Random Discussions On The Case

[GreenIce]

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

Mr. August,

As I posted before, the defense, IMO, did not have a dog in this fight. Their stance was that Simpson was inside his house getting ready for his trip. It didn't matter to them what was happening outside.

The DA's knew they had to find a timeline that would work for them. They knew what time the noise had to be heard to make it fit. Any talented lawyer can lead their witness to an answer that they can work with.

You have the same problem that the DA's had, they tried to pinpoint exact details where exact details could never be known. Have you ever heard of "Guy Time"? Kato and Park did give different answers to the same questions that were re-worded thousands of times in 4 different trips to the witness stand.

The problem with the noise is that Kato heard nothing else after them to give the impression that someone was back there. He heard no one running, he did hear the one gate open or the other gate being lifted out of the way.

However, I will give you this, since there was no evidence of someone leaving the pathway--why didn't the DA's argue that Simpson knew he crashed hard into the wall, knew Kato was home and knew he could not risk being seen---so why didn't he jump back over the fence? Doesn't that make more sense then him running into the AC unit three times?

It makes no sense that Simpson would have gone back there in the first place. He could have easily concealed the glove and the murder weapon on his person and walk into his house. There was reason for him to try to sneak on to his property. There is no law that person can't wear dark clothes and walk on his driveway. IMO.

[GreenIce]

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.

William,

Do civil trial jurors get the same instructions regarding witnesses who they feel are lying on the stand? Also, in the event of a "tie" on the evidence, does the point go to the Plaintiffs or the defense?

[GreenIce]

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."

William,

How long was Park on Simpson's estate--less the hour correct? They why did it take Petrocelli 5 hours to prep him? You would think that the DA's would have prepped him--so why the additonal 5 hours?

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

As I posted before, the defense, IMO, did not have a dog in this fight. Their stance was that Simpson was inside his house getting ready for his trip. It didn't matter to them what was happening outside.

The DA's knew they had to find a timeline that would work for them. They knew what time the noise had to be heard to make it fit. Any talented lawyer can lead their witness to an answer that they can work with.

You have the same problem that the DA's had, they tried to pinpoint exact details where exact details could never be known. Have you ever heard of "Guy Time"? Kato and Park did give different answers to the same questions that were re-worded thousands of times in 4 different trips to the witness stand.

The problem with the noise is that Kato heard nothing else after them to give the impression that someone was back there. He heard no one running, he did hear the one gate open or the other gate being lifted out of the way.

However, I will give you this, since there was no evidence of someone leaving the pathway--why didn't the DA's argue that Simpson knew he crashed hard into the wall, knew Kato was home and knew he could not risk being seen---so why didn't he jump back over the fence? Doesn't that make more sense then him running into the AC unit three times?

It makes no sense that Simpson would have gone back there in the first place. He could have easily concealed the glove and the murder weapon on his person and walk into his house. There was reason for him to try to sneak on to his property. There is no law that person can't wear dark clothes and walk on his driveway. IMO.

GreenIce, from the beginning Kaelin said he believed someone was behind his room. The guest room walls were sturdy walls, stucco on the outside and wood paneled on the inside. It took a considerable force to cause a vibration that would tilt the picture next to Kaelin’s bed. The nearest window in Kaelin’s room was in his bathroom further down towards the back of Simpson’s property. Kaelin would not have been able to hear anyone running unless someone made a lot of noise outside that window.

Allan Park told the police that the first person he saw on the estate that night was white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight. That is exactly what Kaelin said he did.

Simpson had no choice but to find some way onto his property. He couldn’t enter through the Ashford gate since the limo was parked there. He couldn’t enter through the Rockingham gate because it was locked and even if Simpson had his key, which there is no evidence he did, to activate that gate so it would open it was not a silent gate and he probably not have taken the risk of the limo driver hearing it. So Simpson walked across his neighbors property to scale his fence at it’s lowest point; behind the guest rooms.

There is no law that someone can not wear dark clothes and walk on his driveway. But Park had been ringing the house for about twenty minutes without getting any response or seeing anyone on the estate until he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house after leaving his room to investigate the noises he had just heard and the almost simultaneously he saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up from his driveway and enter his house and lights come on. There were only three people on the estate at the time of the noises; Park, Kaelin, and Simpson. Which one of the three do you think Kaelin heard behind his room?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

They would have to think him guilty to find him liable.

You have it backwards. They would have to find him liable to move to the higher standard to find him guilty of a crime. :) That is why they could find him liable in the socio political production but not guilty in the criminal trial.:)

[William Anthony]

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

Because you do not understand the magnificent one's closing or Mr. Baker's sarcasm does not mean that others don't or that it did not happen. :)

If I said that Kato waved at Park that is not what I meant to say. Kato testified that he waved the limo in after getting Chachi to safety after he went to let the limo in, which a reasonable inference can be drawn that is when Park first saw Kato.

I do believe the reason you haven't seen the evidence of reasonable doubt is because you can't or won't accept it as it differs with your conclusion and you can't allow that to happen from anyone.:)

[William Anthony]

William,

Do civil trial jurors get the same instructions regarding witnesses who they feel are lying on the stand? Also, in the event of a "tie" on the evidence, does the point go to the Plaintiffs or the defense?

Yes, the same instructions apply and in the event of a tie it goes to the defense. :)

[William Anthony]

William,

How long was Park on Simpson's estate--less the hour correct? They why did it take Petrocelli 5 hours to prep him? You would think that the DA's would have prepped him--so why the additonal 5 hours?

Yes, and Park may not have been as receptive to suggestion as Petrocelli hoped.:)

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, from the beginning Kaelin said he believed someone was behind his room. The guest room walls were sturdy walls, stucco on the outside and wood paneled on the inside. It took a considerable force to cause a vibration that would tilt the picture next to Kaelin’s bed. The nearest window in Kaelin’s room was in his bathroom further down towards the back of Simpson’s property. Kaelin would not have been able to hear anyone running unless someone made a lot of noise outside that window.

Allan Park told the police that the first person he saw on the estate that night was white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight. That is exactly what Kaelin said he did.

Simpson had no choice but to find some way onto his property. He couldn’t enter through the Ashford gate since the limo was parked there. He couldn’t enter through the Rockingham gate because it was locked and even if Simpson had his key, which there is no evidence he did, to activate that gate so it would open it was not a silent gate and he probably not have taken the risk of the limo driver hearing it. So Simpson walked across his neighbors property to scale his fence at it’s lowest point; behind the guest rooms.

There is no law that someone can not wear dark clothes and walk on his driveway. But Park had been ringing the house for about twenty minutes without getting any response or seeing anyone on the estate until he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house after leaving his room to investigate the noises he had just heard and the almost simultaneously he saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up from his driveway and enter his house and lights come on. There were only three people on the estate at the time of the noises; Park, Kaelin, and Simpson. Which one of the three do you think Kaelin heard behind his room?

bobaugust

Mr. August,

The glove was placed there and was not dropped.

Simpson had another way on to his property and into his home that did not risk being seen or heard by the only person left of the estate.

The blood trail leads form the Bronco right to the front door which proves if anything, that Simpson had no reason to risk jumping a fence.

If the pictured moved because someone was crashing into the wall, then I am pretty sure the LAPD could have found one of their finest to scale the fence and crash into a wall. And there are no excuses why they didn't do this.

There is no trace evidence that anyone was back there.

The glove should have been dried.

You and William have really solved this issue. It is clear that both Park and Kato did their best to remember and give estimates but that is all they were able to give. The fact that in 4 trips to the witness chair and two separate trials proves they were willing to allow Petrocelli to manipulate their times. I am not blaming Petrocelli.

Kato's testimony IMO, is worthless. He was attacked by the media for his testimony in the criminal case and accused of bending his testimony to favor Simpson.

Kato was also attacked because he refused to testify in the Grand Jury unless his lawyer was present. Why would he have to lawyer up?

In the Grand Jury Kato was asked about the noise he heard, he rapped his fist on the witness stand 3 times. He was never asked in three trials (I don't know about the civil trial) to get up and demonstrate what he heard.

Kato kept on asking about an earthquake. Kato also made several key mistakes in his testimony as well as the DA's could not provide the proof that backed up his story.

I am not saying he is lying, what I am saying is that Kato was threatened with arrest or felt Clark was leaning hard on him and he felt the need to hire a lawyer.

Kato never called the cops after Simpson left--why if he was so afraid of his noise, didn't he call the cops? At least to check it out and give him so peace of mind?

Why when he heard Arnelle come home didn't he warn her about the thumps?

Last, Kato lied about a book deal and was not pleased with the final draft and he pulled out of it. However, he totally denied any interviews regarding a book.

[William Anthony]

There were only three people on the estate at the time of the noises; Park, Kaelin, and Simpson. Which one of the three do you think Kaelin heard behind his room?

Please, post the testimony where Kato said he heard someone behind his room, not his state of mind testimony but his actual statement that he heard someone behind his quarters?

[GreenIce]

William,

This is awesome! In VA and Lange's book, their explaination for the swipe mark in the Bronco was OJ bending down or leaning down to search for a light bulb and swiped the console with his shoulder which was wearing blood clothes!

Aren't they know conceding that Simpson was covered in blood with this? Or a least had a enough of it on him to make that swipe? So where did the rest of it come from?

[William Anthony]

William,

This is awesome! In VA and Lange's book, their explaination for the swipe mark in the Bronco was OJ bending down or leaning down to search for a light bulb and swiped the console with his shoulder which was wearing blood clothes!

Aren't they know conceding that Simpson was covered in blood with this? Or a least had a enough of it on him to make that swipe? So where did the rest of it come from?

The problem with this line of thinking is a common one. A person that believes he is right and can never be wrong must come up with scenarios that aren't supported by all the evidence. You come up with a bunch of could haves, maybes, entirely possibles or the opposing could be possible. The magnificent one simply said, "if it does not fit..."

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

What do you think of Petrocelli telling Park that was not the bag he saw? Do you think he could have told Park other things that did not fit?
Don't you think Mr. Baker should have asked who the others were and what else they told him about his testimony that was wrong?

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

"TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, I WAS EXCITED
11 FROM THAT AND I WAS MOVING KIND OF LIKE IN THAT KIND OF
12 MOTION.
13 IT WOULD BE MAINLY RIGHT HERE IN THE FRONT,
14 BECAUSE HE HAD PULLED UP AND THE DOG -- I SAID, "CHACHI,
15 MOVE."
16 AND THE DOG MOVED AND I KIND OF WAVED HIM ON.
17 Q. WERE YOU FACING ASHFORD OR WERE YOU FACING --
18 WHERE?
19 A. WHEN I OPENED THE GATE, I WAS FACING ASHFORD
20 AND WAVING HIM IN THIS WAY AND MAKING SURE THE DOG WAS
21 OKAY."

[William Anthony]

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 agree with your statement on the rules of evidence. There is a concept in the law called stare decisis, which, in part, is to promote some consistencies in decisions. If the parties can expect consistency in decisions, then why not in what evidence will and will not be admitted.

I give great deference to both juries and verdicts. They set there listened to the evidence and instructions and rendered their respective verdicts. What amazes me is how some can so conclusively say one jury got it right and another got it wrong.

[weezer]

SNIPPED ***. . ."BECAUSE HE HAD PULLED UP AND THE DOG -- I SAID, "CHACHI, MOVE." AND THE DOG MOVED. . ."

is this the same dog that the criminal defense said had to be watched to keep him from running out of the gate?

[William Anthony]

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.

Kato-June 17, 1994-grand jury, when the events were fresher in his mind.

"to the best of my recollection, i was excited
11 from that and i was moving kind of like in that kind of
12 motion.
13 it would be mainly right here in the front,
14 because he had pulled up and the dog -- i said, "chachi,
15 move."
16 and the dog moved and i kind of waved him on.
17 q. Were you facing ashford or were you facing --
18 where?
19 a. When i opened the gate, i was facing ashford
20 and waving him in this way and making sure the dog was
21 okay."

Park's grand jury testimony

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

[One2Snoop]

OT- I just wanted to let you guys know that Susie's grandson Kaleb passed away last night - there's a condolence thread here if you'd like to leave a message....

http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?p=9190357#post9190357

[weezer]

OT- I just wanted to let you guys know that Susie's grandson Kaleb passed away last night - there's a condolence thread here if you'd like to leave a message....

http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?p=9190357#post9190357

oh no! may God keep his arms around that family. . .:rose::rose:

[William Anthony]

OT- I just wanted to let you guys know that Susie's grandson Kaleb passed away last night - there's a condolence thread here if you'd like to leave a message....

http://boards.library.trutv.com/showthread.php?p=9190357#post9190357

Thank you very much and my heart is heavily burdened and sadden to hear the news.

[tv]

is this the same dog that the criminal defense said had to be watched to keep him from running out of the gate?

Poor athritic Chachi...didn't OJS say at one point that he was walking her? Kato said he'd never seen Simpson walk the dog.

[William Anthony]

Poor athritic Chachi...didn't OJS say at one point that he was walking her? Kato said he'd never seen Simpson walk the dog.

It is my understanding that Kato, the human, was allowed to leave the property, irrespective of whether Simpson was at home or not.

See how one must read every word. Here is a case that I think you will find interesting about the word "had". Dinero v. United States Lines Co., 288 F.2d.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/288/288.F2d.595.171.26463_1.html

[tv]

It is my understanding that Kato, the human, was allowed to leave the property, irrespective of whether Simpson was at home or not.

