of logic that Fung was told he was going to take the fall of the all the mistakes? That the focus would be on Andrea and the mistakes she made was because she was not supervised?

You know, I just thought of this, I don't remember Michelle Kestler ever come out and say that she was proud of her department's work on this case. She may have but I don't remember it.

I am not saying that you are wrong, only that I believe he was trapped and came up with the preposterous assertion that he said I because they were working as a team. There is no I or we in team.

[William Anthony]

You are distorting my views. I think a certain amt of carelessness is going to be part of all work. I am not enough of a law enforcement expert to evaluate the overall performance of the LAPD on the Simpson trial, and I don't think you are either. I think the overall evidence is that Orenthal was guilty

fgump2,

I do not think I was distorting your views. Yes, you did say that there are certain amounts of carelessness to be a part of all work. I disagree because all professions are not equal, all mistakes are not equal and the results of those mistakes are not equal.

IMO, you have every right to state your opinons on the police departments and their job performance. Members of LE paychecks come from the people who they have sworn to serve and protect. IMO, every person has the right to express their support for LE. However, the people who do not trust their work and have given example upon example of why they do not trust the evidence, also have the same right to express their views.

You say that you are not an expert on the LAPD to judge their job performance, yet you are judging their job performance because you feel that they proved that Simpson was guilty. You have judged their job performance but giving your reason why the "mistakes" made in this case were nothing but honest mistakes.

Again, if you or your son was sitting the defendant's chair, would you be so forgiving of the "mistakes"? Would you still believe that the "mistakes" made were honest ones?

Also, as I have posted before, I don't think there were many careless mistakes. The pattern of the "mistakes" was just to obvious in this case. The most damning blood evidence was found weeks and months later. How many times can this happen in one case?

One more thing, if you are not an expert on the LAPD to judge their job performance then you are not an expert on juries and therefore your criticism of them is unwarranted, IMO.

Ditto.

[William Anthony]

GreenIce,

Did you happen to notice that the prosecution's LE witnesses use a different concept of language than most of us? DF said I when he meant she, MF used them when he meant it and in when he meant out.:)

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9189623]

I am not saying that you are wrong, only that I believe he was trapped and came up with the preposterous assertion that he said I because they were working as a team. There is no I or we in team.

William,

IMO, I have always believed that DF shaking hands with the defense team was done on purpose by DF. He was sending a message.

IMO, those who say that he was "punched drunk" or didn't know what he was doing doesn't make sense. Weren't the DA's the only side that could dismiss him?

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9189632]

William,

IMO, I have always believed that DF shaking hands with the defense team was done on purpose by DF. He was sending a message.

IMO, those who say that he was "punched drunk" or didn't know what he was doing doesn't make sense. Weren't the DA's the only side that could dismiss him?

He may have been sending a message. I don't think he was discombobulated.

He could have been called by the defense but they would not have been allowed to ask leading questions. However, in his case, I don't think that would have mattered.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

Did you happen to notice that the prosecution's LE witnesses use a different concept of language than most of us? DF said I when he meant she, MF used them when he meant it and in when he meant out.:)

William,

Yeah, kind of like the Queen's English vs American English:)

[bobaugust]

I don't claim that Park was mistaken. I say that the evidence allows me to draw an inference that he was. You are the one that claimed Park was mistaken and wrong, because the testimony contradicts what you think is right. Have you asked yourself why Ms. Clark would put such an insignificant issue in her work of fiction and claim that it was in the police statement? Could she have included such a statement, because she realized the logical and reasonable inference was that Park couldn't have seen Kato when he claimed he had? Was this her feeble attempt to regain her credibility with those, other than the one's that did not believe there was reasonable doubt on the issue. She may have deceived those, who did not want to consider all the evidence on the issue to see if it fit. :) Now, you say that you infer there is a logical inference that the flashlight was on. However, I have posted the testimony as to the lighting in that area and another logical inference is that the small pen light would have added nothing to the lighting conditions in that area. This is not one instance where, if you don't use it you will lose it. :)

I don’t have to ask myself why Clark included Park’s police statement in the beginning of her book since I read the context in which she referred to it. Maybe you should try reading it for yourself before you tell us what you imagine Clark was thinking.

In her book, “Without A Doubt” Clark was summarizing what different witnesses in this case told the police. She was going over Kaelin’s statement and read where Kato was back in his room on the phone to a friend after going to McDonald’s with Simpson when he heard “a thump” against his wall. When he went out to investigate, Kato said, he saw a white limousine sitting outside the gate.

“Limo…limo…limo” Clark wrote,

“I flipped to the police interview with the limo driver who took Simpson to LAX for his 11:45 P.M. flight to Chicago.” (Clark summarized what Park told the police, this is the last part of her summary) He’d been scheduled to be at Rockingham by 10:45 P.M., but just to be on the safe side, he arrived twenty minutes ahead of schedule. After waiting around for a bit, he rang the buzzer at 10:40. He got no answer. For the next ten minutes he continued ringing without success. At 10:50 he called his boss for instructions. He was still on the line three minutes later when he saw a white male walk from the back of the house carrying a flashlight. Obviously Kaelin checking out the thumps.

Simultaneously, Park saw a black man - he believed it was O.J. Simpson - walk quickly from the far side of the driveway to the front door. Park got out of the limo and rang the buzzer again. This time Simpson answered, saying “I’m sorry. I overslept. I just got out of the shower and I’ll be down in a minute.”

I made a big mark through this with orange highlighter. Here was a crucial witness. One who could attest that up until 10:50 or so Simpson was not answering his buzzer. He could also attest that someone resembling Simpson walked into the house around 10:53 P.M. Shortly after that Simpson answered the buzzer. O.J. Simpson, it appeared had lied about having been in the shower.

If you believed Park’s account, it placed the suspect in his own front yard at 10:53 P.M. According to my rough calculations, Simpson had been off the radar for close to an hour. If Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman had been killed as early as 10:10, or even as late as 10:40 Simpson would have had the time to drive the three miles or so from Bundy to Rockingham.

From where I was sitting, O.J. Simpson had no alibi.”

William, there were large trees on Simpson’s property between the Ashford path and Ashford street. There was one streetlight across Ashford on the corner of Rockingham and Ashford. There were no lights on the Ashford path. There is no other way Park could have told the police that he saw a white male carrying a flashlight unless Kaelin had the small flashlight turned on despite the fact that it was not real bright.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Talk about circular reasoning. You have to discredit Park's observations of Kato in order to make your scenario fit. Let me see, if I have your reasoning correct? Because you believe that Park did not see Kato standing and still standing for another minute in the same position that Kato had been standing, you must say that Park was mistaken because you do not believe he saw Kato standing and still standing. Because you believe Kato did not stop, you must believe that Park was mistaken when he said that Kato stopped, because you believe that Kato did not stop. Because you believe that Kato ran from behind the house and down the Ashford pathway and driveway and it aids your beliefs, you must believe that Park was mistaken because he said he saw Kato walking down that pathway. Because you believe Park's aforementioned testimony was mistaken, you do not believe Park's testimony was suggested, even though Ms. Clark changed Kato's testimony to Kato walking down that Pathway with her question, because you believe Park was mistaken. Because you believe Park was correct about seeing Kato walk down the Ashford pathway coming from behind the house, you believe Park was wrong about seeing Kato walking, because you believe he was correct about seeing Kato coming from behind the house. It was your claim, not inference, that Kato went directly to the gate box. I asked you to support it but you could not. If your inference is true, then you must discredit Park's testimony that he saw Kato standing, which means that he did not see the figure he described as Simpson when he saw Kato standing. A lot of things are overlooked in the trial. If you don't believe me ask the prosecution.:)

I am not playing with you. I am having fun with you, seeing you try to squirm out of your statements by claiming when Park was right and when he was mistaken. The ridiculous and most comical thing about your assertions is Park is right or wrong depending on your beliefs.:) I never get p***ed off watching you squirm.:)

No you don’t have my reasoning correct. Park only thought in his pre criminal trial testimony that Kaelin had stayed on the Ashford path because he never saw Kaelin go past the front of the house on his way to the garage. Park was on the phone with his boss at that time and evidently wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin after he saw Simpson enter his house and lights come on. The fact is Kaelin tells us what he did when he returned from his short trip to behind the garage that night, not Park. Later Park evidently realized his testimony was wrong and he never repeated that part again. Not in the criminal trial and not in the civil trial. And no attorney from either side ever asked him about it again.

Whether or not Kaelin was running or walking briskly down the Ashford path is not significant. It was dark on that path and Park evidently couldn’t tell how fast Kaelin was moving, all he could say was he saw “a white male walk from behind the house area on a pathway with a flashlight in his hand.” Seeing where someone came from and went to at night is a lot easier to recall than specific details regarding their exact movements.

Park said that Kaelin came down the Ashford path to the driveway; he never said Kaelin went to the Ashford path from the driveway. Kaelin said he went down the Ashford path to the driveway; he never said he went to the Ashford path from the driveway until he returned to his room after Simpson left for the airport. Kaelin never said he stood on the Ashford path for a minute to two minutes. Running or walking briskly was never an issue in this case.

Kaelin’s testimony in pre criminal trial, in the criminal trial, and post criminal trial was consistent and clear every time he was asked what he did when he came out from behind the garage, Kaelin said he saw the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. That is the evidence in this case William no matter how badly you want it to be different.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9189636]

He may have been sending a message. I don't think he was discombobulated.

He could have been called by the defense but they would not have been allowed to ask leading questions. However, in his case, I don't think that would have mattered.

William,

I do believe both DF and AM were very upset with the DA's and felt set up. The DA's had the exact same videos that the defense had, yet did nothing to help prep him? Let himself look like a fool up there?

I do find odd is that DF got a promotion after his testimony. A long time ago, I read that he had lost that promotion within months after his testimony in the civil trial.

[GreenIce]

I don’t have to ask myself why Clark included Park’s police statement in the beginning of her book since I read the context in which she referred to it. Maybe you should try reading it for yourself before you tell us what you imagine Clark was thinking.

In her book, “Without A Doubt” Clark was summarizing what different witnesses in this case told the police. She was going over Kaelin’s statement and read where Kato was back in his room on the phone to a friend after going to McDonald’s with Simpson when he heard “a thump” against his wall. When he went out to investigate, Kato said, he saw a white limousine sitting outside the gate.

“Limo…limo…limo” Clark wrote,

“I flipped to the police interview with the limo driver who took Simpson to LAX for his 11:45 P.M. flight to Chicago.” (Clark summarized what Park told the police, this is the last part of her summary) He’d been scheduled to be at Rockingham by 10:45 P.M., but just to be on the safe side, he arrived twenty minutes ahead of schedule. After waiting around for a bit, he rang the buzzer at 10:40. He got no answer. For the next ten minutes he continued ringing without success. At 10:50 he called his boss for instructions. He was still on the line three minutes later when he saw a white male walk from the back of the house carrying a flashlight. Obviously Kaelin checking out the thumps.

Simultaneously, Park saw a black man - he believed it was O.J. Simpson - walk quickly from the far side of the driveway to the front door. Park got out of the limo and rang the buzzer again. This time Simpson answered, saying “I’m sorry. I overslept. I just got out of the shower and I’ll be down in a minute.”

I made a big mark through this with orange highlighter. Here was a crucial witness. One who could attest that up until 10:50 or so Simpson was not answering his buzzer. He could also attest that someone resembling Simpson walked into the house around 10:53 P.M. Shortly after that Simpson answered the buzzer. O.J. Simpson, it appeared had lied about having been in the shower.

If you believed Park’s account, it placed the suspect in his own front yard at 10:53 P.M. According to my rough calculations, Simpson had been off the radar for close to an hour. If Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman had been killed as early as 10:10, or even as late as 10:40 Simpson would have had the time to drive the three miles or so from Bundy to Rockingham.

From where I was sitting, O.J. Simpson had no alibi.”

William, there were large trees on Simpson’s property between the Ashford path and Ashford street. There was one streetlight across Ashford on the corner of Rockingham and Ashford. There were no lights on the Ashford path. There is no other way Park could have told the police that he saw a white male carrying a flashlight unless Kaelin had the small flashlight turned on despite the fact that it was not real bright.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Marcia Clark has it wrong, Park would never say that the Black person he saw was OJ Simpson, in fact, he would not say if it was male or female. He just described what he saw.

[GreenIce]

William,

A couple of quick questions before I go. The death struggle theory for G's has always been less then two minutes, correct?

The G's theory is that the killer left as soon as they knew that Ron and Nicole were dead, correct?

Also, the G's theory is that the killer was not drenched in blood because he killed Ron from behind, correct?

Very important questions---maybe!

[William Anthony]

No you don’t have my reasoning correct. Park only thought in his pre criminal trial testimony that Kaelin had stayed on the Ashford path because he never saw Kaelin go past the front of the house on his way to the garage. Park was on the phone with his boss at that time and evidently wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin after he saw Simpson enter his house and lights come on. This discredits Park's testimony on his vantage point and his observations of Kato. The fact is Kaelin tells us what he did when he returned from his short trip to behind the garage that night, not Park. Later Park evidently realized his testimony was wrong and he never repeated that part again. Not in the criminal trial and not in the civil trial. And no attorney from either side ever asked him about it again. I posted the testimony from the criminal trial where Park said he saw Kato standing.

Whether or not Kaelin was running or walking briskly down the Ashford path is not significant. It was dark on that path and Park evidently couldn’t tell how fast Kaelin was moving, all he could say was he saw “a white male walk from behind the house area on a pathway with a flashlight in his hand.” Again, you are discrediting Kato.Seeing where someone came from and went to at night is a lot easier to recall than specific details regarding their exact movements. If that is true, then why didn't Park see Kato when he went on his first cursory search.

Park said that Kaelin came down the Ashford path to the driveway; he never said Kaelin went to the Ashford path from the driveway. Kaelin said he went down the Ashford path to the driveway; he never said he went to the Ashford path from the driveway until he returned to his room after Simpson left for the airport. Kaelin never said he stood on the Ashford path for a minute to two minutes. Running or walking briskly was never an issue in this case. I have posted the testimony about Park seeing Kato standing on the sidewalk. Where in your imagination do you think the sidewalk was?

Kaelin’s testimony in pre criminal trial, in the criminal trial, and post criminal trial was consistent and clear every time he was asked what he did when he came out from behind the garage, Kaelin said he saw the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. That is the evidence in this case William no matter how badly you want it to be different.

bobaugust

There is no evidence that Kato walked directly to the gate box but there is evidence that Kato went to the garage area, stopped, backed out and walked up the driveway. You have to discredit all of Park's testimony where he says that he saw Kato standing and still standing, on the sidewalk, for another minute, before Kato proceeded to walk toward Park and buzz him in to make your imagined speculations work. However, there is nothing in the evidence to support your imagined speculations. You have said the Park realized the his testimony was wrong, which is why I say his memory was suggested. However, when Park admitted that his testimony in the grand jury and preliminary hearing was more accurate because the events were fresher in his mind, the defense trapped him.

[William Anthony]

William,

A couple of quick questions before I go. The death struggle theory for G's has always been less then two minutes, correct?

The G's theory is that the killer left as soon as they knew that Ron and Nicole were dead, correct?

Also, the G's theory is that the killer was not drenched in blood because he killed Ron from behind, correct?

Very important questions---maybe!

That is my understanding.

[William Anthony]

I don’t have to ask myself why Clark included Park’s police statement in the beginning of her book since I read the context in which she referred to it. Maybe you should try reading it for yourself before you tell us what you imagine Clark was thinking. I don't have to read it, because the context is apparent to me. She was justifying trying to change Park's testimony.

In her book, “Without A Doubt” Clark was summarizing what different witnesses in this case told the police. She was going over Kaelin’s statement and read where Kato was back in his room on the phone to a friend after going to McDonald’s with Simpson when he heard “a thump” against his wall. When he went out to investigate, Kato said, he saw a white limousine sitting outside the gate.

“Limo…limo…limo” Clark wrote,

“I flipped to the police interview with the limo driver who took Simpson to LAX for his 11:45 P.M. flight to Chicago.” (Clark summarized what Park told the police, this is the last part of her summary) He’d been scheduled to be at Rockingham by 10:45 P.M., but just to be on the safe side, he arrived twenty minutes ahead of schedule. After waiting around for a bit, he rang the buzzer at 10:40. He got no answer. For the next ten minutes he continued ringing without success. At 10:50 he called his boss for instructions. He was still on the line three minutes later when he saw a white male walk from the back of the house carrying a flashlight. Obviously Kaelin checking out the thumps. I see now that you buy everything that the prosecution says and do not consider all the testimony. I do not think because a person writes something that is contradicted by the testimony it automatically becomes correct. I was taught to read for myself and draw my own conclusions questioning what was written and not to accept it on blind faith. I think I was taught that in junior high school.

Simultaneously, Park saw a black man - he believed it was O.J. Simpson - walk quickly from the far side of the driveway to the front door. Park got out of the limo and rang the buzzer again. This time Simpson answered, saying “I’m sorry. I overslept. I just got out of the shower and I’ll be down in a minute.”

I made a big mark through this with orange highlighter. Here was a crucial witness. One who could attest that up until 10:50 or so Simpson was not answering his buzzer. He could also attest that someone resembling Simpson walked into the house around 10:53 P.M. Shortly after that Simpson answered the buzzer. O.J. Simpson, it appeared had lied about having been in the shower. You see that is he problem. Park never testified to seeing that person walk in any direction or being on the driveway. He testified that he saw that person walk down the entrance way into the house. It is consistent with Simpson coming out of his home placing the duffle bags down, all missed by Park, but seeing Simpson walk back into his home. You seem to have a lob sided view of what something appears to be.

If you believed Park’s account, it placed the suspect (Simpson) in his own front yard at 10:53 P.M. According to my rough calculations, Simpson had been off the radar for close to an hour. If Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman had been killed as early as 10:10, or even as late as 10:40 Simpson would have had the time to drive the three miles or so from Bundy to Rockingham.

From where I was sitting, O.J. Simpson had no alibi.” You don't need an alibi, if you haven't done anything and it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did.

William, there were large trees on Simpson’s property between the Ashford path and Ashford street. There was one streetlight across Ashford on the corner of Rockingham and Ashford. There were no lights on the Ashford path. There is no other way Park could have told the police that he saw a white male carrying a flashlight unless Kaelin had the small flashlight turned on despite the fact that it was not real bright.

bobaugust

The testimonies are what they are.:) You have to use your imagination to make the testimonies fit. I just post them.:)

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

In case you missed it in post 8005, here is Park's testimony from the criminal trial.

Park said that Kato stopped in his criminal trial testimony and was just standing there.

"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.

Q: OKAY.

A: SO I -- I TOLD DALE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY IS HOME.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME HAD YOU ALREADY LOOKED AT THE -- AT THE HOUSE, THE AREA THAT YOU WERE DIRECTED TO LOOK AT BY DALE ST. JOHN, TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY LIGHTS?

A: YES.

Q: AND AFTER YOU SAW THAT THERE WERE NO LIGHTS, WAS IT AFTER THAT POINT THAT YOU SAW THIS WHITE MALE?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: AND THAT PERSON THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING, HAVE YOU SINCE LEARNED WHAT HIS NAME IS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT IS HIS NAME?

A: KATO.

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."

I understand what you say but I chose to rely on what the witness said. You are not under oath.

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

Please, post the testimonies/evidence where Park says he saw Kato as his attention was attracted to the flashlight and where Kato said he was walking briskly?

[William Anthony]

William,

Yeah, kind of like the Queen's English vs American English:)

LE jargon.:)

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

What sidewalk was this?

"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."

It is interesting to note the Park used the past tense of the word remember. This suggests to me that his testimony was discussed and suggested to him that his memory was incorrect. However, the testimonies are what they are.:)
I think most of us would have answered the question from what I remember.:)

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

Notice this about the word remember.

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

A: YES, I DID.

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

A: TWENTY OR THIRTY SECONDS.

Q: OKAY. AND DID HE OPEN THE GATE FOR YOU?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, YES.

You see there was no need for this portion of Park's testimony to have been suggested and Park answered the question with the word remember, which is the way most of us would answer, IMHO.

[tv]

I realize what I wrote doesn't directly provide evidence of Mr. Simpson's guilt. The fact that he seemed to think of the Goldmans as part of the enemy is an indirect indication that Mr. Cochran wasn't convinced of the existence of a frameup by the LAPD. In any case, if a large number of people regard Johnnie Cochran as a hero, then his moral character matters. This is espescially true for people who care about race relations.

After the 1995 acquittal Mr. Simpson expressed more anger at Fred Goldman than he did against the LAPD. That is a strong indication of guilt.

Something that has always stood out to me is the lack of anger that OJ Simpson shows toward Mark Fuhrman. You would think that if a rogue cop planted the evidence that the defense wanted the jury to believe was planted that OJS would hate Mark Fuhrman. I've only seen two comments about Mark Fuhrman by OJS and neither one was negative. IMO, that's because he knows that Det. Fuhrman and the LAPD aren't guilty of planting or tampering with evidence to implicate him. He seems to have a lot of anger against the Goldmans (not as much as JC) and he has a lot of anger toward Gil Garcetti for some reason. I agree that it's a strong indication of guilt.

[William Anthony]

Something that has always stood out to me is the lack of anger that OJ Simpson shows toward Mark Fuhrman. You would think that if a rogue cop planted the evidence that the defense wanted the jury to believe was planted that OJS would hate Mark Fuhrman. I've only seen two comments about Mark Fuhrman by OJS and neither one was negative. IMO, that's because he knows that Det. Fuhrman and the LAPD aren't guilty of planting or tampering with evidence to implicate him. He seems to have a lot of anger against the Goldmans (not as much as JC) and he has a lot of anger toward Gil Garcetti for some reason. I agree that it's a strong indication of guilt.

I know now that you must not have watched the criminal trial or have missed the look on Simpson's face when those vile, reprehensible, despicable and demonic words were played in the courtroom. Why be angry at a person, who one thinks tried to frame him but failed? Why not, if one is found not guilty, be angry at a person, who will not accept the jury's verdict and publicly states that he killed his son? Why not be angry at a person, who said it is his goal in life to ruin the other person? What is it an indication of-anger?

[tv]

I know now that you must not have watched the criminal trial or have missed the look on Simpson's face when those vile, reprehensible, despicable and demonic words were played in the courtroom. Why be angry at a person, who one thinks tried to frame him but failed? Why not, if one is found not guilty, be angry at a person, who will not accept the jury's verdict and publicly states that he killed his son? Why not be angry at a person, who said it is his goal in life to ruin the other person? What is it an indication of-anger?

I've seen OJS talk about the Goldman's many times in a derogatory and ridiculing way over the years. I've seen him in a interview say that he used to drive by Gil Garcetti's house and scream at him. I see no such anger toward Mark Fuhrman and the LAPD. You think you know that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove; I think I know that he didn't. Two people know for sure -- OJS and Mark Fuhrman. OJ Simpson's lack of anger at Mark Fuhrman is very telling to me. The faces he made at the trial in response to the racial slurs tells me he was acting just like he was acting when he pretended the gloves didn't fit. He was concerned with himself and his freedom -- not racial slurs directed at blacks. It's all about OJ.

[William Anthony]

I've seen OJS talk about the Goldman's many times in a derogatory and ridiculing way over the years. I've seen him in a interview say that he used to drive by Gil Garcetti's house and scream at him. I see no such anger toward Mark Fuhrman and the LAPD. You think you know that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove; I think I know that he didn't. Two people know for sure -- OJS and Mark Fuhrman. OJ Simpson's lack of anger at Mark Fuhrman is very telling to me. The faces he made at the trial in response to the racial slurs tells me he was acting just like he was acting when he pretended the gloves didn't fit. He was concerned with himself and his freedom -- not racial slurs directed at blacks. It's all about OJ.

One thing you can be sure of is that Simpson is Black. Another thing you can be sure of is that MF was convicted of perjury, which may have lessened some of Simpson's anger toward him. Another thing you can be sure of is that Simpson was acquitted and, if LE tried to frame him they were unsuccessful, which may have lessened Simpson's anger toward them. Another thing you can be sure of is that MF moved to Idaho, which might explain why Simpson did not ride by MF's house and scream obscenities.

[tv]

One thing you can be sure of is that Simpson is Black. Another thing you can be sure of is that MF was convicted of perjury, which may have lessened some of Simpson's anger toward him. Another thing you can be sure of is that Simpson was acquitted and, if LE tried to frame him they were unsuccessful, which may have lessened Simpson's anger toward them. Another thing you can be sure of is that MF moved to Idaho, which might explain why Simpson did not ride by MF's house and scream obscenities.

I've heard OJ Simpson publicly criticize the Goldmans, Gil Garcetti, Chris Darden and a few others. I've never seen him express anger at Mark Fuhrman. Why wouldn't he be angry at the man who supposedly framed him for murder, took over a year out of his life, ruined his reputation and caused him to drain his assets defending himself? The only thing that makes sense is that he knows Mark Fuhrman found the evidence exactly where he left all of it during and after the murders. Mark Fuhrman knows and OJ Simpson knows.

[William Anthony]

I've heard OJ Simpson publicly criticize the Goldmans, Gil Garcetti, Chris Darden and a few others. I've never seen him express anger at Mark Fuhrman. Why wouldn't he be angry at the man who supposedly framed him for murder, took over a year out of his life, ruined his reputation and caused him to drain his assets defending himself? The only thing that makes sense is that he knows Mark Fuhrman found the evidence exactly where he left all of it during and after the murders. Mark Fuhrman knows and OJ Simpson knows.

There is no need for Simpson to publicly speak out against MF. The world saw what he was even if they don't want to admit it publicly.

[tv]

There is no need for Simpson to publicly speak out against MF. The world saw what he was even if they don't want to admit it publicly.

Then why did he need to speak out against the Goldmans and Gil Garcetti? One is a DA that was prosecuting a case, which is his job, and the other is a grieving family.

[William Anthony]

Then why did he need to speak out against the Goldmans and Gil Garcetti? One is a DA that was prosecuting a case, which is his job, and the other is a grieving family.

The DA decided to prosecute him just as Mr. Goldman decided to sue him, both of whom were trying to ruin him and suffered no ill effects, as did MF.

[tv]

The DA decided to prosecute him just as Mr. Goldman decided to sue him, both of whom were trying to ruin him and suffered no ill effects, as did MF.

If Det. Fuhrman had done what OJ Simpson's defense accused him off it dwarfed anything that the Goldmans or Gil Garcetti did to him or said about him. Without the evidence that was found there wouldn't have been a charge of murder against him. The perjury charges had nothing to do OJS being charged with murder. Why would the perjury charge keep OJS from speaking out against Mark Fuhrman allegedly planting evidence against him?

[William Anthony]

If Det. Fuhrman had done what OJ Simpson's defense accused him off it dwarfed anything that the Goldmans or Gil Garcetti did to him or said about him. Without the evidence that was found there wouldn't have been a charge of murder against him. The perjury charges had nothing to do OJS being charged with murder. Why would the perjury charge keep OJS from speaking out against Mark Fuhrman allegedly planting evidence against him?

I would have been angry at a DA, who decided to put on such a weak case, and charge me. I have given you the definition of perjury and it had everything to do with the murder trial. MF got what he deserved. If Simpson screamed daily at the top of his lungs about MF framing him, there would be those, who would say that was an indication of guilt, because he protest to much. The prosecution had a chance to put on all their evidence of guilt. They did and they lost.

[tv]

I would have been angry at a DA, who decided to put on such a weak case, and charge me. I have given you the definition of perjury and it had everything to do with the murder trial. MF got what he deserved. If Simpson screamed daily at the top of his lungs about MF framing him, there would be those, who would say that was an indication of guilt, because he protest to much. The prosecution had a chance to put on all their evidence of guilt. They did and they lost.

You're trying to shift the focus of the discussion about why Simpson didn't express anger at Mark Fuhrman to Mark Fuhrman being a perjurer and to Gil Garcetti for prosecuting him. The fact is that Mark Fuhrman found the glove and other evidence and he's the one that OJS should have been angry with if he was innocent. He's not angry with him because he knows that Mark Fuhrman found the evidence that he left behind during and after he killed Ron and Nicole.

[William Anthony]

You're trying to shift the focus of the discussion about why Simpson didn't express anger at Mark Fuhrman to Mark Fuhrman being a perjurer and to Gil Garcetti for prosecuting him. The fact is that Mark Fuhrman found the glove and other evidence and he's the one that OJS should have been angry with if he was innocent. He's not angry with him because he knows that Mark Fuhrman found the evidence that he left behind during and after he killed Ron and Nicole.

He did not hire MF, not put him on the stand, nor did he place his confidence in him. The evidence is that MF may have planted the glove that he, the convicted perjurer, claimed to have found. Perhpaps, Simpson is not as angry at MF, as the others, because MF was exposed to the world. So now you are saying that MF found the evidence that he (MF) left behind during and after he killed Ron and Nicole. That is a novel statement from you. :)

[tv]

He did not hire MF, not put him on the stand, nor did he place his confidence in him. The evidence is that MF may have planted the glove that he, the convicted perjurer, claimed to have found. Perhpaps, Simpson is not as angry at MF, as the others, because MF was exposed to the world. So now you are saying that MF found the evidence that he (MF) left behind during and after he killed Ron and Nicole. That is a novel statement from you. :)

William, this scutiny of every word by you is becoming very annoying. If your goal is to be annoying you've achieved it. :beer:

Not only is OJ Simpson not 'as angry' at Mark Fuhrman, the convicted perjurer, as the others, I've seen no anger expressed by him toward Mark Fuhrman, the convicted perjurer, at all. Maybe I missed it. If you can find and post something along those lines I'd be interested.

[William Anthony]

William, this scutiny of every word by you is becoming very annoying. If your goal is to be annoying you've achieved it. :beer:

Not only is OJ Simpson not 'as angry' at Mark Fuhrman, the convicted perjurer, as the others, I've seen no anger expressed by him toward Mark Fuhrman, the convicted perjurer, at all. Maybe I missed it. If you can find and post something along those lines I'd be interested.

I am not interested in looking for it. I don't think it is significant of proof of anything. :)

[tv]

I am not interested in looking for it. I don't think it is significant of proof of anything. :)

I do. :)

[weezer]

William, this scutiny of every word by you is becoming very annoying. If your goal is to be annoying you've achieved it. :beer:

Not only is OJ Simpson not 'as angry' at Mark Fuhrman, the convicted perjurer, as the others, I've seen no anger expressed by him toward Mark Fuhrman, the convicted perjurer, at all. Maybe I missed it. If you can find and post something along those lines I'd be interested.

you would think that using what orenthal and the criminal defense said happened, the 'evil' person who set the 'frame' in motion would be the most hated wouldn't you? you're right -- I've looked for something from orenthal about Fuhrman and can't find anything. odd. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

I do. :)

Different life experiences I guess.:)

[tv]

you would think that using what orenthal and the criminal defense said happened, the 'evil' person who set the 'frame' in motion would be the most hated wouldn't you? you're right -- I've looked for something from orenthal about Fuhrman and can't find anything. odd. :shrug:

He said in the civil trial that he saw a picture of himself playing golf with Mark Fuhrman but he didn't say it in an angry way...I think it was meant to be funny. If there's something out there I've never seen it.

[tv]

Different life experiences I guess.:)
Not biting. :)

[William Anthony]

He said in the civil trial that he saw a picture of himself playing golf with Mark Fuhrman but he didn't say it in an angry way...I think it was meant to be funny. If there's something out there I've never seen it.

Was it the one that Simpson was hitting MF over the head with a club and MF was hollering "what for"?:)

[tv]

Was it the one that Simpson was hitting MF over the head with a club and MF was hollering "what for"?:)

I notice you portray OJ Simpson as the violent one. Very appropriate. :)

[William Anthony]

I notice you portray OJ Simpson as the violent one. Very appropriate. :)

Oh, I think that fighting words deserve a fight.:)

[tv]

Oh, I think that fighting words deserve a fight.:)

Apparently OJS doesn't feel like any fight with Mark Fuhrman was warranted. Very interesting. On that note, I know there's a NG that's going to come in and say that Simpson's lack of anger at Mark Fuhrman PROVES that he's innocent. LOL -- I know it's coming. :biggrin:

[William Anthony]

Apparently OJS doesn't feel like any fight with Mark Fuhrman was warranted. Very interesting. On that note, I know there's a NG that's going to come in and say that Simpson's lack of anger at Mark Fuhrman PROVES that he's innocent. LOL -- I know it's coming. :biggrin:


Since you like my stories so well, the church I went to as a child accused the pastor of an adulterous affair with a female church member. The Pastor simply said he did not do it. My mother thought he had since he didn't defend himself more vigorously. My father said that the Pastor did not do it but realized that no one would believe him. I guess it depends on what life experiences one has in reaching their respective conclusions.

[tv]

Since you like my stories so well, the church I went to as a child accused the pastor of an adulterous affair with a female church member. The Pastor simply said he did not do it. My mother thought he had since he didn't defend himself more vigorously. My father said that the Pastor did not do it but realized that no one would believe him. I guess it depends on what life experiences one has in reaching their respective conclusions.

This story would relate to OJ Simpson's situation except that he did express anger at some people -- just not at Mark Fuhrman. Besides, we're not talking about his assertion of innocence as in the case of the Pastor -- we're talking about anger at being charged and tried for murder.

[William Anthony]

This story would relate to OJ Simpson's situation except that he did express anger at some people -- just not at Mark Fuhrman. Besides, we're not talking about his assertion of innocence as in the case of the Pastor -- we're talking about anger at being charged and tried for murder.

Oh, the pastor was angry at some. I knew who they were even as a child. I cannot say that it was not in God's design and infinite wisdom for the Pastor to step down. I think it is very analogous when one loses his reputation and life's work, because there have been charges brought against him that cannot be proven, or no proof offered sufficient to substantiate the charges.

[tv]

Oh, the pastor was angry at some. I knew who they were even as a child. I cannot say that it was not in God's design and infinite wisdom for the Pastor to step down. I think it is very analogous when one loses his reputation and life's work, because there have been charges brought against him that cannot be proven, or no proof offered sufficient to substantiate the charges.

Riiiiight. :rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

Riiiiight. :rolleyes:

Finally, some agreement.:)

[tv]

Finally, some agreement.:)

You're fantasizing again. That vivid imagination could get you in trouble one day.

[weezer]

You're fantasizing again. That vivid imagination could get you in trouble one day.

now don't be too harsh tv -- he needs that imagination to mount the orenthal defense! ;)

[William Anthony]

You're fantasizing again. That vivid imagination could get you in trouble one day.

I imagine that you will one day see the light and, if that gets me in trouble, so be it. :)

[tv]

now don't be too harsh tv -- he needs that imagination to mount the orenthal defense! ;)To defend OJ Simpson's innocence it's definitely a requirement. Those with no willingess to suspend disbelief need not apply.

[tv]

I imagine that you will one day see the light and, if that gets me in trouble, so be it. :)

I hope you one day admit that you already see the light. :)

[William Anthony]

I hope you one day admit that you already see the light. :)

I did that when I said there was reasonable doubt. :)

[William Anthony]

More of Susan Brockbank's testimony

"Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Would you agree that appears to be a copy of the label that is on box number 2?

A. Yes, it appears to be.

Q. Now, that piece of carpet, when you examined it for the first time in July, was too big to fit into a paper bag, was it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And it had -- had been rolled up into butcher paper, correct?

A. The carpet itself was kind of folded up.

Q. Um-hum?

A. That was wrapped in butcher paper.

Q. Okay.

And it was scotch-taped?

A. No. The brown tape that you see on the box --

Q. Um-hum?

A. -- it was taped with that.

Q. So it was taped up?

A. Yes.

Q. And isn't it accurate that, in that same box, in July, when you examined the carpet, both Rockingham and Bundy gloves were in the same box?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. Is it also true that the knit cap that you examined was kept in that very same box?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Now, is there -- you would agree that there was evidence from three different scenes kept in that same box together, correct?