See how one must read every word. Here is a case that I think you will find interesting about the word "had". Dinero v. United States Lines Co., 288 F.2d.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/288/288.F2d.595.171.26463_1.html

William, this post made my headache worse. Would you like to tell me what you're talking about?

[William Anthony]

William, this post made my headache worse. Would you like to tell me what you're talking about?

Which part, the case or what I said about Kato or both?

[tv]

Which part, the case or what I said about Kato or both?Kato.

[William Anthony]

Kato.

Did you mean to imply by your post that Simpson never walked the dog, because Kato testified he had never seen Simpson walk the dog?

[weezer]

Did you mean to imply by your post that Simpson never walked the dog, because Kato testified he had never seen Simpson walk the dog?

are you implying that orenthal walked the dog, because he said he had?

[weezer]

"Those interested in attending F.Lee Bailey’s presentation on ethics and the law at Wellesley College on February 10th, must RSVP by noon today to:
twoo@wellesley.edu

Don’t miss what is sure to be a fascinating appearance by the “great man” himself!

After all, the famed attorney in the Sam Shepard, Boston Strangler, and OJ Simpson cases, to name but a few, is going to be skirting a fine line in this speech.

He should know all about ethics since he was disbarred in Florida in 2001 and Massachusetts in 2002 for ethics violations involving stock and a drug czar.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in 2003 that Bailey “deliberately” broke ethical rules and deserved to be disbarred."

http://bostonkayakguy.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/f-lee-bailey-disbarred-for-egregious-behavior-speaks-on-ethics-and-the-law-at-wellesley-college/

[William Anthony]

Bailey's cross of MF was brilliant and caused MF to be convicted of perjury and is still being discussed.

[William Anthony]

Was Simpson convicted of perjury?

[GreenIce]

The problem with this line of thinking is a common one. A person that believes he is right and can never be wrong must come up with scenarios that aren't supported by all the evidence. You come up with a bunch of could haves, maybes, entirely possibles or the opposing could be possible. The magnificent one simply said, "if it does not fit..."

William,

IMO, the blood on the console was a smear and the detectives knew it. They knew there had to be some force behind it. The smear could not have happened just throwing the glove in the Bronco.

Again, the detectives try to give an explaintion that just makes no sense unless you realize they were covering for Fuhrman or who ever wiped the glove in Bronco.

I remember the part about the light bulb and how VA and Lange tried to twist it into something sinister, but the reality of the situation is you did not have to take the bulb out to stop the light---you just have flip a switch and won't come on.

And if Simpson had blood on his clothes, enough to leave a smear then shouldn't blood be on the seat belt? Or other surfaces.

Their book is a gold mine of twists and turns that buries the case even deeper.

[GreenIce]

Bailey's cross of MF was brilliant and caused MF to be convicted of perjury and is still being discussed.

William,

In reading VA's and Lange's book, it funny when they come to MF and Baily. First off, Lange volunteered to be a friend face for MF during his testimony. Poor MF was so beaten up in the press and by the DA's, he needed somebody's support. Did MF look like he needed a friendly face, he had Clark asking him about he felt about testifying.

Apparently Lange sensed a trapped as soon as FLB asked him about the N-word. He knew then that FLB set a brilliant trap and MF just walked into it when he made his denials. Both Lange and VA knew the defense knew something they didn't know and knew it was going to come back and haunt them.

As I reading these pages, I can't believe these men could lie so bad in their book. Their lies are so pathic. In one way it is sad that the Good Ole Boy's did cover for MF, he clearly did not deserve it but on the other hand, they knew all about him and they should have made sure he never testified. It appears to me that when it came to MF, no one had the courage to kick him out of the trial. IMO.

[GreenIce]

William,

I know the keys aren't a big deal to you but I just realized, it seems everyone is saying that Nicole knew the keys were missing 2 weeks before the murders, but wasn't OJ Simpson out of town most of that time?

And wasn't she looking through Faye's purse 3 or 4 days before she was murdered?

I think Lange and Vanatter say that keys were stolen around June 6. I'll have to check on that. While I think they doing to hurt Simpson, I do think if Faye did take them, then that should be looked into, IMO.

[tv]

"Those interested in attending F.Lee Bailey’s presentation on ethics and the law at Wellesley College on February 10th, must RSVP by noon today to:
twoo@wellesley.edu

Don’t miss what is sure to be a fascinating appearance by the “great man” himself!

After all, the famed attorney in the Sam Shepard, Boston Strangler, and OJ Simpson cases, to name but a few, is going to be skirting a fine line in this speech.

He should know all about ethics since he was disbarred in Florida in 2001 and Massachusetts in 2002 for ethics violations involving stock and a drug czar.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in 2003 that Bailey “deliberately” broke ethical rules and deserved to be disbarred."

http://bostonkayakguy.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/f-lee-bailey-disbarred-for-egregious-behavior-speaks-on-ethics-and-the-law-at-wellesley-college/

I can't believe anyone would book him to speak about ethics and the law. Maybe it was more of a 'What not to do' lecture.

[William Anthony]

I can't believe anyone would book him to speak about ethics and the law. Maybe it was more of a 'What not to do' lecture.

Anyone who understands how brilliant he was in practicing law would book him.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, the blood on the console was a smear and the detectives knew it. They knew there had to be some force behind it. The smear could not have happened just throwing the glove in the Bronco.

Again, the detectives try to give an explaintion that just makes no sense unless you realize they were covering for Fuhrman or who ever wiped the glove in Bronco.

I remember the part about the light bulb and how VA and Lange tried to twist it into something sinister, but the reality of the situation is you did not have to take the bulb out to stop the light---you just have flip a switch and won't come on.

And if Simpson had blood on his clothes, enough to leave a smear then shouldn't blood be on the seat belt? Or other surfaces.

Their book is a gold mine of twists and turns that buries the case even deeper.

GreenIce,

If you don't consider the missing blood and that Simpson could have bled at Bundy at anytime, the blood drops at Bundy are the only ones that remotely make sense in the case, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

William,

In reading VA's and Lange's book, it funny when they come to MF and Baily. First off, Lange volunteered to be a friend face for MF during his testimony. Poor MF was so beaten up in the press and by the DA's, he needed somebody's support. Did MF look like he needed a friendly face, he had Clark asking him about he felt about testifying.

Apparently Lange sensed a trapped as soon as FLB asked him about the N-word. He knew then that FLB set a brilliant trap and MF just walked into it when he made his denials. Both Lange and VA knew the defense knew something they didn't know and knew it was going to come back and haunt them.

As I reading these pages, I can't believe these men could lie so bad in their book. Their lies are so pathic. In one way it is sad that the Good Ole Boy's did cover for MF, he clearly did not deserve it but on the other hand, they knew all about him and they should have made sure he never testified. It appears to me that when it came to MF, no one had the courage to kick him out of the trial. IMO.

I have heard of double talk and two faced. I guess Lang was trying for a new definition. :)

[tv]

Anyone who understands how brilliant he was in practicing law would book him.

I'm sure Patty Hearst appreciates the work he did in her case.

[tv]

I have heard of double talk and two faced. I guess Lang was trying for a new definition. :)

You always profess to be so fair minded. Why don't you ask what Lange and Vannatter supposedly lied about before you agree with someone that's well known on this forum to invent over half of what they post? I see an accusation of good old boying and pathetic lies but yet we don't know what these 'lies' are. Then you jump in and call Lange two-faced. Real fair of you, William.

[bobaugust]

Because you do not understand the magnificent one's closing or Mr. Baker's sarcasm does not mean that others don't or that it did not happen. :)

If I said that Kato waved at Park that is not what I meant to say. Kato testified that he waved the limo in after getting Chachi to safety after he went to let the limo in, which a reasonable inference can be drawn that is when Park first saw Kato.

I do believe the reason you haven't seen the evidence of reasonable doubt is because you can't or won't accept it as it differs with your conclusion and you can't allow that to happen from anyone.:)

Baker never disputed Park’s testimony that the first person he saw on Simpson’s estate that night was a white male to his left come from behind the house.

I have never seen any evidence in this case that raises reasonable doubt to me that Simpson wasn’t the killer because there was none.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

The glove was placed there and was not dropped.

Simpson had another way on to his property and into his home that did not risk being seen or heard by the only person left of the estate.

The blood trail leads form the Bronco right to the front door which proves if anything, that Simpson had no reason to risk jumping a fence.

If the pictured moved because someone was crashing into the wall, then I am pretty sure the LAPD could have found one of their finest to scale the fence and crash into a wall. And there are no excuses why they didn't do this.

There is no trace evidence that anyone was back there.

The glove should have been dried.

You and William have really solved this issue. It is clear that both Park and Kato did their best to remember and give estimates but that is all they were able to give. The fact that in 4 trips to the witness chair and two separate trials proves they were willing to allow Petrocelli to manipulate their times. I am not blaming Petrocelli.

Kato's testimony IMO, is worthless. He was attacked by the media for his testimony in the criminal case and accused of bending his testimony to favor Simpson.

Kato was also attacked because he refused to testify in the Grand Jury unless his lawyer was present. Why would he have to lawyer up?

In the Grand Jury Kato was asked about the noise he heard, he rapped his fist on the witness stand 3 times. He was never asked in three trials (I don't know about the civil trial) to get up and demonstrate what he heard.

Kato kept on asking about an earthquake. Kato also made several key mistakes in his testimony as well as the DA's could not provide the proof that backed up his story.

I am not saying he is lying, what I am saying is that Kato was threatened with arrest or felt Clark was leaning hard on him and he felt the need to hire a lawyer.

Kato never called the cops after Simpson left--why if he was so afraid of his noise, didn't he call the cops? At least to check it out and give him so peace of mind?

Why when he heard Arnelle come home didn't he warn her about the thumps?

Last, Kato lied about a book deal and was not pleased with the final draft and he pulled out of it. However, he totally denied any interviews regarding a book.

GreenIce the evidence that the glove was dropped on the south path is the fact that glove was found on the south path right behind the same place on the wall that Kaelin heard the thumps.

Trace evidence and blood evidence found on that glove points only to Simpson as handling that glove.

The blood on the glove only appeared to be shiny and moist.

If you think you know of another way Simpson could have entered his estate that night without being seen after parking his Bronco on Rockingham please inform us. Simpson’s blood drops found just on the cement outside and just inside the center of the Rockingham gate are not consistent with Simpson opening the gate to enter his estate.

The fact that Park first saw Kaelin come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight was never an issue in this case. That is the evidence in this case and no defense attorney ever disputed it. Only William can’t accept that fact because he understands that Park’s testimony is consistent with Simpson having made the noises behind Kaelin’s room. So he has tried to make it an issue by creating his own scenario of what he imagined could have happened and then called Park mistaken. Only William’s scenario doesn’t make any sense since it is contradicted by both Park and Kaelin’s undisputed testimony.

Your comments as to what you think Kaelin should have done the night of the murders do not change what Kaelin said he did, what he said he heard and felt, or what he said he saw.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

GreenIce the evidence that the glove was dropped on the south path is the fact that glove was found on the south path right behind the same place on the wall that Kaelin heard the thumps.

Trace evidence and blood evidence found on that glove points only to Simpson as handling that glove.

The blood on the glove only appeared to be shiny and moist.

If you think you know of another way Simpson could have entered his estate that night without being seen after parking his Bronco on Rockingham please inform us. Simpson’s blood drops found just on the cement outside and just inside the center of the Rockingham gate are not consistent with Simpson opening the gate to enter his estate.

The fact that Park first saw Kaelin come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight was never an issue in this case. That is the evidence in this case and no defense attorney ever disputed it. Only William can’t accept that fact because he understands that Park’s testimony is consistent with Simpson having made the noises behind Kaelin’s room. So he has tried to make it an issue by creating his own scenario of what he imagined could have happened and then called Park mistaken. Only William’s scenario doesn’t make any sense since it is contradicted by both Park and Kaelin’s undisputed testimony.

Your comments as to what you think Kaelin should have done the night of the murders do not change what Kaelin said he did, what he said he heard and felt, or what he said he saw.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Bottom line, Kato and Park's testimony changed several times.

You are wrong about the glove, Fuhrman said it appeared moist and that is how it was presented in the trial and the DA's never presented any evidence that it was dry, but it appeared moist and sticky.

The fact that there was only trace evidence found on the glove and no where else is more evidence that the glove was smeared inside the Bronco, on purpose and then it was placed right where MF working off Kato's vague description of the noise. Clark and MF insist that Simpson ran into the AC unit, impossible to do it once let alone 3 times. However, major mistake, Kato said the noise was about five feet away from the AC unit.

Your explaination would go a long way if the DA's proved that it the noise was the result of someone crashing into the wall. They never did it. In fact, the DA's never even attempted to explained it.

[William Anthony]

I'm sure Patty Hearst appreciates the work he did in her case.

I don't think you want to get into the issues of that case, as I know how you feel about discussing race.:)

[William Anthony]

Baker never disputed Park’s testimony that the first person he saw on Simpson’s estate that night was a white male to his left come from behind the house.