A. Yes, I guess there was.

Q. And each time you take something out, they were in bags of course, in the box, correct except for the carpet?

A. Yeah. Each of the items were individually wrapped inside the box.

Q. Each time you open a bag that has an item like a glove, a cap, you check the bag, because oftentimes, stuff falls off of it into the bag, correct?

A. When I'm examining the item, I check inside the bag?

Q. Yeah.

A. Yes.

Q. So -- because that's a frequent occurrence, stuff falling off?

A. Sure.

Q. And, in fact, if you would look closely in this box, you'll see -- why don't you take a look.

There's scotch tape in here. There appears to be some residual of something stuck to the scotch-tape inside.

MR. GELBLUM: I object. There's been no chain of custody preserved on this box.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. GELBLUM: There's been no chain of custody preserved on this box. I don't know where it's been since last year.

THE COURT: Better approach. Approach the bench, then.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.)

THE COURT: You want chain of custody?

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor --

THE COURT: You want chain of custody?

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, I examined the box. They've had the box at their office.

Right?

MR. BLASIER: No. It's been here the whole time.

MR. GELBLUM: No, there's no physical evidence. There was physical evidence at their office.

THE COURT: I'll give you chain of custody.

MR. GELBLUM: Good. I was told by them they took all defense exhibits to their office. If that's not true, that's fine.

MR. BLASIER: No.

MR. GELBLUM: To come right from the courthouse to here. If it came right from the courthouse here, even in the criminal courts building, Your Honor, we had access to it; they had access to it.

I'm not challenging them to use the box. Just the debris in the box doesn't prove anything at this late date. That's all I'm talking about.

THE COURT: You want chain of custody, I'll give you what we have.

MR. GELBLUM: Before you got it, Your Honor, it was in the Criminal Courts Building.

THE COURT: I'll give you what we have.

THE CLERK: I got it from the LAPD, from somebody at SID. I called -- initially, I called my supervisor to try to get him to do it. It took him about a day and a half. He couldn't do anything.

So I called Hank Goldberg. I checked the transcript, and the D.A. that was using the exhibit in the criminal trial is Hank Goldberg. He gave me one number to call.

I called about three people, including Gregory Matheson.

And then I got Mr. Matheson on the phone. I recognized his name as a witness in the case. So I told him I didn't want to talk to him; I had to talk to counsel and to the Court first, that I was trying to locate a box.

And he said, well, the correct person to call for the box is this other person. He gave me the number.

So I called the person at the other number. I got -- I got -- gee, what happened then.

MR. GELBLUM: Is the bottom line, it went from SID to the courthouse?

THE COURT: That's the bottom line?

THE CLERK: The bottom line is, LAPD contacted me.

THE COURT: Went through a lot of trouble just because of that gentleman right there.

MR. P. BAKER: I'm sorry.

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

THE COURT: I take it the objection is withdrawn.

MR. GELBLUM: Yes, Your Honor."

[GreenIce]

That is my understanding.

William,

If this is the theory, then I don't understand how a person could kill two people from behind in less then two minutes, leave the scene and still leave very clear shoeprints? It also makes no sense the shoe prints going in different directions nor the killer did nothing to hide his tracks.

I know there are people who believe Simpson did not committ crime but he was at Rockingham that night. I don't believe Simpson did go to Bundy that night but someone may have to check out the damage.

And Ron Goldman had control/torture wounds, why would the killers want to talk to him if Nicole is the target? And I know the DA's expert gave the excuse that these wounds were inflicted after death, to make sure Ron was dead but that makes no sense. If the killer knew that slashing Nicole's throat did her in, I am pretty sure he would have done the same to Ron.

[GreenIce]

I know now that you must not have watched the criminal trial or have missed the look on Simpson's face when those vile, reprehensible, despicable and demonic words were played in the courtroom. Why be angry at a person, who one thinks tried to frame him but failed? Why not, if one is found not guilty, be angry at a person, who will not accept the jury's verdict and publicly states that he killed his son? Why not be angry at a person, who said it is his goal in life to ruin the other person? What is it an indication of-anger?

William,

Simpson cried during the playing of the tapes. He hated that word and forbade it to be used in his home. His daughter attended Howard University and he was very proud of that.

Perhaps you need to remind some posters that Chris Darden never showed his anger at MF either. IMO, the most telling part about those tapes were the reactions of the white lawyers and the black lawyers. I would not or could not have blamed for any black person to sit back in the court room and watch a bunch of white people squirm with shame and horror. IIRC, Clark for the most part was shielded from the camera by Darden.

I think it is also important to remember that every member of the defense team and every DA knew that MF was a product of the LAPD. They were responsible for this miss--not MF. Like I have posted before, the only thing MF's lawyer would have had to say was that he told the LAPD long ago what he was and why he wanted out before he hurt someone and you didn't believe him---not MF's problem. IMO.

[fgump2]

One thing you can be sure of is that Simpson is Black. Another thing you can be sure of is that MF was convicted of perjury, which may have lessened some of Simpson's anger toward him. Another thing you can be sure of is that Simpson was acquitted and, if LE tried to frame him they were unsuccessful, which may have lessened Simpson's anger toward them. Another thing you can be sure of is that MF moved to Idaho, which might explain why Simpson did not ride by MF's house and scream obscenities.

****************************
Simpson's lack of anger against Fuhrman isn't the only part of his emotional reactions that points to guilt. A lot of reporters during the criminal trial noticed that he would give the Goldmans angry looks, but he showed much less emotion toward the detectives, not just Fuhrman, but also Lange and Vannetter. His Niece, Terri Baker also noticed that.

I think some (WA) have explained his lack of anger against the LAPD because he is afraid to antagonize people who can hurt him. In other words he is a coward afraid to speak his mind. It is odd that he is afraid of the LAPD framing him while he lives in Florida. Another point that I've made before is that if he thinks Lange, Vannetter, Fung, or of the others framed him, why not have some paralegals or some law students look up cases that two or more of the supposed framers worked together on? Law students in other states have found innocent people on death row by studying the cases.

I don't think Orenthal ever showed as much anger against the press as he did against the Goldmans. Does he lack the guts to criticize the press also?

[tv]

****************************
Simpson's lack of anger against Fuhrman isn't the only part of his emotional reactions that points to guilt. A lot of reporters during the criminal trial noticed that he would give the Goldmans angry looks, but he showed much less emotion toward the detectives, not just Fuhrman, but also Lange and Vannetter. His Niece, Terri Baker also noticed that.

I think some (WA) have explained his lack of anger against the LAPD because he is afraid to antagonize people who can hurt him. In other words he is a coward afraid to speak his mind. It is odd that he is afraid of the LAPD framing him while he lives in Florida. Another point that I've made before is that if he thinks Lange, Vannetter, Fung, or of the others framed him, why not have some paralegals or some law students look up cases that two or more of the supposed framers worked together on? Law students in other states have found innocent people on death row by studying the cases.

I don't think Orenthal ever showed as much anger against the press as he did against the Goldmans. Does he lack the guts to criticize the press also?
I don't think OJ Simpson lacks the guts or the gall to do anything. His lack of anger at the LAPD and Mark Fuhrman in particular has stood out for me since the beginning of the trial. IMO, he realizes that they were doing their job and nothing more. He made a less than half-hearted attempt during the civil trial to point the finger at LE but didn't follow through on it. If I were him I would have taken the Private Investigators up on their offer to try to find the real killer free of charge. As far as him looking pained during the Fuhrman tapes it doesn't impress me much. I haven't forgotten that he said "I'm not black, I'm OJ". I'm with you, fg2, if I thought for one minute that someone attempted to frame me for something I didn't do I'd do whatever I could to get to the bottom of it.

[William Anthony]

In case anyone has forgotten, regardless of any attempt to implicate him in the murders and by whom such attempts were made, Simpson was found not guilty and can never be tried for murder again. It seems the only people, who are upset about this, are the ones that can not accept that and look for any reason, which let us not forget that he celebrated his victory, in the remotest places to put their own assumptions on how he should act, to convince themselves that he is guilty. I may not approve of some of his actions but I realize that he cannot be found guilty of murder. I hope that this doesn't offend any one but, based on the presumption of innocence, Simpson will always remain legally innocent, just as the presumption remains with the three young men accused in Natalie Holloway's disappearance. I repeat that I joined this group after seeing the negative and insulting comments made about the criminal jury. I have not seen members, who post on this forum, express an equal amount of anger against the three young men, when most of America believe they are guilty and I ask myself why. However, let us not forget that, because one is angry at someone in power and doesn't say anything does not mean the person isn't angry. Simpson displayed his emotions toward Garcetti and MF fled to Idaho. Let's not forget that Simpson lived in America and Florida is a part of America. Let's not forget that any word Simpson may have said was heard around the world. During the Nevada incident Simpson said that he did not trust LE. Let's not forget that Nevada is part of America and that the Nevada LE said on tape, "California couldn't get him but we will." I think that Simpson displayed an unusual amount of wisdom by not publicly expressing anger at LE or its members, but, in the end, it did not matter, because LE like any other human group were filled with all human virtues and vices.

[William Anthony]

William,

If this is the theory, then I don't understand how a person could kill two people from behind in less then two minutes, leave the scene and still leave very clear shoeprints? It also makes no sense the shoe prints going in different directions nor the killer did nothing to hide his tracks.

I know there are people who believe Simpson did not committ crime but he was at Rockingham that night. I don't believe Simpson did go to Bundy that night but someone may have to check out the damage.

And Ron Goldman had control/torture wounds, why would the killers want to talk to him if Nicole is the target? And I know the DA's expert gave the excuse that these wounds were inflicted after death, to make sure Ron was dead but that makes no sense. If the killer knew that slashing Nicole's throat did her in, I am pretty sure he would have done the same to Ron.

GreenIce,

I think the magnificent one said it best in a few words, "If it doesn't fit,...."

[William Anthony]

William,

Simpson cried during the playing of the tapes. He hated that word and forbade it to be used in his home. His daughter attended Howard University and he was very proud of that.

Perhaps you need to remind some posters that Chris Darden never showed his anger at MF either. IMO, the most telling part about those tapes were the reactions of the white lawyers and the black lawyers. I would not or could not have blamed for any black person to sit back in the court room and watch a bunch of white people squirm with shame and horror. IIRC, Clark for the most part was shielded from the camera by Darden.

I think it is also important to remember that every member of the defense team and every DA knew that MF was a product of the LAPD. They were responsible for this miss--not MF. Like I have posted before, the only thing MF's lawyer would have had to say was that he told the LAPD long ago what he was and why he wanted out before he hurt someone and you didn't believe him---not MF's problem. IMO.

Darden showed embarrassment at the position he was placed in, IMHO. There are some on this board, who are putting what they claim they would have done on Simpson lack of doing what they claim they would have done, to indicate Simpson's guilt. There are some that have been found not guilty and released from prison, who say nothing publicly and express no anger, while others sue and publicly express anger. I don't know what I would do, if I had been placed in Simpson's position. I do know what the evidence indicates, which is reasonable doubt, IMHO. There is credible evidence of planting, IMHO.There are others, who don't feel that there was credible evidence of planting. IMHO, credibility is a matter of life experiences and persuasion.

[William Anthony]

I think there is nothing wrong with people bringing their own set of life experiences to a situation to form a conclusion. I think that we should allow for this and not speak negatively about others' life experiences and conclusions, because the differ from ours, which is why I joined this forum after seeing the negative comments made about the jury. It is one thing to discuss the evidence and quite another to say that someone else has reached the wrong conclusion because they differ with ours, because we believe ours to be right. I felt the need to explain this because some may get te mistaken idea that I think they are wrong for feeling what they feel. I simply offer an alternative way of looking at things before we jump to conclusions, or a rush to judgment.:)

[bobaugust]

There is no evidence that Kato walked directly to the gate box but there is evidence that Kato went to the garage area, stopped, backed out and walked up the driveway. You have to discredit all of Park's testimony where he says that he saw Kato standing and still standing, on the sidewalk, for another minute, before Kato proceeded to walk toward Park and buzz him in to make your imagined speculations work. However, there is nothing in the evidence to support your imagined speculations. You have said the Park realized the his testimony was wrong, which is why I say his memory was suggested. However, when Park admitted that his testimony in the grand jury and preliminary hearing was more accurate because the events were fresher in his mind, the defense trapped him.

The evidence in this case is that when Kaelin came from behind the garage he saw the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

Park was wrong in his pre criminal trial testimony thinking that Kaelin simply stood on the sidewalk between the time he first saw him and the time he saw him go to the gate control box and open the gate. Park never testified in the criminal trial or the civil trial that he saw Kaelin standing on the Ashford sidewalk for a minute or two minutes. The defense didn’t trap Park; they understood he didn’t see Kaelin continue on to the garage. That’s why they never asked him anything about this issue in the criminal trial or in the civil trial.

Park testified in the civil trial that between the time he first saw Kaelin and the time he saw Kaelin open the gate he didn’t pay any attention to Kaelin and never saw where he went.

November 20, 1996 Park
Q. Is that the location where you saw the blond-haired person appear about 30 seconds before you got off the phone?
A. Yes.
Q. Was he a little this way or that way?
A. He was a little bit -- little bit farther back.
Q. Farther back, towards the side?
A. When I first saw him.
Q. When you first saw him. Okay. And when you first saw him -- and did you then see where he went after you first saw him?
A. I didn't pay any attention to him.
Q. Okay. And did he, at that point in time, open the gate for you?
A. No, he didn't.
Q. Okay. So after you saw him, you then saw the person go in the house, and you got off the phone, as you testified to, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, and during this period of time, do you or do you not see this blond-haired person while you're getting off the phone, while you're seeing the other person go into the house?
A. I don't remember that.
Q. You don't remember seeing him, then?
A. I -- after I saw him the first time, I didn't pay any attention to him.
Q. Okay.
Did there come a time when you saw him again?
A. When he opened the gate for me.
Q. That was a little later on?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. We'll get to that. What I'm trying to find out is whether between the time you first saw him and the time you saw him open the gate later on, whether you saw him in between.
A. No.

*

Q. What happened after Mr. Simpson and you stopped talking through the intercom?
A. After that, I got back into the vehicle and waited another 30 seconds.
Q. Did the gate open during that time when you got off the intercom, went in the vehicle, and waited 30 seconds?
A. No, it didn't.
Q. What did you then do?
A. Sat there and waited.
Q. What did you then do?
A. I waited until finally, the white male came and opened the gate for me.
Q. And is this the same white male that you had seen previously?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is the very next time that you had seen him, right?
A. Yes.
(Indicating to Exhibit 116.)
Q. You -- can you tell us by walking up to Exhibit 116 and pointing out where the white male walked up to and how the white male opened the gate for you?
A. He came up the driveway from this direction, and he didn't come up to the gate and open it manually. He -- I guess where it says control box, somewhere over in that area, he hit a button or what-not, and the gate opened.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

And before the grand jury, you were under oath,
27 were you not?
A yes, i was.
28 q that was on june 21, about a week ago; is that
0048
1 correct?
A correct.
2 q and when you testified there, was your memory as
to the events that you saw at the simpson residence better
3 than it was today?
A i would say it is the same.
4 q did you testify on page 257, line 11 in regard to
the individual you described as a male or female today, "and
5 just seconds after that, i saw a black male, six foot one, 100
and -- 200 pounds come from the area that i saw him from, was
6 about a" -- did you give that testimony to the grand jury,
sir?
7 a if it is there, i did.
Q well, do you recall giving that testimony to the
8 grand jury?
A yes, i do.
9 q and was that discrepancy called to your attention
by anyone before you testified today?
10 a i don't understand what --
q has anyone pointed out to you before you
11 testified that before the grand jury you said it was a male
black, and that today you gave testimony that it was either a
12 male or female; you couldn't tell which?
Ms. Clark: Objection, your honor. Nobody has had a
13 chance to point anything out to him. He only just said it
today.
14 the court: The objection is overruled.
The witness: Well, the only thing that i can say here
15 is that the person that i described is six -- six foot, 200
pounds. It just seems to be a pretty big female.
16 by mr. Shapiro:
Q that wasn't my question, sir.
17 did anyone discuss with you the fact that you
might have, on another occasion, said it was either a male or
18 a female; you couldn't tell which?
A yes.
19 q who pointed that out to you?
A who pointed what out?
20 q you testified at the grand jury that it was a
male black; is that correct?
21 a yes.
Q you testified here today that it was a male or
22 female; you couldn't tell which; is that correct?
A yes.
23 q prior to your testimony today, has anyone pointed
out that there may be a discrepancy in the testimony that you
24 gave at the grand jury and the testimony that you were going
to give today?
25 a no.
Q did you ever describe the person as six feet, 180
26 pounds?
A not that i remember.
27 q did you ever describe the other individual as
five ten, 160 pounds?
28 a i could have.
0049
1 q did you ever describe mr. Simpson as coming out
of the house wearing a black overcoat?
2 ms. Clark: Objection. Vague as to time.
The court: Overruled.
3 the witness: Yes, i did.
The court: You can answer the question.
4 the witness: I remember him wearing some kind of a
coat.
5 by mr. Shapiro:
Q did you ever tell anyone that the person who came
6 out was wearing an overcoat, a black overcoat?
A yes, i did.
7 q why didn't you say that when miss clark asked you
how the man was dressed this morning?
8 a i guess i just didn't give full detail.
Q did you say that to the grand jury, that the man
9 was wearing an overcoat?
A i don't remember.
10 q did you read your grand jury testimony before you
testified here?
11 a no, i didn't. No, i didn't.
Q was it shown to you by anyone?
12 a no, it wasn't.
Q did you discuss your testimony before you
13 testified here today with anyone?
A yes. My mom.
14 q other than your mother, did you discuss it with
anyone else?
15 a my boss.
Q other than -- who is your boss?
16 a dale st. John of town and country limo.
Q when did you discuss it with him?
17 a days after.
Q when did you discuss it with your mother?
18 a just a few days after.
Q have you discussed it with anyone else?
19 a the police.
Q how many times did you discuss it with the
20 police?
A i was interviewed once, but there was phone calls
21 for other questions here and there.
Q did you receive the phone calls first or the
22 interview first?
A well, they called me and just asked me to come
23 out.
Q so you didn't discuss anything on the phone?
24 a no.
Q do you recall what date you went down?
25 a the 15th of --
q where did you go?
26 a to the harbor district, the police department
there in san pedro.
27 q what time did you arrive there?
A 9:30, 9:00 o'clock.
28 q to whom did you speak?
0050
1 a to paul tippin and brian carr.
Q how long did you speak with them?
2 a two hours.
Q was that interview tape recorded?
3 a not that i know of.
Q did they have you -- did they take notes of your
4 conversation?
A yes, they did.
5 q did they reduce those notes to a report that you
know of?
6 a no.
Q did they ever have you sign a statement or a
7 report?
A no.
8 q did you meet with them again that day?
A no, i didn't.
9 q did you meet with any other detectives that day?
A no.
10 q is that the only time you have ever met with
detectives?
11 a i met them after that.
Q when did you meet after that?
12 a they were at the grand jury.
Q did they take your statement at the grand jury?
13 a no, they didn't.
Q so you just saw them casually at the grand jury?
14 a yes.
Q so as far as formal statement interviews to any
15 law-enforcement officer whatsoever, you have only given one,
and that was on the 15th?
16 a yes.
Q for two hours?
17 a about.
Q was it before or after that that you talked to
18 your mother?
A it was before.
19 q how much before?
A tuesday.
20 q what time did you talk to your mother?
A after i -- she was there when i was talking over
21 the phone with mr. Simpson's lawyers.
Q when did you talk to mr. Simpson's lawyers?
22 a the 14th, i believe.
Q and was that in the evening?
23 a it was towards the evening, yes.
Q did you place the phone call?
24 a yes. I called them.

[GreenIce]

****************************
Simpson's lack of anger against Fuhrman isn't the only part of his emotional reactions that points to guilt. A lot of reporters during the criminal trial noticed that he would give the Goldmans angry looks, but he showed much less emotion toward the detectives, not just Fuhrman, but also Lange and Vannetter. His Niece, Terri Baker also noticed that.

I think some (WA) have explained his lack of anger against the LAPD because he is afraid to antagonize people who can hurt him. In other words he is a coward afraid to speak his mind. It is odd that he is afraid of the LAPD framing him while he lives in Florida. Another point that I've made before is that if he thinks Lange, Vannetter, Fung, or of the others framed him, why not have some paralegals or some law students look up cases that two or more of the supposed framers worked together on? Law students in other states have found innocent people on death row by studying the cases.

I don't think Orenthal ever showed as much anger against the press as he did against the Goldmans. Does he lack the guts to criticize the press also?

fgump2,

You have made a few comments about me and how I have interpeted their actions and their behavior. I have given my reasons why I feel the way that I do. You post that I am making calls that I simply can't be made because I am not an "expert" in LE or really for that matter anything else. I agree with you that I can't know every detail however, neither can you when it comes to Mr. Simpson's behavior.

From the very beginning Simpson has acknowledged how he has been treated in public, some people hate him and will always think he killed his wife and Ron--however, some of those same people have no problem having their picture taken with "The Juice".

Why would Simpson rant and rave against the LAPD? What does he have to gain by doing this? In his trial we all heard the tapes, we heard Marcia Clark describe what America thinks of MF and how "we" don't even want him on our planet let alone being a cop. What could Simpson or anyone else say that can top what Clark said?

Do you really think he has enough fire power to take on the LAPD already knowing that they paid $100,000.00 to keep MF off the stand in another case where he was accused of planting evidence? MF was allowed to grow and flourish his racial hatered in the LAPD. Do you really think the LAPD wants or the state of CA were serious about prosecuting him?

Mr. Simpson has spoken his mind about the press in several interviews. During one interview, he wanted to talk about the evidence in the case and the interviewer said she did not want to talk about the evidence in the case, she knew what he was going to say but didn't want to hear it. The person who conducted the interview was Catherine Crier. A legal journalist, a former DA and judge doesn't want to talk about the evidence in the case but only wants to hear about Simpson's children? Even then she didn't want to hear how well adjusted they were she only cared that he has never talked to his children about that night. When he explained why he didn't, that was ignored.


How long did it take Mr. Simpson to lay flowers on Nicole's grave after the trial? How long did the media conduct their stake out at it?

Why is Mr. Simpson angry with the Goldmans? What reasons would he have to be angry with them?

There is a set of phone records that would support Mr. Simpson's claims of innocence. However, he has been denied access to them. Why? Why won't the Browns allow those records to be made public?

After the verdict, Gill Garcetti said that they LAPD has closed this case as being solved regardless of the fact that any an aquittal does legally say the case is unsolved.

The consquences of the proof needed to clear Simpson is just too much to bare----if this cased is ever solved and Simpson is innocent, then that is absolute proof, beyond a shadow of doubt for G's to deny that evidence was planted, the cops lied about more then just going over the wall and other agencies were allowed to be trashed and bashed just to protect MF.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

I think the magnificent one said it best in a few words, "If it doesn't fit,...."

William,

Here is another one. Simpson would not have had to use any keys to enter Nicole's property. It is obvious to me that while OJ and Nicole weren't on the best of terms, all he had to do was tell her he was dropping something off for one of the kids or make up another excuse that would not have alerted Nicole.

IMO, the keys were taken by Faye Resnick and she gave them to some one.

[William Anthony]

The evidence in this case is that when Kaelin came from behind the garage he saw the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

Park was wrong in his pre criminal trial testimony thinking that Kaelin simply stood on the sidewalk between the time he first saw him and the time he saw him go to the gate control box and open the gate. Park never testified in the criminal trial or the civil trial that he saw Kaelin standing on the Ashford sidewalk for a minute or two minutes. The defense didn’t trap Park; they understood he didn’t see Kaelin continue on to the garage. That’s why they never asked him anything about this issue in the criminal trial or in the civil trial.

Park testified in the civil trial that between the time he first saw Kaelin and the time he saw Kaelin open the gate he didn’t pay any attention to Kaelin and never saw where he went.

November 20, 1996 Park
Q. Is that the location where you saw the blond-haired person appear about 30 seconds before you got off the phone?
A. Yes.
Q. Was he a little this way or that way?
A. He was a little bit -- little bit farther back.
Q. Farther back, towards the side?
A. When I first saw him.
Q. When you first saw him. Okay. And when you first saw him -- and did you then see where he went after you first saw him?
A. I didn't pay any attention to him.
Q. Okay. And did he, at that point in time, open the gate for you?
A. No, he didn't.
Q. Okay. So after you saw him, you then saw the person go in the house, and you got off the phone, as you testified to, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, and during this period of time, do you or do you not see this blond-haired person while you're getting off the phone, while you're seeing the other person go into the house?
A. I don't remember that.
Q. You don't remember seeing him, then?
A. I -- after I saw him the first time, I didn't pay any attention to him. (First time he said that-suggested)
Q. Okay.
Did there come a time when you saw him again?
A. When he opened the gate for me.
Q. That was a little later on?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. We'll get to that. What I'm trying to find out is whether between the time you first saw him and the time you saw him open the gate later on, whether you saw him in between.
A. No.

*

Q. What happened after Mr. Simpson and you stopped talking through the intercom?
A. After that, I got back into the vehicle and waited another 30 seconds.
Q. Did the gate open during that time when you got off the intercom, went in the vehicle, and waited 30 seconds?
A. No, it didn't.
Q. What did you then do?
A. Sat there and waited.
Q. What did you then do?
A. I waited until finally, the white male came and opened the gate for me.
Q. And is this the same white male that you had seen previously?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is the very next time that you had seen him, right?
A. Yes.
(Indicating to Exhibit 116.)
Q. You -- can you tell us by walking up to Exhibit 116 and pointing out where the white male walked up to and how the white male opened the gate for you?
A. He came up the driveway from this direction, and he didn't come up to the gate and open it manually. He -- I guess where it says control box, somewhere over in that area, he hit a button or what-not, and the gate opened. (contradicted by all his previous testimonies-suggested.)

bobaugust

I was going to post all of Park's testimonies to support that his memories were suggested but I chose to first post the questions about his interviews, discussing his testimony and see the changes that RS noticed. Thank you for posting the civil trial testimony as it will show how his memory changed and provides evidence it was suggested.




Grand Jury

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.

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. (You see that he saw Kato standing for another minute)

Criminal Trial

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.

Preliminary hearing

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.

Criminal Trial

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. (Clear but now adds from what I observed-suggested)

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]

Bobaugust,

I understand why you did not want to post the cross on that issue.:) Mr. Baker did a wonderful job of showing how Park slanted his testimony but he did not, which he should have done, IMHO, point to Park's prior testimonies.

"Q. So your senses are pretty good, and you're scanning the whole area to see whether or not there's any movement, any activity whatsoever, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. All right. And so virtually simultaneously you see Mr. Kaelin at an area where the path intersects the driveway, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you saw Mr. Simpson for a fleeting second going into the house, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And it's your testimony in this courtroom, sir, that you didn't pay attention to anything that Mr. Kaelin did after that fleeting second, you just sat in your car?

A. That's correct.

Q. And Mr. Kaelin was now -- by now Mr. Simpson has entered his residence, hasn't he?

A. I'd assume, yes.

Q. And you're still out there scanning the interior of Rockingham and you don't pay attention to what Mr. Kaelin does?

A. No, not the whole time. After the person went into the house, I figured somebody was there and I was a little bit more relaxed and wasn't even looking through the gate any more, I was looking at the dashboard and just talking on the phone.

Q. So you have a clear recollection as you sit here now, some two and a half years later, that it wasn't any concern of yours to see where Mr. Kaelin went, to see whether or not he was going to open the gate, and now you got relaxed and you have a recollection of looking at the dashboard. Had the dashboard moved in the interim?

A. No.

Q. All right. And there was no -- there certainly wouldn't have been, Mr. Park, any additional information on the dashboard that hadn't been there for the minute you'd been up there, correct?

A. True.

Q. All right. Now, then you -- some minutes later Mr. Kaelin opens the gate for you?

A. About a minute.

Q. Okay. So you saw him at the point where the green arrow is on the exhibit, and you then -- there was no other activity, you looked away, and approximately a minute later you see Mr. Kaelin at the gate control box, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you don't know what happened to Mr. Kaelin during the whole other time, right?

A. Don't really care.

Q. Okay. And whether you care or not, you don't know?

A. Don't know.

Q. And in that 60 seconds you hadn't observed him walking in any direction, north, south, east, or west, or any variations thereof, true?

A. True.

Do you see the value of cross examination? Park could not have seen Kato walking up the driveway as he testified in the portion you quoted but, in case you do not feel like looking, here it is.

"A. He came up the driveway from this direction, and he didn't come up to the gate and open it manually. He -- I guess where it says control box, somewhere over in that area, he hit a button or what-not, and the gate opened."

[William Anthony]

William,

Here is another one. Simpson would not have had to use any keys to enter Nicole's property. It is obvious to me that while OJ and Nicole weren't on the best of terms, all he had to do was tell her he was dropping something off for one of the kids or make up another excuse that would not have alerted Nicole.

IMO, the keys were taken by Faye Resnick and she gave them to some one.

GreenIce,

I had forgotten about the shoe print that was found going in the opposite direction. Thanks for the reminder.

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

Amazingly, two and a half years later, Park remembers that he did not see Kato, stop, stand and wave. Park simply did not pay attention to Kato. I have a 1000 acres of ocean front property that I am selling for $500 dollars.:)

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

Amazingly, two and a half years later, Park remembers that he did not see Kato, stop, stand and wave, but saw him walking and did not see him walking. Park simply did not pay attention to Kato, according to you and Park. I have a 1000 acres of ocean front property that I am selling for $500 dollars.:)

[tv]

Darden showed embarrassment at the position he was placed in, IMHO. There are some on this board, who are putting what they claim they would have done on Simpson lack of doing what they claim they would have done, to indicate Simpson's guilt. There are some that have been found not guilty and released from prison, who say nothing publicly and express no anger, while others sue and publicly express anger. I don't know what I would do, if I had been placed in Simpson's position. I do know what the evidence indicates, which is reasonable doubt, IMHO. There is credible evidence of planting, IMHO.There are others, who don't feel that there was credible evidence of planting. IMHO, credibility is a matter of life experiences and persuasion.

I couldn't help but see the quote of the person I have on ignore so I'll address one part of her post. I'm not impressed that Simpson didn't allow the N word in his home. Any black person with a shred of self-respect shouldn't allow it. I don't allow it in my home either. My children never once heard it in my home while they were growing up and it's not a word they use now. On the other hand, I hear it was a common word thrown about in Johnnie's office.

Darden shouldn't have been embarrassed by the position he was in. He was a prosecutor who allowed his skin color to affect his job. Not good.

[William Anthony]

I couldn't help but see the quote of the person I have on ignore so I'll address one part of her post. I'm not impressed that Simpson didn't allow the N word in his home. Any black person with a shred of self-respect shouldn't allow it. I don't allow it in my home either. My children never once heard it in my home while they were growing up and it's not a word they use now. On the other hand, I hear it was a common word thrown about in Johnnie's office.

Darden shouldn't have been embarrassed by the position he was in. He was a prosecutor who allowed his skin color to affect his job. Not good.

Darden was a prosecutor, who did not realize or may not have wanted to realize that his skin color affected his job, IMHO.

[tv]

Darden was a prosecutor, who did not realize or may not have wanted to realize that his skin color affected his job, IMHO.

IMHO, that's the kind of thinking that contributes to the racial divide in this country.

[William Anthony]

IMHO, that's the kind of thinking that contributes to the racial divide in this country.

I couldn't agree more and maybe this will change as Blacks are now in the highest position in the land but rest assured his job performance will be highly scrutinized and I pray that he is successful so that method of thinking will be obliterated and a Black man will not have to think and feel compelled to preform twice as good as a Caucasian in order to retain a job.

[tv]

I couldn't agree more and maybe this will change as Blacks are now in the highest position in the land but rest assured his job performance will be highly scrutinized and I pray that he is successful so that method of thinking will be obliterated and a Black man will not have to think and feel compelled to preform twice as good as a Caucasian in order to retain a job.

I'm sorry to tell you this but I've worked with people, both black and white, that only did half what they were required to do and kept their jobs. All president's job performances are highly scrutinized. IMO, he's undergoing less scrutiny than most. If our last president had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia...:rolleyes:

[William Anthony]

I'm sorry to tell you this but I've worked with people, both black and white, that only did half what they were required to do and kept their jobs. All president's job performances are highly scrutinized. IMO, he's undergoing less scrutiny than most. If our last president had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia...:rolleyes:

Thanks again for proving my point. Bush walked arm and arm with him but yet you did not see this until President Obama allegedly bowed. I think that we all must realize that the new President ran on a platform of change and to me that meant he was doing away with the concept of manifest destiny. However, to show what I meant in my previous post, I supply this.

http://www.hispanicprwire.com/external_sites/prsa_in.php?id=4339

[tv]

Thanks again for proving my point. Bush walked arm and arm with him but yet you did not see this until President Obama allegedly bowed. I think that we all must realize that the new President ran on a platform of change and to me that meant he was doing away with the concept of manifest destiny. However, to show what I meant in my previous post, I supply this.

http://www.hispanicprwire.com/external_sites/prsa_in.php?id=4339

I'm not getting into a deep discussion on racial issues on this forum. Past experience has shown me it's not a good idea. I was aware of the 'arm in arm' thing with Bush before the bow. Walking arm in arm means the two people are on an equal footing. The bow was an act of submission. BTW, allegedly bowed? Come on, William, his rear end was in the camera and you couldn't even see his head...LOL.

[William Anthony]

I'm not getting into a deep discussion on racial issues on this forum. Past experience has shown me it's not a good idea. I was aware of the 'arm in arm' thing with Bush before the bow. Walking arm in arm means the two people are on an equal footing. The bow was an act of submission.

The general thinking is that there should not have been any show that places Saudi Arabia on equal footing with the United States. However, I saw the alleged bow as a sign of respect, just as I saw walking arm in arm as sign of respect. I did not see either as an act of submission but as a recognition. One might say that when you looked at Bush's rear end you were seeing his head, smile.

[tv]

The general thinking is that there should not have been any show that places Saudi Arabia on equal footing with the United States. However, I saw the alleged bow as a sign of respect, just as I saw walking arm in arm as sign of respect. I did not see either as an act of submission but as a recognition.If it was a sign of respect why didn't he bow to Queen Elizabeth? Does he not respect her? I don't think a country that treats women the way SA does deserves to bowed down to by our president.

[William Anthony]

If it was a sign of respect why didn't he bow to Queen Elizabeth? Does he not respect her? I don't think a country that treats women the way SA does deserves to bowed down to by our president.

She has been bowed to enough by our Presidents, IMHO or at least their Prime Ministers have.

[tv]

She has been bowed to enough by our Presidents, IMHO or at least their Prime Ministers have.

It was just another incident of him snubbing the Brits. Let's not forget the Ipod and the DVDs that won't even work in Great Britain. You can't seriously believe that Saudi Arabia deserves our respect over Great Britain?

[William Anthony]

It was just another incident of him snubbing the Brits. Let's not forget the Ipod and the DVDs that won't even work in Great Britain. You can't seriously believe that Saudia Arabia deserves our respect over Great Britain?

I remember the celebration that President Reagan and Ms. Thatcher had over the bombing of Grenada and the Falklands. I think President Obama is working hard to remove the image of the arrogant Americans as he should.

[tv]

I remember the celebration that President Reagan and Ms. Thatcher had over the bombing of Grenada and the Falklands. I think President Obama is working hard to remove the image of the arrogant Americans as he should.