I have never seen any evidence in this case that raises reasonable doubt to me that Simpson wasn’t the killer because there was none.

bobaugust

As I have said, just because you don't see or understand the sarcasm, doesn't mean it did not happen. I see you have not talked about the magnificent one saying Park was mistaken, even though your original post was that no lawyer disputed it. No one is perfect, bobaugust, not even you. I have posted the testimonies and Kato's contradicts Park's, especially the running and walking. :) The totality of the evidence on the issue allows the reasonable inference, without resorting to ifs, maybes, could haves and entirely possibles. :)

I know that you have never seen any evidence in this case that raises reasonable doubt in your mind. You seem to go out of your way with the if, maybes, could haves and entirely possibles to avoid seeing the evidence.:)

[tv]

I don't think you want to get into the issues of that case, as I know how you feel about discussing race.:)

I don't have a problem discussing race. It's discussing race with you that's the problem. :)

[William Anthony]

You always profess to be so fair minded. Why don't you ask what Lange and Vannatter supposedly lied about before you agree with someone that's well known on this forum to invent over half of what they post? I see an accusation of good old boying and pathetic lies but yet we don't know what these 'lies' are. Then you jump in and call Lange two-faced. Real fair of you, William.

I never called Lang two faced. I said maybe he was looking for a new definition. I guess it depends on what one thinks is fair, as with calling Ms. Arnelle a co-conspirator, whatever that means. I responded to a post just as you frequently do with your LOLs and, if you did not notice I included a smiley icon. Please, allow me to see humor where I care to see it, as I allow you. Thanks.:)

[William Anthony]

I don't have a problem discussing race. It's discussing race with you that's the problem. :)

Are you accustomed to discussing it with yes-men?:)

[William Anthony]

Your comments as to what you think Kaelin should have done the night of the murders do not change what Kaelin said he did, what he said he heard and felt, or what he said he saw.

bobaugust

Kato said he ran, not walked, did not stop, did not wave until after he completed his first cursory search and did not stand and was not standing and still standing for another minute in the same place where he was standing, before completing his first cursory search, but continued running, nor did he see Park.

[tv]

I never called Lang two faced. I said maybe he was looking for a new definition. I guess it depends on what one thinks is fair, as with calling Ms. Arnelle a co-conspirator, whatever that means. I responded to a post just as you frequently do with your LOLs and, if you did not notice I included a smiley icon. Please, allow me to see humor where I care to see it, as I allow you. Thanks.:)
My point is that when someone posts that someone involved in the case has told lies then that needs to be clarified. Let us know what the alleged lies are so we can make our own decision about it. Whether you agree with me or not you know why I have at times called Arnelle a co-conspirator. I don't just throw it out there with no reason for why I'm saying it. I don't expect anything to change but I thought I'd lodge a complaint anyway. :shrug:

You're free to find humor wherever you wish. You yourself are often a source of humor to me. :) <----------notice the smiley icon.

[tv]

Are you accustomed to discussing it with yes-men?:)

Meaning?

[William Anthony]

My point is that when someone posts that someone involved in the case has told lies then that needs to be clarified. Let us know what the alleged lies are so we can make our own decision about it. Whether you agree with me or not you know why I have at times called Arnelle a co-conspirator. I don't just throw it out there with no reason for why I'm saying it. I don't expect anything to change but I thought I'd lodge a complaint anyway. :shrug:

You're free to find humor wherever you wish. You yourself are often a source of humor to me. :) <----------notice the smiley icon.

Sometimes a person gets tired of posting things about lies when, as with MF, they are told that his lie was irrelevant. Ms. Arnelle has been called a liar and that is the one of the most pleasant thing she has been called. What makes a person think that they are better at determining, who is telling a lie, than someone else? I am glad to bring a little humor into your life as your posts always make my day, as I believe laughter is the best medicine.:) If you continue to post, I may find perfect health.:)

[William Anthony]

Meaning?

Why Ms. Tvdinner,

Did you not understand the question? Are you accustomed to discussing race with men that respond to your view with, yes, mam?

[tv]

Why Ms. Tvdinner,

Did you not understand the question? Are you accustomed to discussing race with men that respond to your view with, yes, mam?

I'm accustomed to discussing race with men and women that don't automatically dismiss what I have to say because of my color. I'm accustomed to expressing my opinion on a variety of topics without being told that I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm not black. I'm accustomed to having a respectful exchange of ideas -- something I haven't found on this forum when discussing race. That's why I choose not to discuss it here.

[William Anthony]

I'm accustomed to discussing race with men and women that don't automatically dismiss what I have to say because of my color. I'm accustomed to expressing my opinion on a variety of topics without being told that I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm not black. I'm accustomed to having a respectful exchange of ideas -- something I haven't found on this forum when discussing race. That's why I choose not to discuss it here.

It is understandable that you see the discussions of race this way on this forum, although I disagree with that is how the discussions take place. :) I remember being told move on and get over it.

[tv]

It is understandable that you see the discussions of race this way on this forum, although I disagree with that is how the discussions take place. :) I remember being told move on and get over it.

I'm sure you do.

[GreenIce]

Kato said he ran, not walked, did not stop, did not wave until after he completed his first cursory search and did not stand and was not standing and still standing for another minute in the same place where he was standing, before completing his first cursory search, but continued running, nor did he see Park.

William,

I just thought of something---if Simpson did jump the fence and by accident he slammed into the wall and knew he was heard, wouldn't have only made sense that he would have stopped and waited to see if Kato was going to come out and check it out? Don't most people stand still when they make a noise in a situation where that is the last thing they want?

[fgump2]

Bailey's cross of MF was brilliant and caused MF to be convicted of perjury and is still being discussed.

This is a strange example of brilliance. I think the defense team already had plans about asking Fuhrman about his use of racial insults before Bailey became part of the team. I don't think it takes brilliance to catch a person in a lie. More luck on the part of the court room lawyer and dillegence on the part of the research person who had studied Fuhrman's record.

[fgump2]

William,

I just thought of something---if Simpson did jump the fence and by accident he slammed into the wall and knew he was heard, wouldn't have only made sense that he would have stopped and waited to see if Kato was going to come out and check it out? Don't most people stand still when they make a noise in a situation where that is the last thing they want?

They probably won't stand still for long if they are late for a plane flight, or if they have blood on their clothing that they would like to clean off.

[fgump2]

William,

This is awesome! In VA and Lange's book, their explaination for the swipe mark in the Bronco was OJ bending down or leaning down to search for a light bulb and swiped the console with his shoulder which was wearing blood clothes!

Aren't they know conceding that Simpson was covered in blood with this? Or a least had a enough of it on him to make that swipe? So where did the rest of it come from?

I haven't studied this, although I did read the book years ago. To assume that if Simpson had blood on one of his shoulders, that meant he was covered in blood is quite a stretch.

[tv]

They probably won't stand still for long if they are late for a plane flight, or if they have blood on their clothing that they would like to clean off.
I agree. He would have had plenty of time to get from behind Kato's room before Kato came to investigate. It's probably lucky for Kato that he didn't run across Simpson back there. I've asked several times and never gotten an answer -- what is the explanation for the noise behind Kato's room if not OJ Simpson on his way home from slaughtering two human beings?

[GreenIce]

This is a strange example of brilliance. I think the defense team already had plans about asking Fuhrman about his use of racial insults before Bailey became part of the team. I don't think it takes brilliance to catch a person in a lie. More luck on the part of the court room lawyer and dillegence on the part of the research person who had studied Fuhrman's record.

fgump2,

I don't think it takes brilliance to catch a person in a lie, either. However, FLB did not just catch MF in lie. Through his questioning, he got on MF to say that anyone who came into the courtroom and testified to this would be the liars, not him.

FLB also allowed the jury to see MF's arrogance and his disrespect and disregard for authority.

FLB also asked questions that clearly pitted MF against VA and the other detectives. Both MF and VA can't be telling the truth.

Private citizens came forward about MF which is why it is impossible for the DA's office and the LAPD to claim they knew nothing about MF and this issue. However, giving them something they don't deserve, the benefit of the doubt about not knowing, then they didn't want to know.

MC and the DA's had the responsibililty of researching her star witness. If the DA's were able to go the home of a juror and count the whiskey bottles in his trash, I am pretty sure they could have done the same type of research on MF. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I haven't studied this, although I did read the book years ago. To assume that if Simpson had blood on one of his shoulders, that meant he was covered in blood is quite a stretch.

fgump2,

The DA's floated the theory that Simpson did not get covered in blood because he killed both of them from behind and it was done so quickly that there wasn't enough time to get covered in blood.

However, for Lange to later say that Simpson did have blood on him but only on one shoulder is the stretch. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Mr. August,

The real problem with your theory regarding Simpson and wall is that you supported or are supporting an absolute that is no absolute at all. In your theory, you are saying that no other human being on the face of planet could have scaled the fence, crash into the wall, move a picture but OJ Simpson.

You also support this when you have posted that any damage Simpson may have caused to the vegitation would have healed it self by the time the glove was found. You have no proof of this---yet that is your claim. (You made this post a long time ago.)

The DA's were the one said that the blood trail led from his Bronco right to his front door. It makes no sense Simpson would have had to sneak onto his property. It makes no sense that Simpson intentionally gave the impression that he was not home in regards to the lights. It makes no sense that Simpson would not have prepared an entrance on to his property and into his home where he would not have been seen or heard.

It makes no sense that Simpson would use his White Bronco as his chosen transportation since he knew that everyone in Nicole's neighborhood knew he drove one. IMO.

[GreenIce]

They probably won't stand still for long if they are late for a plane flight, or if they have blood on their clothing that they would like to clean off.

fgump2,

They probably would not have even risked being caught or heard by the only person who was known to be home. They probably would have used the same entrance that has been used many times to get on to the property and enter the house without being caught.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Bottom line, Kato and Park's testimony changed several times.

You are wrong about the glove, Fuhrman said it appeared moist and that is how it was presented in the trial and the DA's never presented any evidence that it was dry, but it appeared moist and sticky.

The fact that there was only trace evidence found on the glove and no where else is more evidence that the glove was smeared inside the Bronco, on purpose and then it was placed right where MF working off Kato's vague description of the noise. Clark and MF insist that Simpson ran into the AC unit, impossible to do it once let alone 3 times. However, major mistake, Kato said the noise was about five feet away from the AC unit.

Your explaination would go a long way if the DA's proved that it the noise was the result of someone crashing into the wall. They never did it. In fact, the DA's never even attempted to explained it.

GreenIce, Kaelin and Park’s testimony did not change. When they were asked different questions they gave additional answers.

That’s right blood and fiber evidence was found on the killer’s right hand glove.
Blood from both victims and Simpson.
Fibers consistent with Ron Goldman’s shirt.
Fibers consistent with Ron Goldman’s jeans.
1 “unusual” x-shaped fiber consistent with the Bronco carpeting
Blue black cotton fibers (the same exact kind of fibers that were found on Ron Goldman’s shirt and found on Simpson’s socks.)

No I am not wrong about the glove. Fuhrman said, “It looked a little sticky and moist. Two fingers were stuck to the glove. It looked like it was stuck there with some type of a liquid.”

Vannatter said, “It appeared it was moist.” Ít appeared to be wet with something, which would make it shiny or moist. It appeared to be a leather man’s glove”

Dennis Fung testified that it was his opinion the blood on the glove appeared to be dry.

April 3, 1995 Fung

Q ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHEN YOU SAW THIS ITEM PRIOR TO YOU COLLECTING IT, WHICHEVER TECHNIQUE YOU USED, WHAT DID THE ITEM APPEAR LIKE?
A THE ITEM APPEARED TO HAVE SOME BROWNISH REDDISH STAINS ON THEM. IT WAS -- APPEARED TO ME TO BE SOMEWHAT DRY WITH SOME SHINY AREAS ON IT.
Q WHEN YOU FIRST SAW IT, BEFORE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO INSPECT IT AT ALL, CAREFULLY, I MEAN, WHEN YOU FIRST GLANCED AT IT, HOW SHINY DID IT APPEAR?
A THERE WERE JUST SOME AREAS THAT HAD A SHEEN TO THEM.
Q A WHAT TO THEM?
A A SHEEN, A SHININESS.
Q OKAY. DID YOU DO SOMETHING FURTHER TO DETERMINE -- TO LOOK AT IT TO DETERMINE WHETHER IN YOUR OPINION IT WAS DRY OR WET AT THAT TIME?
A NO, I DID NOT.
Q WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT IT WAS MORE LIKELY TO BE -- WELL, MAYBE I AM MISSTATING YOUR TESTIMONY. DIDN'T YOU TESTIFY THAT IN YOUR OPINION IT WAS MORE LIKELY TO BE DRY THAN WET?
A YES.
Q WHY DO YOU THINK THAT?
A MY EXPERIENCE WITH BLOODIED CLOTHING AND THEIR APPEARANCE LENT ME TO THAT ESTIMATION OF WHETHER IT WAS WET OR DRY. IT APPEARED TO ME TO BE DRY.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

As I have said, just because you don't see or understand the sarcasm, doesn't mean it did not happen. I see you have not talked about the magnificent one saying Park was mistaken, even though your original post was that no lawyer disputed it. No one is perfect, bobaugust, not even you. I have posted the testimonies and Kato's contradicts Park's, especially the running and walking. :) The totality of the evidence on the issue allows the reasonable inference, without resorting to ifs, maybes, could haves and entirely possibles. :)

I know that you have never seen any evidence in this case that raises reasonable doubt in your mind. You seem to go out of your way with the if, maybes, could haves and entirely possibles to avoid seeing the evidence.:)

Cochran never disputed Park’s testimony that he first saw a white male come from behind the house on the pathway with a flashlight. Park may not have recalled some of the little details such as movements correctly but he certainly knew where the first person he saw on the estate that night came from.

I never claimed to be perfect. I’ve used “ifs, maybes, could haves, and entirely possibles” simply as an explanation for what Park could have perceived regarding Kaelin’s movements. The fact is that Kaelin’s testimony corroborates Park’s testimony of where Park said he first saw Kaelin that night. The totality of the evidence is that Park never saw Kaelin continue on to the garage because he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin after Park saw Simpson enter his house and lights come on. But we know Kaelin did continue on to the garage because Kaelin told us he did.

Kaelin testified, while looking at a diagram of the Rockingham estate, that when he came out from behind the garage he saw the limo was still there so he went “up” the driveway to the gate control box and opened the gate. Park testified, looking at the same diagram of the Rockingham estate, that he saw Kaelin go “up” the driveway to the gate control box and open the gate.

What you have imagined happened William is not supported by anything except your imagination. Kaelin never said he did what you imagine he did. No defense attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred or claimed what you have imagined Kaelin did or that Park was mistaken about first seeing Kaelin come from behind the house and down the Ashford pathway.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

William,

I just thought of something---if Simpson did jump the fence and by accident he slammed into the wall and knew he was heard, wouldn't have only made sense that he would have stopped and waited to see if Kato was going to come out and check it out? Don't most people stand still when they make a noise in a situation where that is the last thing they want?

No one slams into a wall three times unless they are drunk or severely wounded, IMHO. The whole thing makes no sense. If it does not fit....

[William Anthony]

This is a strange example of brilliance. I think the defense team already had plans about asking Fuhrman about his use of racial insults before Bailey became part of the team. I don't think it takes brilliance to catch a person in a lie. More luck on the part of the court room lawyer and dillegence on the part of the research person who had studied Fuhrman's record.

Luck did not pick out the use of the words, "them and in", IMHO. It was anticipation and preparation. The brilliant Bailey had knowledge of the testimonies to be given by Ms. Bell, Ms. Singer, Mr. Hodge and Ms. Terry. It was simply a matter of believing that MF was a liar and would lie under oath, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

I agree. He would have had plenty of time to get from behind Kato's room before Kato came to investigate. It's probably lucky for Kato that he didn't run across Simpson back there. I've asked several times and never gotten an answer -- what is the explanation for the noise behind Kato's room if not OJ Simpson on his way home from slaughtering two human beings?

Have you ever asked where is the evidence that Simpson was behind Kato's quarters when the glove did not fit?

[William Anthony]

Cochran never disputed Park’s testimony that he first saw a white male come from behind the house on the pathway with a flashlight. Park may not have recalled some of the little details such as movements correctly but he certainly knew where the first person he saw on the estate that night came from.

I never claimed to be perfect. I’ve used “ifs, maybes, could haves, and entirely possibles” simply as an explanation for what Park could have perceived regarding Kaelin’s movements. The fact is that Kaelin’s testimony corroborates Park’s testimony of where Park said he first saw Kaelin that night. The totality of the evidence is that Park never saw Kaelin continue on to the garage because he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin after Park saw Simpson enter his house and lights come on. But we know Kaelin did continue on to the garage because Kaelin told us he did.

Kaelin testified, while looking at a diagram of the Rockingham estate, that when he came out from behind the garage he saw the limo was still there so he went “up” the driveway to the gate control box and opened the gate. Park testified, looking at the same diagram of the Rockingham estate, that he saw Kaelin go “up” the driveway to the gate control box and open the gate.

What you have imagined happened William is not supported by anything except your imagination. Kaelin never said he did what you imagine he did. No defense attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred or claimed what you have imagined Kaelin did or that Park was mistaken about first seeing Kaelin come from behind the house and down the Ashford pathway.

bobaugust

Before I respond to your post, let me correct your statement that Park's testimony did not change. He was asked in the grand jury what he saw Kato do and he testified that he saw Kato standing and still standing. When asked in the socio political production it changed to he wasn't paying attention.

The magnificent one said Park was mistaken. I hope you understand that. It does not take a genius to realize that the plaintiffs and the prosecution realized that Kato could not have opened the gate until after he finished his first cursory search by all the testimonies and could not have seen Kato running down the Ashford pathway as Park said he walked. Ergo, they had to change the testimony to not paying attention but that was not until the socio political production. I repeat, because you don't understand or fail to see it doesn't mean it did not happen.

The totality of the evidence means that you have to use ifs, maybes, could haves and perceptions to support what you believe happened and to support any inference you draw. While I on the other hand, simply look at all the testimonies and draw and inference from those.

Park testified at three different hearings that he saw Kato standing and still standing. He testified on direct in the socio political production that he did not see Kato walk in any direction. However, on cross he testified that he saw Kato walk up the driveway in a direction. I repeat, just because you do not see it, doesn't mean it did not happen.

Your ifs, maybes, could haves, entirely possibles, are all evidence that they are supported by nothing but your skewed imaginary images that try to explain the contradictions in the testimonies. I simply post the testimonies, not having to use ifs, maybe, could haves, entirely possible, but use logical reasoning of those testimonies to draw the inferences that Park was mistaken, his testimony changed and his memory of events was suggested.

[William Anthony]

You also support this when you have posted that any damage Simpson may have caused to the vegitation would have healed it self by the time the glove was found. You have no proof of this---yet that is your claim. (You made this post a long time ago.)

Wow, talk about the incredulous and a vivid imagination.:)

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

If you can not see the changes in these testimonies, I rest my case, as they are anything but subtle.

"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."

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

"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. "

"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.

"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."



"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.

Q. Okay."

[William Anthony]

How about this, bobaugust?:)

“Q. WHEN YOU WERE CALLING YOUR BOSS, WERE YOU ABLE
13 TO SEE ANY PORTION OF THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY?
14 A. YES.
15 I COULD SEE TO ABOUT THE EXTENT OF THE GARAGE
16 AREA, ABOUT TO HERE.
17 Q. WOULD YOU PLEASE SHOW US AGAIN TO WHAT AREA YOU
18 THINK YOU COULD SEE.
19 A. JUST TO ABOUT THE CORNER OF THE GARAGE, ACROSS
20 TO THE -- WELL, TOWARDS THE PLAY AREA.
21 Q. SO YOU ARE POINTING TO --
22 A. FROM ABOUT HERE UP TO HERE.
23 Q. THE CORNER OF THE GARAGE AS IT'S MARKED ON THIS
24 DIAGRAM THAT'S CLOSEST TO THE FRONT DOOR?
25 A. YES.
26 Q. AND IF YOU DREW A LINE ALL THE WAY BACK, THAT
27 WOULD BE STRAIGHT BACK FROM THAT POINT, THAT'S ABOUT AS
28 MUCH AS YOU COULD SEE?”

255





“Q. WHILE YOU WERE TALKING TO YOUR BOSS, WERE YOU
19 FOCUSED ON THIS FRONT AREA OR WERE YOU LOOKING ALL AROUND?
20 A. NO, I WAS FOCUSED ON THE FRONT AREA.
21 Q. WHY WERE YOU FOCUSED ON THE FRONT AREA?
22 A. BECAUSE JUST THE WAY I WAS -- YOU KNOW, IT'S
23 JUST THE WAY THE CAR WAS FACING.
24 I WAS LOOKING STRAIGHT OUT THE FRONT WINDSHIELD
25 INTO HIS FRONT AREA, THE FRONT DOOR AND THE DRIVEWAY.”


“Q: AS YOU SAT IN THE CAR WERE YOU SEATED -- WHICH WAY WERE YOU FACING?

A: I WAS FACING LOOKING DOWN THE DRIVEWAY TOWARD THE HOUSE.

Q: SO YOU WERE -- WERE YOU FACING IN THROUGH THE GATE?

A: YES.

Q: AND AS YOU SPOKE TO DALE ST. JOHN ON THE TELEPHONE, WERE YOU LOOKING AT THE DRIVEWAY AREA?

A: MOST OF THE TIME, YEAH. I MIGHT HAVE LOOKED AT THE DASHBOARD OR SOMETHING HERE OR THERE. “



“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.”

[tv]

No one slams into a wall three times unless they are drunk or severely wounded, IMHO. The whole thing makes no sense. If it does not fit....

Kato never said it was three different thumps indicating that someone hit the AC three separate times. Common sense tells us the three thumps were all part of one incident of something or someone hitting the AC. I'm sure you've been around long enough to have heard someone fall or run into something. While there may have been more than one noise it's all part of the same occurence; it's possible that he hit it with his shoulder and arm, lost his balance and bumped it again all nearly simultaneously.

[William Anthony]

Kato never said it was three different thumps indicating that someone hit the AC three separate times. Common sense tells us the three thumps were all part of one incident of something or someone hitting the AC. I'm sure you've been around long enough to have heard someone fall or run into something. While there may have been more than one noise it's all part of the same occurence; it's possible that he hit it with his shoulder and arm, lost his balance and bumped it again all nearly simultaneously.

You have proposed a scenario in which there two different events, although nearly simultaneously. Kato paused between each thump. I never said hit the air conditioner three different times. I said hit the wall. If there were not three different thumps, then why did Kato indicate there were? I think if you reread the testimony he will say that he heard three thumps. They would have had to have been different ones or they would have been only one or two.:)

[tv]

You have proposed a scenario in which there two different events, although nearly simultaneously. Kato paused between each thump. I never said hit the air conditioner three different times. I said hit the wall. If there were not three different thumps, then why did Kato indicate there were? I think if you reread the testimony he will say that he heard three thumps. They would have had to have been different ones or they would have been only one or two.:)

I don't expect you to admit you know what kind of sound I'm talking about.

[William Anthony]

I don't expect you to admit you know what kind of sound I'm talking about.

I think you need to expound on what type of sound you are talking about that sounds like three thumps.

[William Anthony]

"q: During that phone call, sir, did something unusual occur?

A: Yes.

Q: And what was that?

A: I heard a thumping noise.

Q: How many thumps did you hear?

Mr. Shapiro: Objection, leading.

The witness: Overruled.

The witness: Three. "

[fgump2]

Before I respond to your post, let me correct your statement that Park's testimony did not change. He was asked in the grand jury what he saw Kato do and he testified that he saw Kato standing and still standing. When asked in the socio political production it changed to he wasn't paying attention.

The magnificent one said Park was mistaken. I hope you understand that. It does not take a genius to realize that the plaintiffs and the prosecution realized that Kato could not have opened the gate until after he finished his first cursory search by all the testimonies and could not have seen Kato running down the Ashford pathway as Park said he walked. Ergo, they had to change the testimony to not paying attention but that was not until the socio political production. I repeat, because you don't understand or fail to see it doesn't mean it did not happen.

The totality of the evidence means that you have to use ifs, maybes, could haves and perceptions to support what you believe happened and to support any inference you draw. While I on the other hand, simply look at all the testimonies and draw and inference from those.

Park testified at three different hearings that he saw Kato standing and still standing. He testified on direct in the socio political production that he did not see Kato walk in any direction. However, on cross he testified that he saw Kato walk up the driveway in a direction. I repeat, just because you do not see it, doesn't mean it did not happen.

Your ifs, maybes, could haves, entirely possibles, are all evidence that they are supported by nothing but your skewed imaginary images that try to explain the contradictions in the testimonies. I simply post the testimonies, not having to use ifs, maybe, could haves, entirely possible, but use logical reasoning of those testimonies to draw the inferences that Park was mistaken, his testimony changed and his memory of events was suggested.

Human memory is unreliable. To quote forensic memory expert Elizabeth Loftus again:My research shows that memory is malleable--and that it is a flimsy
curtain indeed that separates memory from imagination.
It isn't suprising that Kato and perhaps Park as well gave slightly different testimonies at different times; but that doesn't mean it should be all thrown out.

My understanding is that if people try to recall a complex incident more than once, they will probably recall it differently each time.

If Simpson didn't cause the loud noise, three bumps, it is odd that this unexplained noise should occur just before Mr. Simpson showed up. There were some other coincidences at Rockingham at the time interval 10:30 or so till 11:15. We have to assume a lot of coincidences to think Simpson is innocent. I can't give much weight to the fact that Kato heard 3 bumps. He was having a pleasant phone call, and then got startled. He could easily have thought two bumps were three. Also trying to figure out if someone had been there by looking at the vegetation is very inexact. A person running accross floor with wet paint on it would leave a clear cut path. Running accross vegetation with dead leaves and grass wouldn't leave such a clear cut trail.

[William Anthony]

Human memory is unreliable. To quote forensic memory expert Elizabeth Loftus again:My research shows that memory is malleable--and that it is a flimsy
curtain indeed that separates memory from imagination.
It isn't suprising that Kato and perhaps Park as well gave slightly different testimonies at different times; but that doesn't mean it should be all thrown out.

My understanding is that if people try to recall a complex incident more than once, they will probably recall it differently each time.

If Simpson didn't cause the loud noise, three bumps, it is odd that this unexplained noise should occur just before Mr. Simpson showed up. There were some other coincidences at Rockingham at the time interval 10:30 or so till 11:15. We have to assume a lot of coincidences to think Simpson is innocent. I can't give much weight to the fact that Kato heard 3 bumps. He was having a pleasant phone call, and then got startled. He could easily have thought two bumps were three. Also trying to figure out if someone had been there by looking at the vegetation is very inexact. A person running accross floor with wet paint on it would leave a clear cut path. Running accross vegetation with dead leaves and grass wouldn't leave such a clear cut trail.