LOL...there's bigger differences between us than skin color. I know you like me for my sparkling personality in spite of your politics. With that said, I'm not talking about race or politics anymore today. :)

[William Anthony]

LOL...there's bigger differences between us than skin color. I know you like me for my sparkling personality in spite of your politics. With that said, I'm not talking about race or politics anymore today. :)

Of course there is a bigger difference between us than skin color. I will try not to talk of race but we can agree on not talking politics.:)

[tv]

Of course there is a bigger difference between us than skin color. I will try not to talk of race but we can agree on not talking politics.:)

You can talk of race all you like, of course. I'll mention it if it relates to the case. Other than that, I've wised up about getting into a race discussion in this forum. I prefer not to use myself for target practice. :)

[William Anthony]

You can talk of race all you like, of course. I'll mention it if it relates to the case. Other than that, I've wised up about getting into a race discussion in this forum. I prefer not to use myself for target practice. :)

I meant race as it involves the case. :)

[tv]

I meant race as it involves the case. :)

I meant race as it involves this case but only in a superficial way -- for example: OJS is black. Very simple. :)

[William Anthony]

I meant race as it involves this case but only in a superficial way -- for example: OJS is black. Very simple. :)

If it were that simple then we would not being having so much discord over the criminal verdict, IMHO.:)

[tv]

If it were that simple then we would not being having so much discord over the criminal verdict, IMHO.:)

You mean the verdict where the jury was so impressed with his celebrity that they couldn't convict? The same jury that attended the victory party at the defendant's house?

[William Anthony]

You mean the verdict where the jury was so impressed with his celebrity that they couldn't convict? The same jury that attended the victory party at the defendant's house?

I mean the verdict where the jury saw through all the alleged sloppiness, carelessness, human error and mistakes and lies of the prosecution and LE and concluded there was reasonable doubt and chose to celebrate the fact that justice had been done.

[William Anthony]

This is a court of law
, young man, not a court of justice.
Oliver Wendell Holmes

[Kate Sachel]

William,

Simpson cried during the playing of the tapes. He hated that word and forbade it to be used in his home. His daughter attended Howard University and he was very proud of that.

Perhaps you need to remind some posters that Chris Darden never showed his anger at MF either. IMO, the most telling part about those tapes were the reactions of the white lawyers and the black lawyers. I would not or could not have blamed for any black person to sit back in the court room and watch a bunch of white people squirm with shame and horror. IIRC, Clark for the most part was shielded from the camera by Darden.

I think it is also important to remember that every member of the defense team and every DA knew that MF was a product of the LAPD. They were responsible for this miss--not MF. Like I have posted before, the only thing MF's lawyer would have had to say was that he told the LAPD long ago what he was and why he wanted out before he hurt someone and you didn't believe him---not MF's problem. IMO.

It is quite interesting to me to have read interviews with Joe Kolkowitz and Tom McCollum in which they spoke about the fact that, in their group, OJ was referred to as their "token n***er". Apparently he did not despise the word all that much if he allowed his white friends to refer to him as such.

More importantly, you cannot absolve Mark Fuhrman just because others "knew" what he was and put those burdens elsewhere; it's wholly irresponsible.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I couldn't agree more and maybe this will change as Blacks are now in the highest position in the land but rest assured his job performance will be highly scrutinized and I pray that he is successful so that method of thinking will be obliterated and a Black man will not have to think and feel compelled to preform twice as good as a Caucasian in order to retain a job.

Let us also recall that President Obama is indeed "half" white regardless of whether he is referred to as a Black man.

Kate

[William Anthony]

Let us also recall that President Obama is indeed "half" white regardless of whether he is referred to as a Black man.

Kate

I agree that President Obama is of mixed race parentage but I am not sure that it is half and half. While the White portion may have made him more acceptable to vote for to some, there is no doubt that he is Black. My fear is that he will be judged by the uneven measuring stick that Black men have been judged for years as it relates to his job performance in comparison to his all White counterparts.

[Redmama]

I agree that President Obama is of mixed race parentage but I am not sure that it is half and half. While the White portion may have made him more acceptable to vote for to some, there is no doubt that he is Black. My fear is that he will be judged by the uneven measuring stick that Black men have been judged for years as it relates to his job performance in comparison to his all White counterparts.

My vote had nothing to do with race - as for the rest of the post, I completely disagree - imo, he will continue to be judged fairly - he is doing a great job.

[fgump2]

William,

If this is the theory, then I don't understand how a person could kill two people from behind in less then two minutes, leave the scene and still leave very clear shoeprints? It also makes no sense the shoe prints going in different directions nor the killer did nothing to hide his tracks.

I know there are people who believe Simpson did not committ crime but he was at Rockingham that night. I don't believe Simpson did go to Bundy that night but someone may have to check out the damage.

And Ron Goldman had control/torture wounds, why would the killers want to talk to him if Nicole is the target? And I know the DA's expert gave the excuse that these wounds were inflicted after death, to make sure Ron was dead but that makes no sense. If the killer knew that slashing Nicole's throat did her in, I am pretty sure he would have done the same to Ron.
If a person is angry enough to kil someone, it should not be surprising that some of what he did wasn't 100% logical to others. We can't know what was on the killer's mind. John Douglas of the FBI and another murder scene expert, Deitz, both said that based on the wounds, Nicole was the main target, with Ron simply being there at the wrong time. Maybe the killer (Orenthal) was being sadistic, espressing his scorn. if you interepet the evidence differently, maybe you should write a letter to John Douglas or Deitz about it.

[William Anthony]

My vote had nothing to do with race - as for the rest of the post, I completely disagree - imo, he will continue to be judged fairly - he is doing a great job.

I did not say that you were one the ones who found his White parentage more acceptable to vote for. I said it was my fear that he would not be judged equally not fairly.

[fgump2]

In case anyone has forgotten, regardless of any attempt to implicate him in the murders and by whom such attempts were made, Simpson was found not guilty and can never be tried for murder again. It seems the only people, who are upset about this, are the ones that can not accept that and look for any reason, which let us not forget that he celebrated his victory, in the remotest places to put their own assumptions on how he should act, to convince themselves that he is guilty. I may not approve of some of his actions but I realize that he cannot be found guilty of murder. I hope that this doesn't offend any one but, based on the presumption of innocence, Simpson will always remain legally innocent, just as the presumption remains with the three young men accused in Natalie Holloway's disappearance. I repeat that I joined this group after seeing the negative and insulting comments made about the criminal jury. I have not seen members, who post on this forum, express an equal amount of anger against the three young men, when most of America believe they are guilty and I ask myself why. However, let us not forget that, because one is angry at someone in power and doesn't say anything does not mean the person isn't angry. Simpson displayed his emotions toward Garcetti and MF fled to Idaho. Let's not forget that Simpson lived in America and Florida is a part of America. Let's not forget that any word Simpson may have said was heard around the world. During the Nevada incident Simpson said that he did not trust LE. Let's not forget that Nevada is part of America and that the Nevada LE said on tape, "California couldn't get him but we will." I think that Simpson displayed an unusual amount of wisdom by not publicly expressing anger at LE or its members, but, in the end, it did not matter, because LE like any other human group were filled with all human virtues and vices.
I think it is inconsistent for you to act as though the 1995 criminal trial should be more or less above criticism, and you should refer to the 1996 civil trial as a socio politcal action or some such thing. As far as I know, almost all lawyers say that if a person thinks Orenthal Simpson killed Nicole and Ron, they are justified in saying so. You seem to have no trouble insulting the actions and motives of judges and jurors you don't agree with. I didn't pay much attention to the Nevada situation. I am not of the opinion that either judges or juries are devinely inspired.

[William Anthony]

If a person is angry enough to kil someone, it should not be surprising that some of what he did wasn't 100% logical to others. We can't know what was on the killer's mind. John Douglas of the FBI and another murder scene expert, Deitz, both said that based on the wounds, Nicole was the main target, with Ron simply being there at the wrong time. Maybe the killer (Orenthal) was being sadistic, espressing his scorn. if you interepet the evidence differently, maybe you should write a letter to John Douglas or Deitz about it.

If we can't know what was on the killer's mind, how can the so-called experts say who was the main target? They are simply offering opinions the same as any other person, IMHO.

[fgump2]

William,

Here is another one. Simpson would not have had to use any keys to enter Nicole's property. It is obvious to me that while OJ and Nicole weren't on the best of terms, all he had to do was tell her he was dropping something off for one of the kids or make up another excuse that would not have alerted Nicole.
If Simpson was coming over there to do something illegal he would not have wanted to alert anyone to the trip by giving anyone an excuse.

IMO, the keys were taken by Faye Resnick and she gave them to some one.

Do you have any evidence that Faye too the keys, or is it just a convenient assumption because you want to see Orenthal as innocent? If Faye took the keys it is odd that some keys that could have been those keys were in A. Cowlings bronco, and neither AC nor OJS admitted to putting they keys there.

[William Anthony]

I think it is inconsistent for you to act as though the 1995 criminal trial should be more or less above criticism, and you should refer to the 1996 civil trial as a socio politcal action or some such thing. As far as I know, almost all lawyers say that if a person thinks Orenthal Simpson killed Nicole and Ron, they are justified in saying so. You seem to have no trouble insulting the actions and motives of judges and jurors you don't agree with. I didn't pay much attention to the Nevada situation. I am not of the opinion that either judges or juries are devinely inspired.

I see now that you no not of what you speak when it comes to me. :) I have never criticized the civil jury. I have criticized the rulings in the socio political production, which is why it is my opinion that it was just that. I have never been of the opinion that the criminal trial was above criticism. In fact I have criticized it myself. This is America and everyone is allowed to voice what they think, even those that think Simpson is not guilty.

[William Anthony]

Do you have any evidence that Faye too the keys, or is it just a convenient assumption because you want to see Orenthal as innocent? If Faye took the keys it is odd that some keys that could have been those keys were in A. Cowlings bronco, and neither AC nor OJS admitted to putting they keys there.

Do you have any evidence that I insulted any jury.

[Redmama]

I did not say that you were one the ones who found his White parentage more acceptable to vote for. I said it was my fear that he would not be judged equally not fairly.

What I said was that his white or black parentage had no impact on me - and I was just stating I did not agree that he is or would not be judged fairly.

[William Anthony]

What I said was that his white or black parentage had no impact on me - and I was just stating I did not agree that he is or would not be judged fairly.

Ah, that inexact language thing, again has reared it's head. I appreciate that color played no part in your voting decision. I have never said that he would not be judged fairly or equally. However, let's say that you are a boss and you judge a White person's performance as fair, when he missed ten days of work and you judge a Black person's performance as fair when he missed ten days of work. You have judged their work performances fairly. However, let's say the Black person's missed days were all due to illness and he had a doctor's excuse for each day whereas the White did not have any doctor's excuses or any excuse related to illness. Then you have not judged them equally, IMHO. If he does a poor job, it is fair to say so. I hope and pray that he is successful due to the impact that it may have on future Blacks that may desire to run for the office.

[tv]

My vote had nothing to do with race - as for the rest of the post, I completely disagree - imo, he will continue to be judged fairly - he is doing a great job.

Hi Redmama! It's nice to see you posting. :seeya:

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

Let's look at how Park's testimony changed from the grand jury to the socio political production.

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.




A. I -- after I saw him the first time, I didn't pay any attention to him.

Q. All right. And there was no -- there certainly wouldn't have been, Mr. Park, any additional information on the dashboard that hadn't been there for the minute you'd been up there, correct?

A. True.

Q. All right. Now, then you -- some minutes later Mr. Kaelin opens the gate for you?

A. About a minute.

Q. Okay. So you saw him at the point where the green arrow is on the exhibit, and you then -- there was no other activity, you looked away, and approximately a minute later you see Mr. Kaelin at the gate control box, right?

A. Yes.

You do understand now that Park's socio political production testimony contradicts your assertion that Kato was gone for two minutes doing his first cursory search and is consistent with what I said the testimony was, even though the evidence that the criminal jury heard is that Kato had completed his first cursory search when Park saw him. What I am saying is that by your assertion, which I corrected with the times, Kato could have only have been gone a minute, although the testimony, which was closer in time to the events, which would have been fresher in Park's mind is that Kato stood there for approximately a minute and a half before proceeding to open the gate.

[Redmama]

Hi Redmama! It's nice to see you posting. :seeya:

Thanks! I read a lot - just have not been posting...

[Redmama]

Ah, that inexact language thing, again has reared it's head. I appreciate that color played no part in your voting decision. I have never said that he would not be judged fairly or equally. However, let's say that you are a boss and you judge a White person's performance as fair, when he missed ten days of work and you judge a Black person's performance as fair when he missed ten days of work. You have judged their work performances fairly. However, let's say the Black person's missed days were all due to illness and he had a doctor's excuse for each day whereas the White did not have any doctor's excuses or any excuse related to illness. Then you have not judged them equally, IMHO. If he does a poor job, it is fair to say so. I hope and pray that he is successful due to the impact that it may have on future Blacks that may desire to run for the office.

I didn't say anything inexact. As for your scenario...wouldn't happen in my life.

[tv]

Thanks! I read a lot - just have not been posting...

I thought I saw you a couple of times -- I'm glad you decided to post. :)

[Kate Sachel]

Ah, that inexact language thing, again has reared it's head. I appreciate that color played no part in your voting decision. I have never said that he would not be judged fairly or equally. However, let's say that you are a boss and you judge a White person's performance as fair, when he missed ten days of work and you judge a Black person's performance as fair when he missed ten days of work. You have judged their work performances fairly. However, let's say the Black person's missed days were all due to illness and he had a doctor's excuse for each day whereas the White did not have any doctor's excuses or any excuse related to illness. Then you have not judged them equally, IMHO. If he does a poor job, it is fair to say so. I hope and pray that he is successful due to the impact that it may have on future Blacks that may desire to run for the office.

I simply hope that he is successful for the sake of my future and for all generations that follow behind.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

I didn't say anything inexact. As for your scenario...wouldn't happen in my life.

It is wonderful to see you grace the forum once again.

Kate

[William Anthony]

I simply hope that he is successful for the sake of my future and for all generations that follow behind.

Kate

Likewise. I am also hopeful that he sets a wonderful precedent so that a man may be judged by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin.
There are many reasons to hope for his success.

[weezer]

Thanks! I read a lot - just have not been posting...

hey, hey, hey -- it's redmama! good to see you.

[Redmama]

hey, hey, hey -- it's redmama! good to see you.

Thanks to all of you!!

[bobaugust]

Do you see the value of cross examination? Park could not have seen Kato walking up the driveway as he testified in the portion you quoted but, in case you do not feel like looking, here it is.

"A. He came up the driveway from this direction, and he didn't come up to the gate and open it manually. He -- I guess where it says control box, somewhere over in that area, he hit a button or what-not, and the gate opened."

Park testified that after he spoke with Simpson on the intercom and after he went back to the limo he continued to wait to be let in until he saw Kaelin go to the gate control box and open the gate. In the civil trial Park pointed out on an exhibit of the Rockingham estate that Kaelin came “up” the driveway and what direction he came from when he saw Kaelin go to the gate control box. That is exactly what Kaelin said he did when he returned from behind the garage looking at an exhibit of the Rockingham estate.

Why didn’t any other of Simpson’s attorneys refer to Park’s pre criminal trial testimony? Because they all understood Park’s pre criminal trial testimony as to what Park thought Kaelin did after he saw Simpson enter his house was wrong. They all knew that from what Kaelin said he did. In the criminal trial and the civil trial Park never repeated that mistaken part of his testimony because he evidently realized he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin. Park could not testify to something he never saw.

The evidence in this case is that Park first saw Kaelin that night when Kaelin came from behind the house down the Ashford path with a flashlight.

The evidence in this case is that when Kaelin returned from his first trip to behind the garage he saw the limo was still parked outside the gate so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

No defense attorney in this case ever disputed these two facts or claimed that Park or Kaelin were mistaken about this.

Only you William refuse to believe this undisputed evidence because you understand that it’s consistent with Simpson having caused the noises on Kaelin’s back wall. So you created your own imaginary convoluted scenario based only on Park’s mistaken pre criminal trial testimony. Then you falsely claimed that Park was mistaken and did not see Kaelin come from behind the house because what you have imagined supposedly raises “reasonable doubt” for you.

You also falsely claimed that when Kaelin came out from behind the garage he returned to the Ashford sidewalk and stayed there for about two minutes before he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. Again you based that claim on Park’s mistaken testimony as well the comment that no one ever asked Kaelin if that was what he did. Wow.

Your claims William are imaginary and false, contradicted by both Park and Kaelin’s testimony. As well as the fact that no defense attorney in this case ever suggested, insinuated or claimed Park was mistaken about where he first saw Kaelin that night or that Kaelin was mistaken about what he said he did when he returned from behind the garage.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

Do you have any evidence that Faye too the keys, or is it just a convenient assumption because you want to see Orenthal as innocent? If Faye took the keys it is odd that some keys that could have been those keys were in A. Cowlings bronco, and neither AC nor OJS admitted to putting they keys there.

fgump2,

Simpson would not have had to steal her keys to gain access to Nicole's property or to Nicole for that matter. Simpson had no reason to steal her keys.

Nicole did look through Faye's purse during the intervention for the keys. IMO, this means that Nicole strongly believed that Faye would have stolen her keys. I believe the garage door opener was never found. However, Simpson did tell the police what Nicole's habits were on this. There were times she would leave the garage door opener out side so her guests could let themselves into the garage. Nicole would also leave the door open so she would not have to come to the gate to let people in.

Bottom line, it would have to proved that Simpson did have a set of Nicole's keys the night of the murders. However, if he did, the question would be why the DA's never introduced this into their case.

IIRC, AC helped Nicole's family mover her belongs out of the condo, it is possible that AC was given a set of keys.

[bobaugust]

fgump2,

Simpson would not have had to steal her keys to gain access to Nicole's property or to Nicole for that matter. Simpson had no reason to steal her keys.

Nicole did look through Faye's purse during the intervention for the keys. IMO, this means that Nicole strongly believed that Faye would have stolen her keys. I believe the garage door opener was never found. However, Simpson did tell the police what Nicole's habits were on this. There were times she would leave the garage door opener out side so her guests could let themselves into the garage. Nicole would also leave the door open so she would not have to come to the gate to let people in.