Thank you and Ms. Loftus very much, which is what I was saying with Park's memory being suggested, "My research shows that memory is malleable".:)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/malleable

Thank you for agreeing with me as there is another poster, who wants to throw out the testimony, or, if you will, not consider it, IMHO.

Yes, they may recall some parts of an event differently but they won't try to contradict what the have said, which is called a prior inconsistent statement in legal jargon. That is why a person must decide what portion of the testimony is believable and Park had testified on three prior occasions that he Saw Kato standing and/or still standing in the position as he was before he proceeded to open the gate, which is used to rehabilitate the witness' memory, because it is known as a prior consistent statement.:)

MF was a detective trained to conduct investigations and he testified he investigated and saw no evidence, and, in that same vein, Kato testified that he heard three thumps, not two, not one. IMHO, coincidence and conjecture do not provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence/testimony does.:) The testimony is what it is.:)

[GreenIce]

Human memory is unreliable. To quote forensic memory expert Elizabeth Loftus again:My research shows that memory is malleable--and that it is a flimsy
curtain indeed that separates memory from imagination.
It isn't suprising that Kato and perhaps Park as well gave slightly different testimonies at different times; but that doesn't mean it should be all thrown out.

My understanding is that if people try to recall a complex incident more than once, they will probably recall it differently each time.

If Simpson didn't cause the loud noise, three bumps, it is odd that this unexplained noise should occur just before Mr. Simpson showed up. There were some other coincidences at Rockingham at the time interval 10:30 or so till 11:15. We have to assume a lot of coincidences to think Simpson is innocent. I can't give much weight to the fact that Kato heard 3 bumps. He was having a pleasant phone call, and then got startled. He could easily have thought two bumps were three. Also trying to figure out if someone had been there by looking at the vegetation is very inexact. A person running accross floor with wet paint on it would leave a clear cut path. Running accross vegetation with dead leaves and grass wouldn't leave such a clear cut trail.

fgump2,

IMO, if the noise Kato heard had anything to do with the murders, he was meant to hear them. The fact that the LAPD did not make any attempt, according to Bob August to find trace evidence that would support their theory it was Simpson, speaks volumes. The fact they could not recreate or made no attempt to recreate the noises Kato heard also speaks volumes.
The fact that Clark in her questioning of Kato, in 2 hearings before the actual trial never asked Kato to demonstrate what he heard only let him wrap the witness stand speaks volumes.

Also, it has been proven that a noise can and did make a picture move. It was also proven that grown men behind the wall throwing themselves into the wall could not make the picture move.

The noise moved the picture, not an a human crashing into the wall.

I agree with you about memories, which is why the CSI career fields have forms that have forms to be filled out to get an accurate account of the evidence. In this investigation, it appears that no one but MF took notes and no CSI person completed the required forms.

Do I believe this is true, no but that is what the DA's wanted us to believe. No painted Fung and AM as incompetent idiots then the LAPD and the DA's.
They had to, they had no choice. IMO.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9190732]Human memory is unreliable. To quote forensic memory expert Elizabeth Loftus again:My research shows that memory is malleable--and that it is a flimsy curtain indeed that separates memory from imagination.

fgump,

The human memory is also open to suggestion. When Clark got a hold Kato, perhaps she "hinted" that Kato needed to answer this question. She forced him to explain what it was.

Because of the glove, what else could Kato think? Either earth quake or someone back there? It was Kato's behavior and actions after Simpson left tell the real story, IMO.

[GreenIce]

William,

Have ever considered that someone inside of the LAPD was the person who made sure the LHM tapes were found?

[bobaugust]

Before I respond to your post, let me correct your statement that Park's testimony did not change. He was asked in the grand jury what he saw Kato do and he testified that he saw Kato standing and still standing. When asked in the socio political production it changed to he wasn't paying attention.

The magnificent one said Park was mistaken. I hope you understand that. It does not take a genius to realize that the plaintiffs and the prosecution realized that Kato could not have opened the gate until after he finished his first cursory search by all the testimonies and could not have seen Kato running down the Ashford pathway as Park said he walked. Ergo, they had to change the testimony to not paying attention but that was not until the socio political production. I repeat, because you don't understand or fail to see it doesn't mean it did not happen.

The totality of the evidence means that you have to use ifs, maybes, could haves and perceptions to support what you believe happened and to support any inference you draw. While I on the other hand, simply look at all the testimonies and draw and inference from those.

Park testified at three different hearings that he saw Kato standing and still standing. He testified on direct in the socio political production that he did not see Kato walk in any direction. However, on cross he testified that he saw Kato walk up the driveway in a direction. I repeat, just because you do not see it, doesn't mean it did not happen.

Your ifs, maybes, could haves, entirely possibles, are all evidence that they are supported by nothing but your skewed imaginary images that try to explain the contradictions in the testimonies. I simply post the testimonies, not having to use ifs, maybe, could haves, entirely possible, but use logical reasoning of those testimonies to draw the inferences that Park was mistaken, his testimony changed and his memory of events was suggested.

Yes Park did change his testimony regarding this issue but it was not very important or relevant to what Kaelin actually did. Kaelin told us what he did after he came from behind the house and down the Ashford path to the driveway, not Park. Park was unaware that Kaelin continued on to the garage because he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin when he finished his telephone conversation with his boss.

Park’s mistake was not saying that in his pre criminal trial testimony. All this issue shows is how a witness can mistakenly say something they are not really sure about and then correct themselves when they realize what they did say was wrong.

It seems to me that every defense attorney in this case understood Park’s pre criminal trial testimony regarding this issue was a meaningless mistake, including Cochran, and that’s why none of them ever brought it up. Nor did any of them, including Cochran, ever dispute Park’s testimony about first seeing Kaelin come from behind the house. Nor did any of them ever dispute Kaelin’s testimony that after he came out from behind the garage he saw the limo was still outside the gate so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

It seems to me based on your continued defense of your imagined scenario William where you made up your own evidence you evidently do not understand what all of Simpson’s defense attorneys understood.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

fgump2,

IMO, if the noise Kato heard had anything to do with the murders, he was meant to hear them. The fact that the LAPD did not make any attempt, according to Bob August to find trace evidence that would support their theory it was Simpson, speaks volumes. The fact they could not recreate or made no attempt to recreate the noises Kato heard also speaks volumes.
The fact that Clark in her questioning of Kato, in 2 hearings before the actual trial never asked Kato to demonstrate what he heard only let him wrap the witness stand speaks volumes.

Also, it has been proven that a noise can and did make a picture move. It was also proven that grown men behind the wall throwing themselves into the wall could not make the picture move.

The noise moved the picture, not an a human crashing into the wall.

I agree with you about memories, which is why the CSI career fields have forms that have forms to be filled out to get an accurate account of the evidence. In this investigation, it appears that no one but MF took notes and no CSI person completed the required forms.

Do I believe this is true, no but that is what the DA's wanted us to believe. No painted Fung and AM as incompetent idiots then the LAPD and the DA's.
They had to, they had no choice. IMO.

GreenIce, you say the noise moved the picture? Wow.

The fact that grown men standing on the path and ramming into the wall like football players could not generate enough force on that sturdy wall to cause the picture on the other side to tilt means a greater force was needed. And that greater force was generated when a two hundred plus lb. man jumped from the top of the five foot high fence to the small cement path and collided with the wall. The vibrations Kaelin felt on his back from that collision caused the picture on the other side of the wall to tilt, not the noise that was made from the collision.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

William,

Have ever considered that someone inside of the LAPD was the person who made sure the LHM tapes were found?

It is my understanding that the defense investigator was notified by an attorney of the tapes' existence. I don't know who informed that attorney and it might well have been an LAPD member.

[William Anthony]

Yes Park did change his testimony regarding this issue but it was not very important or relevant to what Kaelin actually did. Kaelin told us what he did after he came from behind the house and down the Ashford path to the driveway, not Park. Park was unaware that Kaelin continued on to the garage because he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin when he finished his telephone conversation with his boss.

Park’s mistake was not saying that in his pre criminal trial testimony. All this issue shows is how a witness can mistakenly say something they are not really sure about and then correct themselves when they realize what they did say was wrong.

It seems to me that every defense attorney in this case understood Park’s pre criminal trial testimony regarding this issue was a meaningless mistake, including Cochran, and that’s why none of them ever brought it up. Nor did any of them, including Cochran, ever dispute Park’s testimony about first seeing Kaelin come from behind the house. Nor did any of them ever dispute Kaelin’s testimony that after he came out from behind the garage he saw the limo was still outside the gate so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

It seems to me based on your continued defense of your imagined scenario William where you made up your own evidence you evidently do not understand what all of Simpson’s defense attorneys understood.

bobaugust

Bobaugust,

I am not laughing at your post because I firmly believe that you believe you are right. I find somethings you say in this post humorous because they prove my point.

You now admit that Park changed his testimony, although you previously said to GreenIce that Park did not change his testimony.

Kato told us that he ran from behind the house, down the Ashford pathway, to the garage area where he started walking. I agree that is important as it allows the reasonable inference that Park did not see Kato when he did this as Park said he saw Kato walking down the aforementioned pathway. Kato said he did not stop or wave, but Park said Kato did.

The criminal jury never heard Park's claim that he wasn't paying attention to Kato and that malleable memory did not occur until the socio political production.

Park told us, who told him his malleable memory was wrong-Petrocelli and others. Mr. Baker made fun of Park's new found memory that he looked at the dashboard for a minute and then trapped in a lie about where he saw Kato walk.

Your ifs, maybes, could haves, entirely possibles and perceptions are evidence that you might be the only one, who does not understand the obvious. However, I do thank you for this post, as it confirms what I have been saying. :)

[William Anthony]

Has anyone ever experience having a structure settle? This would explain the picture moving and the thumps and put MF in a worse light. :)

[William Anthony]

When Jesus was asked what was God's greatest commandment, He responded to love thy neighbor as you love yourself. This seems a simple commandment, which does not say love thy neighbors of the same race. Since the world is now an alleged global community, we must love all. However, the problem arises when one does not love oneself, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

It seems to me based on your continued defense of your imagined scenario William where you made up your own evidence you evidently do not understand what all of Simpson’s defense attorneys understood.

bobaugust

I did not give this part of your post the attention (pun intended) it deserved. Your ifs, maybes, could haves, entirely possibles and perceptions make up evidence. I simply post the evidence in support of the inferences that I drew from them (pun intended). :) As I have previously stated, unlike you, I do not have to be right or call your inferences wrong as I believe there was reasonable doubt and the evidence, as the criminal jury was instructed, was obligated when there are two inferences that could be drawn, one pointing toward guilt and the other toward innocence, they must accept the one pointing toward innocence, which in this case there was.

[William Anthony]

We have all heard of the power of the state and we know that Ms. Clark had Kato declared a hostile witness. However, I found this interesting from Park's preliminary hearing testimony.

"MR. PARK, AGAIN, IF I CAN HAVE YOU JUST TAKE A
9 SEAT FOR A MOMENT.
MS. CLARK: MAY THE RECORD REFLECT MR. PARK LOOKED AT
10 ME IN A VERY UNFRIENDLY WAY.
I WILL BE BRIEF, MR. PARK."

I think that a witness should not be intimidated, if one side does not get the answers they so desire.

[tv]

Has anyone ever experience having a structure settle? This would explain the picture moving and the thumps and put MF in a worse light. :)

If a person lives in a structure that settles so much that it causes noise like someone falling against the wall or AC unit and moves a picture on the wall then the building should be condemned.

[tv]

Have you ever asked where is the evidence that Simpson was behind Kato's quarters when the glove did not fit?

Not only did the glove fit but it had the DNA of Nicole Brown Simpson, Ron Goldman and the killer, OJ Simpson, on it. Nicole and Ron are dead so that leaves Simpson as the person that dropped the glove behind Kato's room.

[William Anthony]

Not only did the glove fit but it had the DNA of Nicole Brown Simpson, Ron Goldman and the killer, OJ Simpson, on it. Nicole and Ron are dead so that leaves Simpson as the person that dropped the glove behind Kato's room.

You say fit and I say didn't fit. There is ample evidence to suggest that the person who deposited the glove behind Kato's quarters but was MF.

[William Anthony]

If a person lives in a structure that settles so much that it causes noise like someone falling against the wall or AC unit and moves a picture on the wall then the building should be condemned.

Whether it should have been condemned or not, it happens.:) I am not saying that it did happen, only that the lack of evidence suggests that it was nothing more or that MF planted the glove, IMHO.

[tv]

You say fit and I say didn't fit. There is ample evidence to suggest that the person who deposited the glove behind Kato's quarters but was MF.

There is no evidence to suggest that.

[tv]

Whether it should have been condemned or not, it happens.:) I am not saying that it did happen, only that the lack of evidence suggests that it was nothing more or that MF planted the glove, IMHO.

No it doesn't happen to that extent. The floors might creak and groan, the stairs might pop but it isn't going to sound like a person falling against the side of the house.

[William Anthony]

There is no evidence to suggest that.

Because you do not see it or refuse to accept it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

[William Anthony]

No it doesn't happened to that extent. The floors might creak and groan, the stairs might pop but it isn't going to sound like a person falling against the side of the house.

Depending on what parts of the structure are effected. On my mother's home a post on the porch twisted, causing quite a loud noise.