Bottom line, it would have to proved that Simpson did have a set of Nicole's keys the night of the murders. However, if he did, the question would be why the DA's never introduced this into their case.

IIRC, AC helped Nicole's family mover her belongs out of the condo, it is possible that AC was given a set of keys.

Evidence Dismissed, Lange & Vannatter

“Before Lange left the Brown's home, Juditha also tells him that Nicole had complained less than two weeks before the murders that an extra set of two keys to her house was missing. Each key fits both Nicole's front door and front gate. Nicole believed that Simpson has stolen them.

Within days after Lange's interview with the Brown family, while examining the times on the official property report seized from Cowlings Bronco on the night of Simpson's arrest, Lange and Vannatter focus on a second set of two keys found in Simpson's possession at the time of his arrest, which were still unidentified. They wondered if there is a connection with Brown's missing keys.

Talking to other sources, Lange and Vannatter learn that on June 8, four days before the murders, Brown had attended a personal intervention for a close friend, Faye Resnick, who was badly strung out on cocaine. While at Resnick's home, Brown was still concerned about her missing set of two extra keys. Resnick stayed with Brown for a short period of time and left on Friday, June 3. While at Resnick's home, Brown went through Resnick's purse to see if she had the keys. Resnick did not have them. And that concerned Nicole even more, because she feared that Simpson really might have taken them.

The two detectives open their official investigation of the extra set of keys shortly after Lange's June 22 interview with the Browns. Earlier, Lou Brown had told Lange that on Friday, June 17, he had changed the locks on her condominium and discarded the old locks and keys. Consequently, the old locks no longer exist, so the keys Simpson had cannot be checked.

However Lange and Vannatter obtain Nicole Brown's original key from Cora Fischman, one of Nicole's neighbors, who kept an extra set in case of an emergency. Using this key,
Lange and Vannatter have a lock constructed which that key will fit.

Then, the detectives take the two keys in Simpson's possession and insert them in the newly constructed lock.

Both keys fit the lock perfectly. In fact, they are identical keys that would have fit all of the residential doors at Nicole Brown's home, as well as her front gate.

In other words Simpson had two identical keys to Nicole's front gate and front door in his possession at the time of his arrest. To Lange and Vannatter, this is even more damning evidence against Simpson.”

AC Cowlings Deposition
April 17, 1996

Q: Do you know whether Mr. Simpson ever had a key to her condo after her death on June 12th, 1994?
A: No.
Q: No, he did not?
A: I didn't know if he had a key or not. I mean, personally I didn't know if he had a key, no.
Q: Okay. You never had a key, though?
A: No, I never had a key, sir.
Q: To this day as we sit here?
A: To this day as we sit here, I do not have a key to Nicole's condo

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Park testified that after he spoke with Simpson on the intercom and after he went back to the limo he continued to wait to be let in until he saw Kaelin go to the gate control box and open the gate. In the civil trial Park pointed out on an exhibit of the Rockingham estate that Kaelin came “up” the driveway and what direction he came from when he saw Kaelin go to the gate control box. That is exactly what Kaelin said he did when he returned from behind the garage looking at an exhibit of the Rockingham estate.

Why didn’t any other of Simpson’s attorneys refer to Park’s pre criminal trial testimony? Because they all understood Park’s pre criminal trial testimony as to what Park thought Kaelin did after he saw Simpson enter his house was wrong. They all knew that from what Kaelin said he did. In the criminal trial and the civil trial Park never repeated that mistaken part of his testimony because he evidently realized he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin. Park could not testify to something he never saw.

The evidence in this case is that Park first saw Kaelin that night when Kaelin came from behind the house down the Ashford path with a flashlight.

The evidence in this case is that when Kaelin returned from his first trip to behind the garage he saw the limo was still parked outside the gate so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

No defense attorney in this case ever disputed these two facts or claimed that Park or Kaelin were mistaken about this.

Only you William refuse to believe this undisputed evidence because you understand that it’s consistent with Simpson having caused the noises on Kaelin’s back wall. So you created your own imaginary convoluted scenario based only on Park’s mistaken pre criminal trial testimony. Then you falsely claimed that Park was mistaken and did not see Kaelin come from behind the house because what you have imagined supposedly raises “reasonable doubt” for you.

You also falsely claimed that when Kaelin came out from behind the garage he returned to the Ashford sidewalk and stayed there for about two minutes before he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. Again you based that claim on Park’s mistaken testimony as well the comment that no one ever asked Kaelin if that was what he did. Wow.

Your claims William are imaginary and false, contradicted by both Park and Kaelin’s testimony. As well as the fact that no defense attorney in this case ever suggested, insinuated or claimed Park was mistaken about where he first saw Kaelin that night or that Kaelin was mistaken about what he said he did when he returned from behind the garage.

bobaugust

Yes, Park contradicted all of his former testimonies in the civil trial, which is why I say that his memory was suggested. Park said how long he waited after he saw someone you believe was Simpson for Kato to open the gate, which was a minute. You want to believe that Kato walked down to the garage area, started on the south pathway, stopped, backed out, walked up the driveway to the gate control box in a minute. Believe it then.:)

Despite how you try to deny, which I have posted the criminal trial testimony, where he said he saw Kato standing. In the criminal trial, Park tried to change his testimony and say that he may have looked at the dashboard. However, two and a half years later in the socio political production he remembered looking at the dashboard and paying no attention to Kato (changed from saw him standing and paying attention-suggested memory).

The evidence in this case, all the evidence, is that Park could not have seen Kato as he walked from behind his quarters and down the south pathway, because Kato ran, Kato never stopped or stood, Kato never waved at Park until he finished his first cursory search. The evidence is that Park tried to change his testimony to fit the version of whoever called him to testify wanted.:)

When the magnificent one said Park was mistaken and the jury had the read back of his testimony, they saw the mistakes, as evidenced by their verdict. Only you, bobaugust, can't see those mistakes. I have an enlarged respect for the sophistication of the criminal jury.

Oh my bobaugust, you do go testy when I post the actual testimonies with Parks multiplicity of changes and Kato's contradictions of Park's testimonies. Park took one last bite at the apple in the civil trial, trying to get it right, but the cross showed, despite his testimony that he did not pay attention to Kato after he saw Simpson until Kato was at the gate box, Park said he saw Kato come up the driveway in some direction, although Park had testified on direct that he did not see Kato walk in any direction.

The only claims that are imaginary and false are yours and park's.:) I am aware that nothing raises reasonable doubt for you, because you won't consider all the evidence and make up scenarios and won't consider the obvious changing of Park's testimonies and getting trapped in those changes, because it means that your speculations and conclusions are wrong.:)

[William Anthony]

Evidence Dismissed, Lange & Vannatter

“Before Lange left the Brown's home, Juditha also tells him that Nicole had complained less than two weeks before the murders that an extra set of two keys to her house was missing. Each key fits both Nicole's front door and front gate. Nicole believed that Simpson has stolen them.

Within days after Lange's interview with the Brown family, while examining the times on the official property report seized from Cowlings Bronco on the night of Simpson's arrest, Lange and Vannatter focus on a second set of two keys found in Simpson's possession at the time of his arrest, which were still unidentified. They wondered if there is a connection with Brown's missing keys.

Talking to other sources, Lange and Vannatter learn that on June 8, four days before the murders, Brown had attended a personal intervention for a close friend, Faye Resnick, who was badly strung out on cocaine. While at Resnick's home, Brown was still concerned about her missing set of two extra keys. Resnick stayed with Brown for a short period of time and left on Friday, June 3. While at Resnick's home, Brown went through Resnick's purse to see if she had the keys. Resnick did not have them. And that concerned Nicole even more, because she feared that Simpson really might have taken them.

The two detectives open their official investigation of the extra set of keys shortly after Lange's June 22 interview with the Browns. Earlier, Lou Brown had told Lange that on Friday, June 17, he had changed the locks on her condominium and discarded the old locks and keys. Consequently, the old locks no longer exist, so the keys Simpson had cannot be checked.

However Lange and Vannatter obtain Nicole Brown's original key from Cora Fischman, one of Nicole's neighbors, who kept an extra set in case of an emergency. Using this key,
Lange and Vannatter have a lock constructed which that key will fit.

Then, the detectives take the two keys in Simpson's possession and insert them in the newly constructed lock.

Both keys fit the lock perfectly. In fact, they are identical keys that would have fit all of the residential doors at Nicole Brown's home, as well as her front gate.

In other words Simpson had two identical keys to Nicole's front gate and front door in his possession at the time of his arrest. To Lange and Vannatter, this is even more damning evidence against Simpson.”

AC Cowlings Deposition
April 17, 1996

Q: Do you know whether Mr. Simpson ever had a key to her condo after her death on June 12th, 1994?
A: No.
Q: No, he did not?
A: I didn't know if he had a key or not. I mean, personally I didn't know if he had a key, no.
Q: Okay. You never had a key, though?
A: No, I never had a key, sir.
Q: To this day as we sit here?
A: To this day as we sit here, I do not have a key to Nicole's condo

bobaugust

Why would Ms. NBS suspect Faye of stealing her keys? Things that make you go umm.

[GreenIce]

Evidence Dismissed, Lange & Vannatter

“Before Lange left the Brown's home, Juditha also tells him that Nicole had complained less than two weeks before the murders that an extra set of two keys to her house was missing. Each key fits both Nicole's front door and front gate. Nicole believed that Simpson has stolen them.

Within days after Lange's interview with the Brown family, while examining the times on the official property report seized from Cowlings Bronco on the night of Simpson's arrest, Lange and Vannatter focus on a second set of two keys found in Simpson's possession at the time of his arrest, which were still unidentified. They wondered if there is a connection with Brown's missing keys.

Talking to other sources, Lange and Vannatter learn that on June 8, four days before the murders, Brown had attended a personal intervention for a close friend, Faye Resnick, who was badly strung out on cocaine. While at Resnick's home, Brown was still concerned about her missing set of two extra keys. Resnick stayed with Brown for a short period of time and left on Friday, June 3. While at Resnick's home, Brown went through Resnick's purse to see if she had the keys. Resnick did not have them. And that concerned Nicole even more, because she feared that Simpson really might have taken them.

The two detectives open their official investigation of the extra set of keys shortly after Lange's June 22 interview with the Browns. Earlier, Lou Brown had told Lange that on Friday, June 17, he had changed the locks on her condominium and discarded the old locks and keys. Consequently, the old locks no longer exist, so the keys Simpson had cannot be checked.

However Lange and Vannatter obtain Nicole Brown's original key from Cora Fischman, one of Nicole's neighbors, who kept an extra set in case of an emergency. Using this key,
Lange and Vannatter have a lock constructed which that key will fit.

Then, the detectives take the two keys in Simpson's possession and insert them in the newly constructed lock.

Both keys fit the lock perfectly. In fact, they are identical keys that would have fit all of the residential doors at Nicole Brown's home, as well as her front gate.

In other words Simpson had two identical keys to Nicole's front gate and front door in his possession at the time of his arrest. To Lange and Vannatter, this is even more damning evidence against Simpson.”

AC Cowlings Deposition
April 17, 1996

Q: Do you know whether Mr. Simpson ever had a key to her condo after her death on June 12th, 1994?
A: No.
Q: No, he did not?
A: I didn't know if he had a key or not. I mean, personally I didn't know if he had a key, no.
Q: Okay. You never had a key, though?
A: No, I never had a key, sir.
Q: To this day as we sit here?
A: To this day as we sit here, I do not have a key to Nicole's condo

bobaugust

Mr. August,

1. The explaintion that Lange and VA give in regards to keys and the door locks, makes no sense. Locks, like many other items have serial and model numbers. Them having to use Cora's duplicate key as their "experiment" makes no sense. If Simpson had identical keys, then they would not have needed Cora's.

2.Very important. They are saying that OJ had two sets of Nicole's keys, so why is only one set considered stolen?

3.Nicole had keys to Rockingham, why wouldn't Simpson have keys to Nicole's place?

4. If Nicole honestly thought Simpson stole her keys, she would have confronted him about it and if she thought he was lying, she would have called the cops. Nicole called 911 twice to report Simpson damaging her property, she wouldn't call the police to get her keys back?

5. Nicole did not change the locks on her home, IMO, this means she was able to account for all sets of keys.

6. Why didn't this evidence come into the trial?

7. If MF is telling the truth and there was a bloody fingerprint on the gate, where is the testimony from the locksmith?

8. IMO, it makes no sense that Mr. Brown would have the locks changed at Bundy. The kids were never going back there, the condo was already on the market and we all know how determined the media and lookey loos are. A changed lock was not going to stop them.

9. Did a locksmith testify about this? I don't remember. Either way, Mr. Brown or the locksmith should have seen the MF's bloody fingerprint. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Why would Ms. NBS suspect Faye of stealing her keys? Things that make you go umm.

William,

I am confused about something, according to the DA's, it was a cut, only one cut on Simpson's left hand is the source of the blood trail at Bundy.

If this is the case, then why is the blood on the right side of the gate? Shouldn't there have been other blood drops on the left side of the gate?

Also, what are the odds that all drops of blood leading away from the scene all managed to land on the fence? If find that a tad odd.

[William Anthony]

Park could not testify to something he never saw.

No defense attorney in this case ever disputed these two facts or claimed that Park or Kaelin were mistaken about this.

bobaugust

Park did testify to something he never saw, which was Kato coming from behind his quarters walking down the Ashford pathway by all the evidence.:)

The magnificent one said Park was mistaken. Mr. Baker sarcastically asked had the dashboard contained any new information. It must have had something on it to retain Park's attention for a minute.:) Because you do not see it does not mean it did not happen and Mr. Baker trapped Park in his human error and mistake when Park previously testified that he did not see Kato walk in any direction but on cross testified to seeing Kato walk up the driveway. Of course, that is what Kato testified to and Park was aware of those facts. Ergo, the change in testimony. :)

Q. Now, you've spent some time with Mr. Petrocelli, the plaintiffs' lawyers?

A. Yes.

Q. How much time have you spent?

A. Five, six hours.

Q. Six hours.

And that is after you had already testified at the trial for over two days, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And your testimony, they had there, before you ever spent another five hours going over your testimony that was going to be presented in this case, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And they had your grand jury testimony that had already been taken under penalty of perjury at this time, correct?

A. I would assume, yes.

Q. And they had your -- all of your testimony at not only the preliminary hearing, but the grand jury proceeding, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now -- now, Mr. Park, your recollection of -- you've testified to some level of specificity here this morning. You would agree with that, correct.

A. Yes.

Q. And -- in other words, you seem to have a recollection about particulars, including the exact words my client, Mr. Simpson, used to you on the evening of June 12, 1994, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, did Mr. Petrocelli go over with you the questions that he was going to ask you and the answers that you were going to give in the five hours that you spent before you came into court and gave your testimony not quite spontaneously?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection.

If you understand the question?

A. Some.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did he have a -- he had a list of typewritten questions for you, didn't he? You saw his questions, they were typewritten, relative to what areas you were going to go over, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, you had spent -- before you ever spent this five hours with Mr. Petrocelli, you spent a great deal of time with Marcia Clark from the prosecution before you testified at the criminal trial, had you not?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, let's go over your recollection a little bit.

It seems that the only one, who may not have realized that Park's memory was suggested, is you, smile.

http://trial-advocacy.homestead.com/ADVICEtoWITNESS.html

"If there are inconsistencies in an adverse witness' statement and you have a written, recorded or witnessed record of the inconsistencies that can be used for impeachment of the witness at trial to prove a prior inconsistent statement, you probably won't want to point those inconsistencies out to the adverse witness until trial. "

[William Anthony]

William,

I am confused about something, according to the DA's, it was a cut, only one cut on Simpson's left hand is the source of the blood trail at Bundy.

If this is the case, then why is the blood on the right side of the gate? Shouldn't there have been other blood drops on the left side of the gate?

Also, what are the odds that all drops of blood leading away from the scene all managed to land on the fence? If find that a tad odd.

GreenIce,

Thank you for this post. There has been something troubling to me about the gate drops other than the fact that one was missed and it contained and exorbitant amount of EDTA. In order for the drops to have landed on the gate as they claim, IMHO, a person would have to be holding onto the gate, IMHO. I don't recall any testimony about a partial or fingerprint being lifted from the gate, whether it was identifiable or not. Did MF claimed to have seen a bloody fingerprint on the gate that was not collected?

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

Can there be any doubt that Park's memory was suggested?

"Q. Now, Mr. Petrocelli showed you an exhibit of -- a picture of Exhibit 899 in the five hours that you spent with him, didn't he?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And he told you that that wasn't the bag, didn't he?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Him and others."

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) They all told you that wasn't the bag, huh?

A. No, I told them that it wasn't the bag.

Q. Oh, I see. Fair enough.

Talk about slanting testimony.

[William Anthony]

It seems that Petrocelli's ethics were a tad bit oily.

[tv]

Bobaugust,

Can there be any doubt that Park's memory was suggested?

"Q. Now, Mr. Petrocelli showed you an exhibit of -- a picture of Exhibit 899 in the five hours that you spent with him, didn't he?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And he told you that that wasn't the bag, didn't he?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Him and others."

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) They all told you that wasn't the bag, huh?

A. No, I told them that it wasn't the bag.

Q. Oh, I see. Fair enough.

Talk about slanting testimony.

I don't get that at all. They showed him the exhibit and he said it wasn't the bag. Even the defense attorny said 'fair enough'.

[tv]

It seems that Petrocelli's ethics were a tad bit oily.

Please give an example.

[weezer]

It seems that Petrocelli's ethics were a tad bit oily.

you mean unlike the defense that brought in a bag that they claimed was the bag in question EXCEPT they forgot to take the price tag off! :eek:

[weezer]

GreenIce,

Thank you for this post. There has been something troubling to me about the gate drops other than the fact that one was missed and it contained and exorbitant amount of EDTA. In order for the drops to have landed on the gate as they claim, IMHO, a person would have to be holding onto the gate, IMHO. I don't recall any testimony about a partial or fingerprint being lifted from the gate, whether it was identifiable or not. Did MF claimed to have seen a bloody fingerprint on the gate that was not collected?

there was no planted blood with or without EDTA. if you have credible proof otherwise, please post it.