[tv]

Depending on what parts of the structure are effected. On my mother's home a post on the porch twisted, causing quite a loud noise.

You're really stretching on this one.

[tv]

Because you do not see it or refuse to accept it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

You know, several strange things happened that night. First of all, OJS went to Kato's room which was out of the ordinary for him, Kato heard/felt the commotion behind his room which had never happened before, OJS was unable to be roused by the limo driver's call, OJS forgot to set the alarm on the door and OJS sustained a bad gash on the middle finger of his left hand, his car was parked at a very odd angle with an out of place piece of wood laying beside it in an otherwise immaculate neighborhood. All of these things were unusual and I find it to be too much of a coincidence that they all happened the same night Nicole and Ron were killed.

Yep, OJS is our guy who dropped the glove. :)

[William Anthony]

You're really stretching on this one.

Just as I feel that you are stretching it to believe Simpson bumped into the wall three times, or twice that sounded like three or once that sounded like three.

[William Anthony]

You know, several strange things happened that night. First of all, OJS went to Kato's room which was out of the ordinary for him, Kato heard/felt the commotion behind his room which had never happened before, OJS was unable to be roused by the limo driver's call, OJS forgot to set the alarm on the door and OJS sustained a bad gash on the middle finger of his left hand, his car was parked at a very odd angle with an out of place piece of wood laying beside it in an otherwise immaculate neighborhood. All of these things were unusual and I find it to be too much of a coincidence that they all happened the same night Nicole and Ron were killed.

Yep, OJS is our guy who dropped the glove. :)

Coincidences and conjecture do not rise to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, IMHO.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, you say the noise moved the picture? Wow.

The fact that grown men standing on the path and ramming into the wall like football players could not generate enough force on that sturdy wall to cause the picture on the other side to tilt means a greater force was needed. And that greater force was generated when a two hundred plus lb. man jumped from the top of the five foot high fence to the small cement path and collided with the wall. The vibrations Kaelin felt on his back from that collision caused the picture on the other side of the wall to tilt, not the noise that was made from the collision.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

There is no evidence to support that anyone climbed the fence and collided with the wall. None. But is there is evidence that MF was behind Kato's wall and there is evidence that MF was in the neighbor's yard and asked permission to go along that same boundry line to check it out. There is no evidence that OJ Simpson made that same journey.

If such a large human being was able to get to the fence and leap it and crashed into a wall, then it should have been no problem for the DA's to prove this. They never even attempted it. In fact, all 4 detectives saw no evidence that anyone was back there.

Which means there is no evidence to support Kato's fears that someone was back there.

[GreenIce]

Coincidences and conjecture do not rise to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, IMHO.

William,

What I find interesting is that piece of wood, where did it come from and how did it get there? Why weren't the DA's ever to link it to the events of that night.

Also, I find it hard to believe that a detective who was sent over to give a death notification to a very famous person would have even wandered off to check out a car that was parked "funny". Was the car parked illegally? Was it a danger to other cars driving by? IMO, MF put that glove in the Bronco first and then when he found out about the thumps, he moved it.

It was never proven that the Bronco was locked by Simpson that night. However, it has been proven over and over and over and over again the police never locked Bronco when they impounded it. I find that odd, don't you?

[weezer]

LOL -- I'm afraid our NG's have stepped off the edge -- :eek:

[weezer]

You know, several strange things happened that night. First of all, OJS went to Kato's room which was out of the ordinary for him, Kato heard/felt the commotion behind his room which had never happened before, OJS was unable to be roused by the limo driver's call, OJS forgot to set the alarm on the door and OJS sustained a bad gash on the middle finger of his left hand, his car was parked at a very odd angle with an out of place piece of wood laying beside it in an otherwise immaculate neighborhood. All of these things were unusual and I find it to be too much of a coincidence that they all happened the same night Nicole and Ron were killed.

Yep, OJS is our guy who dropped the glove. :)

No matter how many outrageous theories, there is no explanation for orenthal's blood, hat, hair, glove, size 12 pigeon toed bruno magli shoeprints to be at the murder scene.

[bobaugust]

Bobaugust,

I am not laughing at your post because I firmly believe that you believe you are right. I find somethings you say in this post humorous because they prove my point.

You now admit that Park changed his testimony, although you previously said to GreenIce that Park did not change his testimony.

Kato told us that he ran from behind the house, down the Ashford pathway, to the garage area where he started walking. I agree that is important as it allows the reasonable inference that Park did not see Kato when he did this as Park said he saw Kato walking down the aforementioned pathway. Kato said he did not stop or wave, but Park said Kato did.

The criminal jury never heard Park's claim that he wasn't paying attention to Kato and that malleable memory did not occur until the socio political production.

Park told us, who told him his malleable memory was wrong-Petrocelli and others. Mr. Baker made fun of Park's new found memory that he looked at the dashboard for a minute and then trapped in a lie about where he saw Kato walk.

Your ifs, maybes, could haves, entirely possibles and perceptions are evidence that you might be the only one, who does not understand the obvious. However, I do thank you for this post, as it confirms what I have been saying. :)

This discussion isn’t about me it’s about your claim William that Park was mistaken when he consistently testified that the first person he saw on Simpson’s estate that night was a white male who came from behind the house down the pathway to the sidewalk with a flashlight. Testimony that was not only corroborated by Kaelin, and is what Park told the police, but no defense attorney in this case has ever disputed. What I find humorous is that you will resort to making up your own evidence to make false inferences and false claims instead of simply admitting that Park was not mistaken as to where Kaelin was when he first saw him.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I did not give this part of your post the attention (pun intended) it deserved. Your ifs, maybes, could haves, entirely possibles and perceptions make up evidence. I simply post the evidence in support of the inferences that I drew from them (pun intended). :) As I have previously stated, unlike you, I do not have to be right or call your inferences wrong as I believe there was reasonable doubt and the evidence, as the criminal jury was instructed, was obligated when there are two inferences that could be drawn, one pointing toward guilt and the other toward innocence, they must accept the one pointing toward innocence, which in this case there was.

William, there is no evidence that supports your claim that when Kaelin returned from behind the garage he went back to the Ashford path and stood there for a minute to two minutes before going to the gate control box and opening the gate. You simply made that up. No attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed that ever happened. No witness in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed that ever happened.

Your inference based on imaginary evidence and contradicted by Park and Kaelin’s undisputed testimony is neither logical, reasonable, nor credible.

You keep saying that when there are two inferences to be drawn, one pointing to guilt and the other pointing to innocence the jury must accept the one pointing to innocence. First of all this is a discussion group not a trial and I hate to tell you but you are not a juror here. But tell us William based on your imaginary inference regarding this issue who is the person who is innocent, Park or Kaelin?

bobaugust

[tv]

Coincidences and conjecture do not rise to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, IMHO.

Unlike you, I realize this is a message board not a court of law. I don't have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I was pointing out a series of odd occurrences that happened on the same night. You're correct about conjecture -- that's why most of the crazy theories the NG clairvoyants come up with when discussing this case are ludicrous. My favorite among many examples is 'OJ Simpson MUST be innocent because he flunked the polygraph.' Good grief-- it's just comic relief! :D

[William Anthony]

William,

What I find interesting is that piece of wood, where did it come from and how did it get there? Why weren't the DA's ever to link it to the events of that night.

Also, I find it hard to believe that a detective who was sent over to give a death notification to a very famous person would have even wandered off to check out a car that was parked "funny". Was the car parked illegally? Was it a danger to other cars driving by? IMO, MF put that glove in the Bronco first and then when he found out about the thumps, he moved it.

It was never proven that the Bronco was locked by Simpson that night. However, it has been proven over and over and over and over again the police never locked Bronco when they impounded it. I find that odd, don't you?

The piece of wood should not have been in such an immaculate neighborhood, said one poster, and the fact that it was by the Bronco helps to prove Simpson is the murderer.:):shrug:

[William Anthony]

This discussion isn’t about me it’s about your claim William that Park was mistaken when he consistently testified that the first person he saw on Simpson’s estate that night was a white male who came from behind the house down the pathway to the sidewalk with a flashlight. Testimony that was not only corroborated by Kaelin, and is what Park told the police, but no defense attorney in this case has ever disputed. What I find humorous is that you will resort to making up your own evidence to make false inferences and false claims instead of simply admitting that Park was not mistaken as to where Kaelin was when he first saw him.

bobaugust

You have called my inferences illogical, ridiculous and claim that I created things out of my imagination. If the discussion isn't about you, then it certainly should not have been about me. The discussion is about your posts in which you use the ifs, maybes, could haves, entirely possibles to claim to support your false inferences. I posted the testimony of Park which was contradicted by Kato's testimony, which you admit is important.:) You can't say that Park's testimony did not change and then say it did change or maybe you can, since you did (your posts).:) I make up no evidence, just post the testimony but you add ifs, maybes, could haves, entirely possibles and perceptions to attempt to make your inferences correct, even though the ifs, could have, maybe, entirely possibles and perceptions are not in the evidence. Instead of admitting that Kato said he ran down the Ashford pathway and Park said he walked, which a reasonable inference could be drawn that Park did not see Kato then, you come up with the aforementioned phrases and words to support your conclusions and ignore all the other contradictions and the evidence that Petrocelli and others molded Park's memory. :) I am not talking about you but how you create your posts.:)

[William Anthony]

Unlike you, I realize this is a message board not a court of law. I don't have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I was pointing out a series of odd occurrences that happened on the same night. You're correct about conjecture -- that's why most of the crazy theories the NG clairvoyants come up with when discussing this case are ludicrous. My favorite among many examples is 'OJ Simpson MUST be innocent because he flunked the polygraph.' Good grief-- it's just comic relief! :D

I have nothing against you wanting to post messages and ignore the title of the thread, which is, Random Discussions on the Case". The case includes the investigation or lack thereof, the arrest, the charges, the trial, the evidence, the standard of proof in the trial and the verdict, IMHO. It is not my fault that all but the first two take place in a court of law and in this case there was evidence of the first two that took place in a court of law. I hope you are not too upset with me that I pointed this out to you. If you did not mean that those coincidences should be used to prove Simpson's guilt but just are odd, then we need not discuss the standard of proof in the case, IMHO. We have been discussing the odd coincidences in the prosecution's evidence or lack thereof in regard to the standard of proof and you often point to the legal ruling in the socio political production held in the civil courtroom to support your feeling that there was no proof of planting of evidence. Is it your position that you get to decide when we can discuss what happens in a court of law when it comes to a case?

[rovaan]

To further nail this down, check out Park's testimony about the door and how he saw OJ come down his stairs carrying bags. This means the door was left open. Kato said it was dark in front of the house when he first went to the path.

[William Anthony]

To further nail this down, check out Park's testimony about the door and how he saw OJ come down his stairs carrying bags. This means the door was left open. Kato said it was dark in front of the house when he first went to the path.


Welcome aboard.

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

Do you think that Kato had peripheral vision as you say Park had?

[tv]

Bobaugust,

Do you think that Kato had peripheral vision as you say Park had?

Unless there is some disability or defect everyone has peripheral vision.

[tv]

I have nothing against you wanting to post messages and ignore the title of the thread, which is, Random Discussions on the Case". The case includes the investigation or lack thereof, the arrest, the charges, the trial, the evidence, the standard of proof in the trial and the verdict, IMHO. It is not my fault that all but the first two take place in a court of law and in this case there was evidence of the first two that took place in a court of law. I hope you are not too upset with me that I pointed this out to you. If you did not mean that those coincidences should be used to prove Simpson's guilt but just are odd, then we need not discuss the standard of proof in the case, IMHO. We have been discussing the odd coincidences in the prosecution's evidence or lack thereof in regard to the standard of proof and you often point to the legal ruling in the socio political production held in the civil courtroom to support your feeling that there was no proof of planting of evidence. Is it your position that you get to decide when we can discuss what happens in a court of law when it comes to a case?

Your problem is that you know that there were too many odd occurrences happening around OJ Simpson that night but you'll never admit that. I said what I meant in the post but as usual you have to read your own version of the truth in it. Have at it -- I really wouldn't know how to react if you posted an response for once.

[GreenIce]

Mr. August,

Why would the defense dispute Kato's and Park's claims who saw who first?
What did they have to gain by doing so?

Their position was that Simpson was inside his home geting ready for his trip. Why would they care about this?

[William Anthony]

Unless there is some disability or defect everyone has peripheral vision.

Thank you. Then Kato would have seen the figure believed to be Simpson as the figure entered the entrance way by this portion of Park's testimony had Kato have been beginning his first cursory search.

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

A: YES.

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

A: AT THAT TIME, NO.

Q: WHAT WAS HE DOING WHEN YOU SAW HIM?

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

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

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

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

A: I WAS INSIDE THE CAR ON THE PHONE.

Q: TALKING TO YOUR BOSS?

A: YES.

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

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

[William Anthony]

Your problem is that you know that there were too many odd occurrences happening around OJ Simpson that night but you'll never admit that. I said what I meant in the post but as usual you have to read your own version of the truth in it. Have at it -- I really wouldn't know how to react if you posted an response for once.

As I read your post, I think you left out the word honest in this portion, "I really wouldn't know how to react if you posted an response for once", correct? However, I simply reminded you of the title of the thread and what was involved in a case. As I stated you have posted on the ruling of the court in the socio politiacal production case as it pertains to the evidence of planting. I have honestly posted that coincidence and conjecture do not, IMHonestO, arise to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. What is dishonest in your view in my response?

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

Why would the defense dispute Kato's and Park's claims who saw who first?
What did they have to gain by doing so?

Their position was that Simpson was inside his home geting ready for his trip. Why would they care about this?

GreenIce,

The defense did dispute Park's claim, when the magnificent one said Park was mistaken. That sophisticated jury must have already realized that or they found the magnificent one's argument very credible as they asked for a read back of Park's testimony. Park's mistakes were glaring, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

If it does not fit, add a bunch of if's, maybes, entirely possibles, could haves and perceptions and coincidences, without taking a close look at the evidence, to convict. :) Remember, lighthearted banter, lighthearted banter.

[tv]

As I read your post, I think you left out the word honest in this portion, "I really wouldn't know how to react if you posted an response for once", correct? However, I simply reminded you of the title of the thread and what was involved in a case. As I stated you have posted on the ruling of the court in the socio politiacal production case as it pertains to the evidence of planting. I have honestly posted that coincidence and conjecture do not, IMHonestO, arise to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. What is dishonest in your view in my response?

Honest wasn't the word I left out but I'll go with it. You're dishonest when you don't admit that the number of strange occurrences that night was far from normal. I'm not talking about reasonable doubt or any other legal term.

By the way, I might remind you that the title of this thread doesn't include lessons on American history as seen through the eyes of William Anthony but that doesn't prevent you from from posting them.

[William Anthony]

Honest wasn't the word I left out but I'll go with it. You're dishonest when you don't admit that the number of strange occurrences that night was far from normal. I'm not talking about reasonable doubt or any other legal term.

By the way, I might remind you that the title of this thread doesn't include lessons on American history as seen through the eyes of William Anthony but that doesn't prevent you from from posting them.

Then what word did you leave out? I have not done a statistical analysis on the probability of coincidences in order to determine what amount would be normal. You may not realize that you are talking about legal terms but you are, when you post about the sufficiency of the evidence in the judge's ruling.

The mentioning of history is in regard to comments made negating Blacks' feelings and why such comments as move on, move forward and self-pity are insulting. Might I suggest, that, if you do not think that history lessons are important, that you suggest to posters, who make the type of aforementioned comments in regard to what Blacks should do and feel, that those comments are inappropriate and insulting, thereby, negating (pun intended) the need for future history lessons, as you call them.:) By the way, good morning, Ms. Tvdinner.

[William Anthony]

A. MY ROOM IS OVER HERE, THERE IS A POOL AND I

70

1 WOULD GO THIS WAY AND I FOLLOW A SIDEWALK PATH THAT TAKES
2 ME TO THE FRONT DRIVE WHERE THERE IS THE GATE.
3 Q. WHEN YOU SAY, "THE GATE" --
4 A. OH, THIS IS ASHFORD. THE GATE ON ASHFORD.
5 Q. WHEN YOU SAY, "THE GATE," THAT GATE GOES TO THE
6 STREET?
7 A. THAT GATE GOES TO ASHFORD, CORRECT.
8 Q. SO YOU WENT WHERE?
9 A. OKAY.
10 SO I'M RUNNING DOWN THIS SIDEWALK AND I SEE
11 THAT THERE IS A LIMO OUT IN FRONT. IT'S DARK; I SEE NO ONE
12 IN IT AND THE DOG, CHACHI -- THAT'S A BLACK CHOW -- IS
13 SOMEWHERE HERE IN THE DRIVEWAY.


*

Q So you walked down that path to the driveway,
15 down the driveway, past the garage, and down the
16 south -- over to the southern corner of the garage?
17 A I only went so far the first time. About
18 that far.
19 Q For the record, why don't you mark where that
20 is. Put K-1.
21 You can step down.
22 Thank you.
23 MS. CLARK: For the record, the witness has placed
24 K-1 on the diagram.
25 BY MS. CLARK:
26 Q That's where you stopped?
27 A Yes.
28 Q When you first came out on the path, sir, did
0110
01 you notice anything or anyone in the driveway or at the
02 gate?
03 A The limousine.
04 Q Did you see anyone sitting in the car?
05 A I couldn't tell if someone was in the car or
06 not. It was just the car was there.
07 Q Did you stop to talk to that person or let
08 them in the gate?
09 A Not the first time.
10 Q Why not?


*

Q: SO AT APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU EXITED YOUR ROOM TO GO OUT TO THE PATHWAY?

A: SO IT WAS ABOUT TWO TO THREE MINUTES AFTER THAT TIME, 10:43, 10:44.

Q: OKAY. AND WHEN YOU WENT OUT TO THE PATHWAY, DID YOU -- WHERE YOU WENT OUT ON THE LAWN AREA?

A: YEAH, BUT I STAYED ON THIS PATH, (INDICATING).

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

A: ON THIS PATH?

Q: YES.

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

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

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE?

A: I SAW A LIMOUSINE.

Q: COULD YOU SEE WHETHER ANYONE WAS INSIDE IT?

A: NO.

*

A. I went out my door, through to these stairs, followed this to that path and I took this path all the way there.

Q. Okay. Why don't you stop there for a moment.

At what pace were you walking?

A. Brisk.

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

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

Q. Now, when you walked past that limo driver, after hearing the noises, was that the first time that evening that you walked past a limo driver on the property?

A. Yes.

* Cross

Q. Okay. Now, in terms of -- in terms of your involvement in the O.J. Simpson case, you were interviewed on June 13, 1994 by a couple police officers, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You were interviewed by Mr. Shapiro and Skip Taft on the 14th, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You testified at the preliminary hearing under penalty of perjury in June of 1994, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. You testified at the preliminary hearing under penalty of perjury in July of 1994, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you testified at the criminal trial under penalty of perjury in -- was it February of 1994?

MR. LEONARD: '95.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) '95, I'm sorry.

You testified in 1995 in the criminal trial, true?

A. Correct.

Q. All right. Now, you had -- before your deposition was given in this case, also under penalty of perjury, you spent what, eight, nine hours with Mr. Petrocelli?

A. Correct.

Q. And after that deposition was taken and before you got on the witness stand today, you spent how many more hours, about, with Mr. Petrocelli?

A. I spent three and a half hours on Sunday, and an hour, probably, today.

Q. And you went over and had breakfast with Mr. Medvene this morning across the street?

A. I had to.

Q. I hope they paid.

A. I think so.

"A. Well, I don't remember I didn't look at a clock, but around 10:40."

That's what you said, is it not, sir?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And you didn't say 10:50, did you?

A. No; I said "around."

Q. And you then testified that -- and you'd previously testified 10:40 to 10:45, correct --

A. If --

Q. -- at the criminal trial?

A. If it's on there, I probably said that, around that time, yes.

Q. And you didn't testify to in the neighborhood of 10:50, did you, sir?

A. Well, it's like the explanation; again, I didn't have -- I didn't have a clock or a watch.

Q. You didn't talk about 10:50 at any time after you had given a statement to Mr. Shapiro, when you thought you got back from McDonald's at 10 o'clock, until -- until you spent hours with Mr. Petrocelli; isn't that true?

MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me, Your Honor. This is an absolute misstatement of the Shapiro interview. Got home at 9:40 to 9:45. It's right here, line 17, page 20.

He keeps saying 10 o'clock. I object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The only time you ever mentioned 10:50 wasn't until you spent eight plus hours with Mr. Petrocelli; isn't that correct?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Lack of foundation; misstates his testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

You may answer.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You can answer.

A. Say it again.

Q. This is the last time.

Never mind. I'll withdraw it. Never mind.

[William Anthony]

There have been many posts, saying that Ms. NBS' hands were lying in a pool of her own blood and, therefore, it is logical that the type AB blood found on those fingernails was Ms. NBS' blood, event though there was no scientific reference to support the route/rate that the type AB allegedly degraded to a type B but see this testimony from detective Lang.

Lang-grand jury

THE HANDS, AS YOU CAN SEE IN -E, ARE
4 SOMEWHAT -- THE FINGERS ARE CLOSED.
HER LEFT ARM IS BENT AT THE ELBOW, PALM UP;
7 LEFT HAND WAS CLUTCHED.
8 SHE WAS WEARING AT LEAST TWO RINGS AT THE TIME.
9 THERE WAS A WRIST WATCH ON HER LEFT WRIST.
10 HER RIGHT ARM WAS BENT AT THE ELBOW
11 APPROXIMATELY 170 DEGREES WITH THE PALM UP.

[tv]

The piece of wood should not have been in such an immaculate neighborhood, said one poster, and the fact that it was by the Bronco helps to prove Simpson is the murderer.:):shrug:

I said no such thing. I said it was one example of the strange coincidences of that night. The totality of the oddities is what makes me think they're more than mere coincidence.

[tv]

Then what word did you leave out? I have not done a statistical analysis on the probability of coincidences in order to determine what amount would be normal. You may not realize that you are talking about legal terms but you are, when you post about the sufficiency of the evidence in the judge's ruling.

The mentioning of history is in regard to comments made negating Blacks' feelings and why such comments as move on, move forward and self-pity are insulting. Might I suggest, that, if you do not think that history lessons are important, that you suggest to posters, who make the type of aforementioned comments in regard to what Blacks should do and feel, that those comments are inappropriate and insulting, thereby, negating (pun intended) the need for future history lessons, as you call them.:) By the way, good morning, Ms. Tvdinner.

Good morning, William. I know that at times I talk about legal terms but I'm not when it comes to the coincidences of that night. Why this has turned into another dead horse beating is beyond me.

You've posted many times what I should do and feel so please don't start. Let's try something different and let it go.

[William Anthony]

Good morning, William. I know that at times I talk about legal terms but I'm not when it comes to the coincidences of that night. Why this has turned into another dead horse beating is beyond me.

You've posted many times what I should do and feel so please don't start. Let's try something different and let it go.

I see. I made a suggestion, which you have chosen to ignore.:)

[William Anthony]

I said no such thing. I said it was one example of the strange coincidences of that night. The totality of the oddities is what makes me think they're more than mere coincidence.

Did you not make this statement and what did you mean by "out of place", if not that it should have not been there?

with an out of place piece of wood laying beside it in an otherwise immaculate neighborhood.

[tv]

I see. I made a suggestion, which you have chosen to ignore.:)

You're really on the ball this morning. :)

[tv]

Did you not make this statement and what did you mean by "out of place", if not that it should have not been there?
I really don't get your point. Why don't you make it easy on me and just tell me what you're getting at?

[tv]

If it does not fit, add a bunch of if's, maybes, entirely possibles, could haves and perceptions and coincidences, without taking a close look at the evidence, to convict. :) Remember, lighthearted banter, lighthearted banter.

You're sure this is lighthearted banter? :)

[William Anthony]

You're really on the ball this morning. :)

Why am I not surprised that you would choose to ignore that particular suggestion, which is to inform a poster that as a Black man I find it offensive when I voice my opinion on how Blacks have been and are treated that I am told to move on, accused of self-pity and have my feelings negated by such insulting posts?

[William Anthony]

I really don't get your point. Why don't you make it easy on me and just tell me what you're getting at?

What do you mean by looked "out of place"?

[William Anthony]

You're sure this is lighthearted banter? :)

However truthful it may be, it is still lighthearted banter.:)

[tv]

Why am I not surprised that you would choose to ignore that particular suggestion, which is to inform a poster that as a Black man I find it offensive when I voice my opinion on how Blacks have been and are treated that I am told to move on, accused of self-pity and have my feelings negated by such insulting posts?

If you have something to say to weezer say it to her yourself. :shrug:

[tv]

What do you mean by looked "out of place"?

A broken piece of wood, which appeared to be part of a fence, lying in the street next to OJ Simpson's Bronco looked out of place in the otherwise immaculate neighborhood.

[William Anthony]

If you have something to say to weezer say it to her yourself. :shrug:

Ms. Tvdinner,

You were the one that protested to my alleged history lessons in regard to the power Caucasians once wielded over Blacks and, when I explained the need for the alleged history lesson, to try to have posters understand that any posts negating Blacks' feelings were insulting, you continued your protestation, IIRC. I simply made a suggestion that, if you did not want to discuss history, then tell a poster that they should not have made such posts, as you have suggested I do to Martin and GreenIce. If you are saying that you prefer to stay out of the mix, then I understand. :)

[William Anthony]

A broken piece of wood, which appeared to be part of a fence, lying in the street next to OJ Simpson's Bronco looked out of place in the otherwise immaculate neighborhood.

And that relates to what in convicting someone of murder? Do you think the victims were bludgeoned to death with a piece of fence wood?

[tv]

And that relates to what in convicting someone of murder? Do you think the victims were bludgeoned to death with a piece of fence wood?

I was listing odd occurrences that happened that night. For heavens sake, that's not hard to understand. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

There have been many posts, saying that Ms. NBS' hands were lying in a pool of her own blood and, therefore, it is logical that the type AB blood found on those fingernails was Ms. NBS' blood, event though there was no scientific reference to support the route/rate that the type AB allegedly degraded to a type B but see this testimony from detective Lang.

Lang-grand jury

THE HANDS, AS YOU CAN SEE IN -E, ARE
4 SOMEWHAT -- THE FINGERS ARE CLOSED.
HER LEFT ARM IS BENT AT THE ELBOW, PALM UP;
7 LEFT HAND WAS CLUTCHED.
8 SHE WAS WEARING AT LEAST TWO RINGS AT THE TIME.
9 THERE WAS A WRIST WATCH ON HER LEFT WRIST.
10 HER RIGHT ARM WAS BENT AT THE ELBOW
11 APPROXIMATELY 170 DEGREES WITH THE PALM UP.