[weezer]

fgump2,

simpson would not have had to steal her keys to gain access to nicole's property or to nicole for that matter. Simpson had no reason to steal her keys. oRenthal did not have access to nicole or her property -- that's why she was worried that he had the keys that were stolen.

nicole did look through faye's purse during the intervention for the keys. Imo, this means that nicole strongly believed that faye would have stolen her keys. but we now know that what she feared most is what had actually happened -- orenthal stole the keys.

i believe the garage door opener was never found. However, simpson did tell the police what nicole's habits were on this. There were times she would leave the garage door opener out side so her guests could let themselves into the garage. i've not read this little tidbit -- maybe you could provide a link? Something other than 'orenthal said'

nicole would also leave the door open so she would not have to come to the gate to let people in. i've also not read this little tidbit -- maybe you could provide a link? Something other than 'orenthal said'

bottom line, it would have to proved that simpson did have a set of nicole's keys the night of the murders. However, if he did, the question would be why the da's never introduced this into their case. bottom line -- it was proved that orenthal had the keys to nicole's condo and it was introduced into their case.

iirc, ac helped nicole's family mover her belongs out of the condo, it is possible that ac was given a set of keys.

ac testified that he did not have keys to nicole's condo and had never had keys to nicole's condo.

[weezer]

mr. August,

1. The explaintion that lange and va give in regards to keys and the door locks, makes no sense. Locks, like many other items have serial and model numbers. Them having to use cora's duplicate key as their "experiment" makes no sense. If simpson had identical keys, then they would not have needed cora's. they used cora's keys to make the lock because they knew that that key was to nicole's condo. They wouldn't have known they were 'identical' keys until they were unable to unlock an 'identical' lock.

2.very important. They are saying that oj had two sets of nicole's keys, so why is only one set considered stolen? no one said orenthal had two sets of nicole's keys.

3.nicole had keys to rockingham, why wouldn't simpson have keys to nicole's place? nicole did not have keys to rockingham and orenthal did not have keys to bundy.

4. If nicole honestly thought simpson stole her keys, she would have confronted him about it and if she thought he was lying, she would have called the cops. Nicole called 911 twice to report simpson damaging her property, she wouldn't call the police to get her keys back? lol

5. Nicole did not change the locks on her home, imo, this means she was able to account for all sets of keys. lol

6. Why didn't this evidence come into the trial? it did

7. If mf is telling the truth and there was a bloody fingerprint on the gate, where is the testimony from the locksmith? why would there be testimony from a locksmith about what furhman saw on the night of the murders?

8. Imo, it makes no sense that mr. Brown would have the locks changed at bundy. The kids were never going back there, the condo was already on the market and we all know how determined the media and lookey loos are. A changed lock was not going to stop them. when mr brown had the locks changed, the house was not on the market, still contained nicole's and the children's belongings -- of course he changed the locks.

9. Did a locksmith testify about this? I don't remember. Either way, mr. Brown or the locksmith should have seen the mf's bloody fingerprint. Imo.

i don't understand your questioning about a locksmith and/or mr brown seeing bloody fingerprints???

[weezer]

Why would Ms. NBS suspect Faye of stealing her keys? Things that make you go umm.

maybe she was simply hoping against hope that faye had them and not orenthal? ;)

[tv]

Why would Ms. NBS suspect Faye of stealing her keys? Things that make you go umm.

She was eliminating the possibilities.

[tv]

maybe she was simply hoping against hope that faye had them and not orenthal? ;)

That's what I'm thinking.

[tv]

i don't understand your questioning about a locksmith and/or mr brown seeing bloody fingerprints???

The amount of misinformation contained in the two posts you quoted is astonishing...thanks for clearing some of that up.

[weezer]

William,

I am confused about something, according to the DA's, it was a cut, only one cut on Simpson's left hand is the source of the blood trail at Bundy.

If this is the case, then why is the blood on the right side of the gate? Shouldn't there have been other blood drops on the left side of the gate?

Also, what are the odds that all drops of blood leading away from the scene all managed to land on the fence? If find that a tad odd.

so you think it's odd that the blood drops on the SIDEWALK left of the FOOTPRINTS is confusing?

can you post for us where it shows the blood is on the right side of the gate?

I find it a tad odd that you believe that all drops of blood leading away from the scene were on the fence when in fact -- other than your current post -- no one at anytime or anywhere has made that statement.

[William Anthony]

She was eliminating the possibilities.

Why would she think that Faye had stolen them and why would she be less concerned who the thief was? I think you may be attaching some feelings you have to what Ms. NBS did.

[William Anthony]

Please give an example.

Asked and answered.

[William Anthony]

I don't get that at all. They showed him the exhibit and he said it wasn't the bag. Even the defense attorny said 'fair enough'.

Did your forget this part?

"Q. Now, Mr. Petrocelli showed you an exhibit of -- a picture of Exhibit 899 in the five hours that you spent with him, didn't he?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And he told you that that wasn't the bag, didn't he?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Him and others."

That was unethical, IMHO. How about that, Ms. Tvdinner?:)

[Kate Sachel]

Mr. August,

1. The explaintion that Lange and VA give in regards to keys and the door locks, makes no sense. Locks, like many other items have serial and model numbers. Them having to use Cora's duplicate key as their "experiment" makes no sense. If Simpson had identical keys, then they would not have needed Cora's.

2.Very important. They are saying that OJ had two sets of Nicole's keys, so why is only one set considered stolen?

3.Nicole had keys to Rockingham, why wouldn't Simpson have keys to Nicole's place?

4. If Nicole honestly thought Simpson stole her keys, she would have confronted him about it and if she thought he was lying, she would have called the cops. Nicole called 911 twice to report Simpson damaging her property, she wouldn't call the police to get her keys back?

5. Nicole did not change the locks on her home, IMO, this means she was able to account for all sets of keys.

6. Why didn't this evidence come into the trial?

7. If MF is telling the truth and there was a bloody fingerprint on the gate, where is the testimony from the locksmith?

8. IMO, it makes no sense that Mr. Brown would have the locks changed at Bundy. The kids were never going back there, the condo was already on the market and we all know how determined the media and lookey loos are. A changed lock was not going to stop them.

9. Did a locksmith testify about this? I don't remember. Either way, Mr. Brown or the locksmith should have seen the MF's bloody fingerprint. IMO.

1. That would be fine, other than the fact that it would appear that you are forgetting that the lock and keys were discarded. Without the lock and/or a key how exactly might you expect the detectives to recover a serial and model number? They did know whether the keys in OJ's possession belonged to Nicole's condominium, hence the need to use Cora's key to determine such.

2. I know there was one set with two keys on it that were missing, I do not believe anyone has said that OJ had two sets.

3. Perhaps Nicole did not want a man whom she believed to be stalking her to have access to her home.

4. Are telling us that you know what Nicole would have done? It appears so, but regardless I personally understand why she would not and it is quite simple. The police cannot do anything in that scenario other than ask the accused whether or not they are in possession of said keys. If the accused says no, there is nothing further to be done. A police officer cannot require someone to turn over what they claim they do not have in their possession.

5. I'm only glad that you added IMO to this one. Nicole apparently told more than one individual that a set of keys was "missing" and that she believed OJ to have "stolen" them. The words "missing" and "stolen" do not personally lead me to believe that she was able to account for all sets.

6. I do not have an answer regarding this, other than I believe it may have but I honestly cannot be certain without reviewing.

7. I fail to see the logic on this one. A locksmith is expected to be looking for blood evidence at a residence where he has been employed to change locks?

8. It makes very logical sense to me. Perhaps he was not certain who had access to the condominium with the existing locks/keys and did not want to risk having anyone enter that easily. Were there still personal belongings in the home at the time the locks were changed? If so, that would speak volumes in my eyes for why the locks should have been changed.

9. See number 7.

Kate

[tv]

Did your forget this part?

"Q. Now, Mr. Petrocelli showed you an exhibit of -- a picture of Exhibit 899 in the five hours that you spent with him, didn't he?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And he told you that that wasn't the bag, didn't he?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Him and others."

That was unethical, IMHO. How about that, Ms. Tvdinner?:)

The only thing with a hint of shady ethics is Bob Baker trying to get Alan Park to say something that he didn't mean. How about this Mr. William Anthony:

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) They all told you that wasn't the bag, huh?

A. No, I told them that it wasn't the bag.

Q. Oh, I see. Fair enough.

It's clear to me that he meant there were more people than Petrocelli present when the bag was discussed. He told them it wasn't the bag. You're looking for deceit where none exists. Even Bob Baker didn't take exception to Park's answer.

[William Anthony]

The only thing with a hint of shady ethics is Bob Baker trying to get Alan Park to say something that he didn't mean. How about this Mr. William Anthony:

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) They all told you that wasn't the bag, huh?

A. No, I told them that it wasn't the bag.

Q. Oh, I see. Fair enough.

It's clear to me that he meant there were more people than Petrocelli present when the bag was discussed. He told them it wasn't the bag. You're looking for deceit where none exists. Even Bob Baker didn't take exception to Park's answer.

The testimony is what it is and Mr. Baker asked the next follow up question, which was "they all told you...". Therefore, you see that Park never denied that Petrocelli used the oily tactic, only that all those he spoke to did and he told some it was the bag and we can infer that Park told them it wasn't the bag in trial rehearsals, after Petrocelli's oily tactics. How about that, Ms. Tvdinner?:) You see, there was no reason for Mr. Baker to take exception to Park's answer.

[tv]

The testimony is what it is and Mr. Baker asked the next follow up question, which was "they all told you...". Therefore, you see that Park never denied that Petrocelli used the oily tactic, only that all those he spoke to did and he told some it was the bag and we can infer that Park told them it wasn't the bag in trial rehearsals, after Petrocelli's oily tactics. How about that, Ms. Tvdinner?:) You see, there was no reason for Mr. Baker to take exception to Park's answer.

I don't understand what tactic you're talking about.

[weezer]

I don't understand what tactic you're talking about.

like most things that's argued by william in this case, unless he denigrates and demeans the opposition, there is no orenthal defense. The civil defense thought they could ride the coattails of cockroach but it didn't work --

[tv]

like most things that's argued by william in this case, unless he denigrates and demeans the opposition, there is no orenthal defense. The civil defense thought they could ride the coattails of cockroach but it didn't work --

You think they thought they had a slam dunk? OJ Simpson had the option to settle out of court...wonder what genius was advising him?

[fgump2]

Originally Posted by William Anthony
The testimony is what it is and Mr. Baker asked the next follow up question, which was "they all told you...". Therefore, you see that Park never denied that Petrocelli used the oily tactic, only that all those he spoke to did and he told some it was the bag and we can infer that Park told them it wasn't the bag in trial rehearsals, after Petrocelli's oily tactics. How about that, Ms. Tvdinner? You see, there was no reason for Mr. Baker to take exception to Park's answer.

I don't understand what tactic you're talking about.

I am not impressed by this point against Petrocelli. It looks like WA is trying to use the testimony to show that Petrocelli was leading the witness in a previous testimony or deposition (testimony outside of courtroom). If you think that was the case, why not quote from the original testimony? Why not refer to Petrocelli's alledged improper actions directly linstead of this idirect way? To expect TVdinner or anyone else to condemn some of Petrocelli's questioning techniques without referring directly to the testimony is easy to ignore

One other thing. You, or someone may object to refering to Johnnie Co- as Cockroach. If so, then maybe you should stop referring to the 1996 Simpson civil trial as the socio political production.

[fgump2]

In case anyone has forgotten, regardless of any attempt to implicate him in the murders and by whom such attempts were made, Simpson was found not guilty and can never be tried for murder again. It seems the only people, who are upset about this, are the ones that can not accept that and look for any reason, which let us not forget that he celebrated his victory, in the remotest places to put their own assumptions on how he should act, to convince themselves that he is guilty. I may not approve of some of his actions but I realize that he cannot be found guilty of murder. I hope that this doesn't offend any one but, based on the presumption of innocence, Simpson will always remain legally innocent, just as the presumption remains with the three young men accused in Natalie Holloway's disappearance. I repeat that I joined this group after seeing the negative and insulting comments made about the criminal jury. I have not seen members, who post on this forum, express an equal amount of anger against the three young men, when most of America believe they are guilty and I ask myself why.
Part of the reason that the N. Holloway's disappearance didn't arouse the same amount of anger is that there were no great numbers of people making either the accused killers or their lawyers heros. I never saw any pictures of people dancing with joy when the 3 accused killers got off.

Also WA, if you think that the Holloway case is as important as the Simpson case, then how many times have you posted about the Holloway case as opposed to the SImpson case?

Who a country's heros are matters. I have never heard of the lawyers of the 3 alleged killers refered to as the magnificent one. The same goes for the jurors. So many people have praised the jury that others are going to ask 'was this jury that good?". I give some members of the jury credit for saying afterwards that they thought SImpson was probably guilty, and that the prosecution left out evidence.

I found it sad that OJS, his lawyers, and their supporters have shown so little (none really) sympathy for the Browns and Goldmans. It had to hurt when they saw pictures of people celebrating the acquittal. This was a racially controversial case; and it hurt race relations.
I have a hard time respecting the fact that people think the acquittal is something to celebrate, but they aren't interested in any further investigation
of the LAPD or the alleged framers.

[William Anthony]

I don't understand what tactic you're talking about.

I am sorry, if you didn't understand. It is unethical, IMHO and training, for a lawyer to tell a witness how the answer the question. Park never denied that Petrocelli and others told him that was not the bag. I need not denigrate or demean anyone or anything. I simply post the testimony, smile. I think, if some see it that way, it is because of the testimony and rulings, smile.

[William Anthony]

You think they thought they had a slam dunk? OJ Simpson had the option to settle out of court...wonder what genius was advising him?

I think they realized it was a socio political production and just decided to take their chances.

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by William Anthony
The testimony is what it is and Mr. Baker asked the next follow up question, which was "they all told you...". Therefore, you see that Park never denied that Petrocelli used the oily tactic, only that all those he spoke to did and he told some it was the bag and we can infer that Park told them it wasn't the bag in trial rehearsals, after Petrocelli's oily tactics. How about that, Ms. Tvdinner? You see, there was no reason for Mr. Baker to take exception to Park's answer.



I am not impressed by this point against Petrocelli. It looks like WA is trying to use the testimony to show that Petrocelli was leading the witness in a previous testimony or deposition (testimony outside of courtroom). If you think that was the case, why not quote from the original testimony? Why not refer to Petrocelli's alledged improper actions directly linstead of this idirect way? To expect TVdinner or anyone else to condemn some of Petrocelli's questioning techniques without referring directly to the testimony is easy to ignore

One other thing. You, or someone may object to refering to Johnnie Co- as Cockroach. If so, then maybe you should stop referring to the 1996 Simpson civil trial as the socio political production.

I was not trying to impress you. You do not understand the point, as evidenced by your post. It was not that Petrocelli led the witness in a previous testimony. It was that Petrocelli was aware of his previous testimony and told him to change his previous testimony. To the contrary, Mr. Baker asked a direct question and Park gave a direct answer.

I stated my objection and the poster continued to use cockroach. I learned to live with it, as I expect others to do when I say socio political production. we are all allowed to express our opinions.:)

[tv]

I am sorry, if you didn't understand. It is unethical, IMHO and training, for a lawyer to tell a witness how the answer the question. Park never denied that Petrocelli and others told him that was not the bag. I need not denigrate or demean anyone or anything. I simply post the testimony, smile. I think, if some see it that way, it is because of the testimony and rulings, smile.

Park didn't testify that anyone told him anything. His statement was that he told them it wasn't the bag. This question by Bob Baker sounds to more to me like a lawyer trying to put words in someone's mouth.

"Q. (BY MR. BAKER) They all told you that wasn't the bag, huh?"

[William Anthony]

Part of the reason that the N. Holloway's disappearance didn't arouse the same amount of anger is that there were no great numbers of people making either the accused killers or their lawyers heros. I never saw any pictures of people dancing with joy when the 3 accused killers got off.

Also WA, if you think that the Holloway case is as important as the Simpson case, then how many times have you posted about the Holloway case as opposed to the SImpson case?

Who a country's heros are matters. I have never heard of the lawyers of the 3 alleged killers refered to as the magnificent one. The same goes for the jurors. So many people have praised the jury that others are going to ask 'was this jury that good?". I give some members of the jury credit for saying afterwards that they thought SImpson was probably guilty, and that the prosecution left out evidence.

I found it sad that OJS, his lawyers, and their supporters have shown so little (none really) sympathy for the Browns and Goldmans. It had to hurt when they saw pictures of people celebrating the acquittal. This was a racially controversial case; and it hurt race relations.
I have a hard time respecting the fact that people think the acquittal is something to celebrate, but they aren't interested in any further investigation
of the LAPD or the alleged framers.

There has never been anyone accused of Ms. Holloway's murder. Hence, there has been no trial in which anyone was accused, tried and acquitted.

I don't doubt that it hurt to see people celebrating the acquittal of Simpson, just as it hurt Ms. Evers when she saw people celebrating the mistrial of her husband's killer and the statements made by James Earl Ray. I think those things were forerunners that critically damaged race relations, not to mention the acquittal of the officers, who beat Rodney King.

I don't think that it is a fair statement to say that people aren't interested in the investigations of LAPD or the alleged framers. It is fairer to say that people are without power to initiate those investigations.

[William Anthony]

Park didn't testify that anyone told him anything. His statement was that he told them it wasn't the bag. This question by Bob Baker sounds to more to me like a lawyer trying to put words in someone's mouth.

"Q. (BY MR. BAKER) They all told you that wasn't the bag, huh?"

Yes, Mr. Baker put the word "all" not in the witness' mouth but in a follow up question. Park's only denied that it was "all". However, let's see what he said when asked directly about Petrocelli.

"Q. Now, Mr. Petrocelli showed you an exhibit of -- a picture of Exhibit 899 in the five hours that you spent with him, didn't he?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And he told you that that wasn't the bag, didn't he?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Him and others."

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

Thank you for this post. There has been something troubling to me about the gate drops other than the fact that one was missed and it contained and exorbitant amount of EDTA. In order for the drops to have landed on the gate as they claim, IMHO, a person would have to be holding onto the gate, IMHO. I don't recall any testimony about a partial or fingerprint being lifted from the gate, whether it was identifiable or not. Did MF claimed to have seen a bloody fingerprint on the gate that was not collected?

William,

In MF's book he says it was visable and that Roberts saw it as well. I think Riske may have also seen it.

IIRC, OJ is right handed. So how would a cut on his left hand get on the fence and how is it that none one of the blood drops hit the pavement?

[William Anthony]

William,

In MF's book he says it was visable and that Roberts saw it as well. I think Riske may have also seen it.

IIRC, OJ is right handed. So how would a cut on his left hand get on the fence and how is it that none one of the blood drops hit the pavement?

There is only one way I can think of, which is that a right handed killer turned around and held the gate as he/she was leaving but there should have been a bloody footprint near the gate headed back in the gate.

[William Anthony]

William,

In MF's book he says it was visable and that Roberts saw it as well. I think Riske may have also seen it.

IIRC, OJ is right handed. So how would a cut on his left hand get on the fence and how is it that none one of the blood drops hit the pavement?

The part about the drops not hitting the pavement is a thing that makes you go umm.:)

[GreenIce]

There is only one way I can think of, which is that a right handed killer turned around and held the gate as he/she was leaving but there should have been a bloody footprint near the gate headed back in the gate.

William,

IMO, I think it is very likely that the fingerprint was there and either it was tested and it wasn't Simpson or the print was lost on purpose. It seems to me that at least 3 bloody fingerprints have been lost in this case. How many times can it happen in one case?

However, what I don't understand is why MF took such great pride in showing the 3 lead detectives the glove, the blood on the Bronco but not a bloody fingerprint? IMO, if that was Simpson's---he would have been on death row.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, I think it is very likely that the fingerprint was there and either it was tested and it wasn't Simpson or the print was lost on purpose. It seems to me that at least 3 bloody fingerprints have been lost in this case. How many times can it happen in one case?

However, what I don't understand is why MF took such great pride in showing the 3 lead detectives the glove, the blood on the Bronco but not a bloody fingerprint? IMO, if that was Simpson's---he would have been on death row.

Let's assume hypothetically that it was there and it got washed off. If that is the case, then why didn't the blood drops?

[GreenIce]

Let's assume hypothetically that it was there and it got washed off. If that is the case, then why didn't the blood drops?

William,

Don't you know anything? First, the blood on the back gate was very, very shy, it kept coming out and going back in. Then they got mad because people thought they were lowly remains of berries being squashed---memo to PD's, don't piss off blood drops)

When the blood drops realized that they were left behind and no one came for them, they hibernated into the steel of the fence and were waiting for the H20 to wake them out of their sleep. But again, they went into seclusion because they were waiting for Lange to get their memo that they were left behind. IMO:)

[William Anthony]

William,

Don't you know anything? First, the blood on the back gate was very, very shy, it kept coming out and going back in. Then they got mad because people thought they were lowly remains of berries being squashed---memo to PD's, don't piss off blood drops)

When the blood drops realized that they were left behind and no one came for them, they hibernated into the steel of the fence and were waiting for the H20 to wake them out of their sleep. But again, they went into seclusion because they were waiting for Lange to get their memo that they were left behind. IMO:)

GreenIce,

There is no need for you to respond this way about LE. I truly think that for you to blame them in the manner that you have is just not right. We all know how the postal service is. :)

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

There is no need for you to respond this way about LE. I truly think that for you to blame them in the manner that you have is just not right. We all know how the postal service is. :)

William,

You are so right! I forgot, the fence does not have e-mail! Yikes!:)

[William Anthony]

William,

You are so right! I forgot, the fence does not have e-mail! Yikes!:)

Those darn backward fences.:)

[GreenIce]

I think they realized it was a socio political production and just decided to take their chances.

William,

I think your "socio politcal production" is a much better description then mine is for the civil trial. I call it the Gumby and Pokey cartoon. I think mine is more accurate but you are the voice of reason on this issue so I will now use your terms.

I don't know if you realize this but even some of the ardent G's talking heads felt that Simpson should have gotten a new trial but the state of CA just did not want to have another trial.

It was funny because after the criminal trial, Dominick Dunne and others swore that Simpson would never give a deposition in the case. They were convinced he was going to leave the country. Yet, he did not leave. He knew he was going to lose the civil trial, we all did and he knew that he was going to lose everything but he went through with it. He said it many times he was not leaving the country and he was never going to pay for a crime he did not committ.

[William Anthony]

William,

I think your "socio politcal production" is a much better description then mine is for the civil trial. I call it the Gumby and Pokey cartoon. I think mine is more accurate but you are the voice of reason on this issue so I will now use your terms.

I don't know if you realize this but even some of the ardent G's talking heads felt that Simpson should have gotten a new trial but the state of CA just did not want to have another trial.

It was funny because after the criminal trial, Dominick Dunne and others swore that Simpson would never give a deposition in the case. They were convinced he was going to leave the country. Yet, he did not leave. He knew he was going to lose the civil trial, we all did and he knew that he was going to lose everything but he went through with it. He said it many times he was not leaving the country and he was never going to pay for a crime he did not committ.

I really thought that Simpson would have lost the civil trial, even if all the evidence from the criminal trial had been admitted. I thought this based on the standard of proof. It was not until I read the judge's statement and checked some of his rulings that I thought it was a socio political production. I found it most interesting when I read the appellate court's ruling that they never truly addressed the sufficiency of the evidence of planting but based its decision that the lower court was correct, because MF was unavailable and the defense only wanted MF's testimony for impeachment. As it stands, the appellate court did not determine, if the evidence of planting was sufficient to be admitted from my reading of it.

[GreenIce]

Why would she think that Faye had stolen them and why would she be less concerned who the thief was? I think you may be attaching some feelings you have to what Ms. NBS did.

William,

I do believe Nicole knew that just asking Faye about her keys, she was not going to get the truth. Any one who slides back into the grips of addiction are truth challenged.

What is interesting is in Faye's depo, she says that Nicole offered her a set of keys but Faye declined, saying she didn't need a set of her own. So if that is the case, why was Nicole looking in her bag?

Also, didn't Nicole express her fear of some of the people that were coming to her house to see Faye? Nicole was not idiot, she would not have offered her keys to Faye while she was strung out.

I do wonder why Nicole's housekeeper never testified in the trial. I don't even know if she gave a deposition. I would think that she would have been able to shed some light on this subject.

IMO, the key issue was one the DA's did not want to go anywhere near it. If Simpson had her keys, then he was planning to kill her inside the condo? If he is the killer, why not leave the property using the open front door?

He had no reason to steal her keys. Also, wasn't Nicole very sick just 3 weeks before the murders? Isn't it possible she gave him a set or told him to take a set so she wouldn't have to get out of bed and let him every time?

[William Anthony]

William,

I do believe Nicole knew that just asking Faye about her keys, she was not going to get the truth. Any one who slides back into the grips of addiction are truth challenged.

What is interesting is in Faye's depo, she says that Nicole offered her a set of keys but Faye declined, saying she didn't need a set of her own. So if that is the case, why was Nicole looking in her bag?

Also, didn't Nicole express her fear of some of the people that were coming to her house to see Faye? Nicole was not idiot, she would not have offered her keys to Faye while she was strung out.

I do wonder why Nicole's housekeeper never testified in the trial. I don't even know if she gave a deposition. I would think that she would have been able to shed some light on this subject.

IMO, the key issue was one the DA's did not want to go anywhere near it. If Simpson had her keys, then he was planning to kill her inside the condo? If he is the killer, why not leave the property using the open front door?

He had no reason to steal her keys. Also, wasn't Nicole very sick just 3 weeks before the murders? Isn't it possible she gave him a set or told him to take a set so she wouldn't have to get out of bed and let him every time?

I would not offer someone a set of keys and look for them on the person's property, if the person refused and was a friend. Something in that says that Ms. NBS did not trust Faye.

I did not see the keys as such a major issue. If I noticed my keys were missing, I would have immediately had my locks changed, slept lightly and had protection close at hand and would have alerted LE, as you stated, especially, if I had two young children in the home. I think, if she failed to alert LE, the defense could have had a field day with this.

[GreenIce]

I really thought that Simpson would have lost the civil trial, even if all the evidence from the criminal trial had been admitted. I thought this based on the standard of proof. It was not until I read the judge's statement and checked some of his rulings that I thought it was a socio political production. I found it most interesting when I read the appellate court's ruling that they never truly addressed the sufficiency of the evidence of planting but based its decision that the lower court was correct, because MF was unavailable and the defense only wanted MF's testimony for impeachment. As it stands, the appellate court did not determine, if the evidence of planting was sufficient to be admitted from my reading of it.

William,

I agree with you that he would have lost the civil trial even if all the evidence was admitted in. At least two the jurors felt that evidence was planted but it was not enough to sway their vote.

[William Anthony]

William,

I agree with you that he would have lost the civil trial even if all the evidence was admitted in. At least two the jurors felt that evidence was planted but it was not enough to sway their vote.

When I hear things such as this, it makes me consider what justice means. I understand the legal concept of justice and I cannot say that it wasn't served. I look at it in a larger sense in that I guess I favor the rights of the accused, even in a civil trial. I just think that the law should require more of those, who work in some fashion in association with the courts. If one juror thought that LE planted evidence, I think there should have been some remedy. I am not learned enough to know what that remendy should be or how it should be enacted.

[GreenIce]

When I hear things such as this, it makes me consider what justice means. I understand the legal concept of justice and I cannot say that it wasn't served. I look at it in a larger sense in that I guess I favor the rights of the accused, even in a civil trial. I just think that the law should require more of those, who work in some fashion in association with the courts. If one juror thought that LE planted evidence, I think there should have been some remedy. I am not learned enough to know what that remendy should be or how it should be enacted.

William,

I agree with you. I have begun reading more the civil trial testimony and I it is unbelieveable. The civil trial defense team even had more supporting evidence of tampering and police lies and that still didn't matter. But, IMO, I think I could have found him responsible for her death, just because he cheated on her. I know that is not a legal reason but if I only had to 51% sure that he did it, yeah, I would have voted to convict.

[tv]

When I hear things such as this, it makes me consider what justice means. I understand the legal concept of justice and I cannot say that it wasn't served. I look at it in a larger sense in that I guess I favor the rights of the accused, even in a civil trial. I just think that the law should require more of those, who work in some fashion in association with the courts. If one juror thought that LE planted evidence, I think there should have been some remedy. I am not learned enough to know what that remendy should be or how it should be enacted.

Only 9 our 12 had to agree on a verdict. It was unanimous.

[William Anthony]

William,

I agree with you. I have begun reading more the civil trial testimony and I it is unbelieveable. The civil trial defense team even had more supporting evidence of tampering and police lies and that still didn't matter. But, IMO, I think I could have found him responsible for her death, just because he cheated on her. I know that is not a legal reason but if I only had to 51% sure that he did it, yeah, I would have voted to convict.

You are correct, which is why I cannot say justice was not served in the socio political production. However, I think the evidence should be above reproach. Thanks for making me think of this. I think that evidence of collection, storage, handling, results and chain of custody must be held to a higher standard and not the privilege of a presumption in order to reach any standard of proof but don't ask me what that standard should be, clear and convincing or beyond a reasonable doubt in a civil trial.:)

[William Anthony]

Only 9 our 12 had to agree on a verdict. It was unanimous.

I have no problem with the verdict. I do have a problem with a person believing the evidence is planted and there is no remedy for such a belief. That is all I am saying and my prior post addressed what may be a possible remedy to avoid those type of situations.

[tv]

I have no problem with the verdict. I do have a problem with a person believing the evidence is planted and there is no remedy for such a belief. That is all I am saying and my prior post addressed what may be a possible remedy to avoid those type of situations.

I have a problem with the criminal trial jury members that thought OJ Simpson was guilty but still voted to acquit.

I haven't actually read what the civil jurors had to say but I thinik it would be a good idea.

[William Anthony]

I have a problem with the criminal trial jury members that thought OJ Simpson was guilty but still voted to acquit.

I haven't actually read what the civil jurors had to say but I thinik it would be a good idea.

This is why I have no problem with either verdict, if there were jurors that thought Simpson was guilty and voted to acquit it was because of reasonable doubt. If there were jurors in the socio political production that though evidence was planted and voted that he was liable, that was because of the preponderance of the evidence standard. What I have a problem with is believing that LE can plant evidence and still there is a preponderance of the evidence standard that the defendant is liable. I would guess that a stronger foundation as to those things I have mentioned might prevent such situations.

[tv]

I have no problem with the verdict. I do have a problem with a person believing the evidence is planted and there is no remedy for such a belief. That is all I am saying and my prior post addressed what may be a possible remedy to avoid those type of situations.


Everyone but the lone black alternate, who never deliberated, thought he was guilty. It would be nice if a certain poster would give a link or source to back up the statement that some jurors thought the evidence was planted.

"Jurors said they took 12 hours to reach a verdict on Simpson's liability because they meticulously went through the evidence. They didn't take their first vote until the very end - and found out they were unanimous."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns218.htm

[tv]

This is why I have no problem with either verdict, if there were jurors that thought Simpson was guilty and voted to acquit it was because of reasonable doubt. If there were jurors in the socio political production that though evidence was planted and voted that he was liable, that was because of the preponderance of the evidence standard. What I have a problem with is believing that LE can plant evidence and still there is a preponderance of the evidence standard that the defendant is liable. I would guess that a stronger foundation as to those things I have mentioned might prevent such situations.

I would really like to read the juror's statement's regarding their belief that evidence was planted. It's hard to comment when the information is so vague.

[William Anthony]

Everyone but the lone black alternate, who never deliberated, thought he was guilty. It would be nice if a certain poster would give a link or source to back up the statement that some jurors thought the evidence was planted.

"Jurors said they took 12 hours to reach a verdict on Simpson's liability because they meticulously went through the evidence. They didn't take their first vote until the very end - and found out they were unanimous."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns218.htm

If they thought he was guilty, they were confused.:)

[tv]

If they thought he was guilty, they were confused.:)They would have to think him guilty to find him liable.

[bobaugust]

Yes, Park contradicted all of his former testimonies in the civil trial, which is why I say that his memory was suggested. Park said how long he waited after he saw someone you believe was Simpson for Kato to open the gate, which was a minute. You want to believe that Kato walked down to the garage area, started on the south pathway, stopped, backed out, walked up the driveway to the gate control box in a minute. Believe it then.:)

Despite how you try to deny, which I have posted the criminal trial testimony, where he said he saw Kato standing. In the criminal trial, Park tried to change his testimony and say that he may have looked at the dashboard. However, two and a half years later in the socio political production he remembered looking at the dashboard and paying no attention to Kato (changed from saw him standing and paying attention-suggested memory).

The evidence in this case, all the evidence, is that Park could not have seen Kato as he walked from behind his quarters and down the south pathway, because Kato ran, Kato never stopped or stood, Kato never waved at Park until he finished his first cursory search. The evidence is that Park tried to change his testimony to fit the version of whoever called him to testify wanted.:)

When the magnificent one said Park was mistaken and the jury had the read back of his testimony, they saw the mistakes, as evidenced by their verdict. Only you, bobaugust, can't see those mistakes. I have an enlarged respect for the sophistication of the criminal jury.

Oh my bobaugust, you do go testy when I post the actual testimonies with Parks multiplicity of changes and Kato's contradictions of Park's testimonies. Park took one last bite at the apple in the civil trial, trying to get it right, but the cross showed, despite his testimony that he did not pay attention to Kato after he saw Simpson until Kato was at the gate box, Park said he saw Kato come up the driveway in some direction, although Park had testified on direct that he did not see Kato walk in any direction.

The only claims that are imaginary and false are yours and park's.:) I am aware that nothing raises reasonable doubt for you, because you won't consider all the evidence and make up scenarios and won't consider the obvious changing of Park's testimonies and getting trapped in those changes, because it means that your speculations and conclusions are wrong.:)

Your claim that Park was mistaken about seeing Kaelin come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight and that the jury saw that statement as a mistake has no credibility since no defense attorney in this case ever disputed Park’s statement as to when he first saw Kaelin. Your claim that when Kaelin came back from behind the garage he went to the Ashford sidewalk and stood there for about a minute to two minutes and that’s when Park first saw him also has no credibility since no defense attorney in this case ever disputed Kaelin’s statement that when 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.

By the way you say Kaelin waved at Park when he finished his first cursory trip. Post that testimony please. Be sure and include the date.

You are right about one thing you said, I have never seen any evidence in this case that raises reasonable doubt to me that Simpson wasn’t the killer.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

You are correct, which is why I cannot say justice was not served in the socio political production. However, I think the evidence should be above reproach. Thanks for making me think of this. I think that evidence of collection, storage, handling, results and chain of custody must be held to a higher standard and not the privilege of a presumption in order to reach any standard of proof but don't ask me what that standard should be, clear and convincing or beyond a reasonable doubt in a civil trial.:)

William,

I think the rules of evidence should be the same in every trial. It makes no sense to me how a defense can lay foundation and reasonable doubt in one trial and then in the civil trial, it doesn't mean a thing if you can't say who did it, when it was done and why was it done.

I don't agree with the civil trial verdict but the jury did their job, they came back with a verdict which they firmly believe in---just like the criminal trial jurors did. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I have a hard time respecting the fact that people think the acquittal is something to celebrate, but they aren't interested in any further investigation of the LAPD or the alleged framers.

fgump2,

Do you have a hard time respecting the fact that celebrations are also held when there is a conviction? Regardless of who is celebrating, it is a celebration of our system.

IMO, in this case, only the Browns and the Goldmans could have demanded further investigations of the LAPD. Especially the Browns.