Correction for clarity-There have been many posts, saying that Ms. NBS' hands were lying in a pool of her own blood and, therefore, it is logical that the type B blood found under her fingernails was Ms. NBS' blood, even though there was no scientific reference to support the route/rate that the type AB allegedly degraded to a type B but see this testimony from detective Lang.

[William Anthony]

I was listing odd occurrences that happened that night. For heavens sake, that's not hard to understand. :shrug:

What is hard for me to understand is how you would relate this to anything even remotely related to the murders. Did I miss something about a fence piece being missing?

[tv]

Ms. Tvdinner,

You were the one that protested to my alleged history lessons in regard to the power Caucasians once wielded over Blacks and, when I explained the need for the alleged history lesson, to try to have posters understand that any posts negating Blacks' feelings were insulting, you continued your protestation, IIRC. I simply made a suggestion that, if you did not want to discuss history, then tell a poster that they should not have made such posts, as you have suggested I do to Martin and GreenIce. If you are saying that you prefer to stay out of the mix, then I understand. :)

I'll just agree with your position of *I haven't seen any inappropriate or insulting posts made*.

[William Anthony]

I'll just agree with your position of *I haven't seen any inappropriate or insulting posts made*.

I see that you did not use quotes. The original statement was to the effect that posters insulted Gs because they opined that Simpson was guilty, which which I stated I do not believe that was the reason. I might be because NGs and others tire of the insulting posts of Gs. See what happens when statements are taken out of context or one doesn't consider all that was said, as with Kato and Parks, smile.

[tv]

I see that you did not use quotes. The original statement was to the effect that posters insulted Gs because they opined that Simpson was guilty, which which I stated I do not believe that was the reason. I might be because NGs and others tire of the insulting posts of Gs. See what happens when statements are taken out of context or one doesn't consider all that was said, as with Kato and Parks, smile.

I couldn't remember exactly what you said so I chose not to quote but I can find it again if necessary. I'm referring to the posts that said I worship the prosecution as God, I'm of Mark Fuhrman's ilk, that I thnk I'm superior because of my race and that I'm spiteful, mean and cruel. I'm not taking your comments out of context at all. Please don't get this argument started. I told you a few posts ago that we should let it go. I still think it's a good idea.

[William Anthony]

I couldn't remember exactly what you said so I chose not to quote but I can find it again if necessary. I'm referring to the posts that said I worship the prosecution as God, I'm of Mark Fuhrman's ilk, that I thnk I'm superior because of my race and that I'm spiteful, mean and cruel. I'm not taking your comments out of context at all. Please don't get this argument started. I told you a few posts ago that we should let it go. I still think it's a good idea.

The discussion was about my feelings when Blacks are told to move on when discussing racial issues and your ignoring of my suggestion to speak to another poster. You never suggested that I speak to the poster, who made the post to which you refer, although you did incorrectly say that I applauded it, when I merely said that I did not believe that Gs were called racists, because they believed Simpson was guilty. I did not protest any post you made in response to what you saw as insulting. I simply stated my belief as to one of your statements in one response. I did not tell you that I was tired of your posts on any subject or accuse you of using the forum to promote an agenda. I hope you can understand and appreciate the difference. I did not negate your feelings by pointing to what I believe to be the purpose of the forum.

[tv]

What is hard for me to understand is how you would relate this to anything even remotely related to the murders. Did I miss something about a fence piece being missing?

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x82/Kiska2/beatingdeadhorse.gif

[tv]

The discussion was about my feelings when Blacks are told to move on when discussing racial issues and your ignoring of my suggestion to speak to another poster. You never suggested that I speak to the poster, who made the post to which you refer, although you did incorrectly say that I applauded it, when I merely said that I did not believe that Gs were called racists, because they believed Simpson was guilty. I did not protest any post you made in response to what you saw as insulting. I simply stated my belief as to one of your statements in one response. I did not tell you that I was tired of your posts on any subject or accuse you of using the forum to promote an agenda. I hope you can understand and appreciate the difference. I did not negate your feelings by pointing to what I believe to be the purpose of the forum.

William, you and I are never going to agree on this issue. I understand your feelings about race and I appreciate that mine aren't the same. How long do you plan on dragging this out?

[William Anthony]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x82/Kiska2/beatingdeadhorse.gif

I don't think that you deserve a spanking, although I am sure you feel I do. :)

[William Anthony]

William, you and I are never going to agree on this issue. I understand your feelings about race and I appreciate that mine aren't the same. How long do you plan on dragging this out?

My feelings are that there is only one race-human? What are yours?

[William Anthony]

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x82/Kiska2/beatingdeadhorse.gif

Is that the piece of wood?

[tv]

I don't think that you deserve a spanking, although I am sure you feel I do. :)

You're sure about that?

[tv]

Is that the piece of wood?

I said possible piece of fence not toothpick. Not letting it go, are you?

[William Anthony]

You're sure about that?

Well, if you don't, then let's continue our discussion on that piece of wood.:)

[William Anthony]

I said possible piece of fence not toothpick. Not letting it go, are you?

Possible piece of fence as opposed to Paul Bunyan's toothpick.:)

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

The defense did dispute Park's claim, when the magnificent one said Park was mistaken. That sophisticated jury must have already realized that or they found the magnificent one's argument very credible as they asked for a read back of Park's testimony. Park's mistakes were glaring, IMHO.

William,

Thanks. I always thought the jurors wanted the read back in regards to the Bronco---should Park have heard it and should have seen it when he left with Simpson to the airport.

[tv]

Possible piece of fence as opposed to Paul Bunyan's toothpick.:)

What amuses me about all this is that I think bobaugust hit the nail on the head -- you're playing. You understand perfectly the implications of the wood. If it had been Mark Fuhrman that had a piece of misplaced wood near his vehicle you'd been singing a different tune. http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa18/Hockey_Arena/whistling.gif

[William Anthony]

William,

Thanks. I always thought the jurors wanted the read back in regards to the Bronco---should Park have heard it and should have seen it when he left with Simpson to the airport.

I think they wanted the read back because of several issues related to his testimony.

[tv]

Possible piece of fence as opposed to Paul Bunyan's toothpick.:)
Are you saying that Paul Bunyan was in Brentwood that night? That puts a whole new light on it...hmm. Maybe he's K1 or K2. :beer:

[tv]

I think they wanted the read back because of several issues related to his testimony.
Brenda Moran, who asked for the read back, said it had no significance at all.

[William Anthony]

What amuses me about all this is that I think bobaugust hit the nail on the head -- you're playing. You understand perfectly the implications of the wood. If it had been Mark Fuhrman that had a piece of misplaced wood near his vehicle you'd been singing a different tune. http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa18/Hockey_Arena/whistling.gif

I don't know how a piece of wood can be misplaced considering most neighborhoods have children and that piece of wood had no value as evidence. I think bobaugust would use that piece of wood to drive home an imaginary nail.:)

[tv]

Well, if you don't, then let's continue our discussion on that piece of wood.:)

William, after I've had some rest I'll be glad to educate you on the piece of wood. :)

[William Anthony]

Are you saying that Paul Bunyan was in Brentwood that night? That puts a whole new light on it...hmm. Maybe he's K1 or K2. :beer:

I am saying it makes about as much sense as the piece of wood being tied to the murders. What was the source of the wood, not possible?:)

[tv]

I don't know how a piece of wood can be misplaced considering most neighborhoods have children and that piece of wood had no value as evidence. I think bobaugust would use that piece of wood to drive home an imaginary nail.:)

It was just another odd occurrence surrounding OJ Simpson on June 12, 1994 -- looks like we've come full circle.

[tv]

I am saying it makes about as much sense as the piece of wood being tied to the murders. What was the source of the wood, not possible?:)

Now we understand each other. Paul Bunyan being the killer makes as much sense as anyone else besides OJ Simpson being the killer. Maybe it was Rumpelstiltskin? Santa Claus? Michael Myers? Columbian drug lords...take your pick.

[GreenIce]

There have been many posts, saying that Ms. NBS' hands were lying in a pool of her own blood and, therefore, it is logical that the type AB blood found on those fingernails was Ms. NBS' blood, event though there was no scientific reference to support the route/rate that the type AB allegedly degraded to a type B but see this testimony from detective Lang.

Lang-grand jury

THE HANDS, AS YOU CAN SEE IN -E, ARE
4 SOMEWHAT -- THE FINGERS ARE CLOSED.
HER LEFT ARM IS BENT AT THE ELBOW, PALM UP;
7 LEFT HAND WAS CLUTCHED.
8 SHE WAS WEARING AT LEAST TWO RINGS AT THE TIME.
9 THERE WAS A WRIST WATCH ON HER LEFT WRIST.
10 HER RIGHT ARM WAS BENT AT THE ELBOW
11 APPROXIMATELY 170 DEGREES WITH THE PALM UP.

William,

I never realized that before about her hand.

[GreenIce]

I don't know how a piece of wood can be misplaced considering most neighborhoods have children and that piece of wood had no value as evidence. I think bobaugust would use that piece of wood to drive home an imaginary nail.:)

William,

IMO, the stick was taken off of a fence, most likely from the alley behind Nicole's Condo, with the hope of being able to lodge it on the undercarriage of the Bronco.

When this could not be done, MF used how the Bronco was parked to justify why he went over to it. IMO.

[GreenIce]

The discussion was about my feelings when Blacks are told to move on when discussing racial issues and your ignoring of my suggestion to speak to another poster. You never suggested that I speak to the poster, who made the post to which you refer, although you did incorrectly say that I applauded it, when I merely said that I did not believe that Gs were called racists, because they believed Simpson was guilty. I did not protest any post you made in response to what you saw as insulting. I simply stated my belief as to one of your statements in one response. I did not tell you that I was tired of your posts on any subject or accuse you of using the forum to promote an agenda. I hope you can understand and appreciate the difference. I did not negate your feelings by pointing to what I believe to be the purpose of the forum.

William,

As you know TV is posting about my posts. As I did with Martin, I will say I am truly sorry that attempts have been made to drag you into this.

[tv]

William, let me know if you've figured it out about the wood. If not, I'd be glad to lead you into the light. Talk to you later -- :seeya:

[William Anthony]

William, after I've had some rest I'll be glad to educate you on the piece of wood. :)

I am looking forward to your expose.:)

[William Anthony]

It was just another odd occurrence surrounding OJ Simpson on June 12, 1994 -- looks like we've come full circle.

Yes, that nail won't stay nailed down no matter how large the size of the piece of wood used to try to drive it.:)

[William Anthony]

Now we understand each other. Paul Bunyan being the killer makes as much sense as anyone else besides OJ Simpson being the killer. Maybe it was Rumpelstiltskin? Santa Claus? Michael Myers? Columbian drug lords...take your pick.

Simpson is as likely a candidate based on the evidence as all those you have mentioned. :)

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, the stick was taken off of a fence, most likely from the alley behind Nicole's Condo, with the hope of being able to lodge it on the undercarriage of the Bronco.

When this could not be done, MF used how the Bronco was parked to justify why he went over to it. IMO.

The piece of wood makes about the same connection to the murders as any other evidence the prosecution introduced, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

William,

I never realized that before about her hand.

That is evidence not speculation about wood, coincidences, ifs, maybes, could haves, entirely possibles and perceptions.:)

[fgump2]

In this posting I try to show several things about Orehtnal’s attitudes and behavior to ward Nicole and toward others that are evidence of guilt. I don’t provide links, but if two or more of the NG group want to contest any one of the points I make, I will try to back them up. I may be wrong on some points, but not that I know of.
Nicole dumped Orenthal less than two months before the murders and Orenthal was openly upset about this as late as Memorial Day weekend. The Sunday of that Memorial Day weekend would have been two weeks before the murders.
Orenthal consistently said after the murders the breakup was mutual and that he had moved on; he never acknowledged that she dumped him.
There is evidence that Orenthal showed hostility toward Nicole in the weeks before the murders, which Orenthal also denied afterwards.
Orenthal never showed any remorse or regret that he didn’t act nicer toward Nicole when she was alive; this is unusual.
In the farewell not written less than 5 days after the murders he wrote this about Nicole: ‘I have felt like a battered husband… I took the heat New Year’s 1989 because that was what I was supposed to do. I did not plead no contest for any other reason but to protect our privacy”. In other words it was important for him to shift as much of the relationship blame on to her as he could.
Orenthal repeatedly made remarks about Nicole’s alleged drug use. He was unable or unwilling to back it up with very many specifics in the civil trial. I don’t think that Nicole had much of a drug problem in the months prior to her death. For one thing, her friends denied it, and only Orenthal ever said she had a problem and he had few details to back it up.
Nicole was exercising a lot in the last year of her life, including long jogs. My experience is that people who are deeply involved in physical fitness usually don’t use recreational drugs. I think if she had been involved in drugs in the last year of her life there would have been people noticing it, and talking about it. Either her physical fitness friends would have noticed that something, or her drug taking friends (if any) would have talked about her use of drugs. People who use recreational drugs heavily usually have loose mouths.
Mr. Simpson’s relationship with Nicole was stormy. A lot of people knew this. Allen Cowlings and Alan Austin both said this; and yet he denied this (my impression on his civil depositions and trial testimony). He denied hitting her, becoming seriously angry, or making any serious mistakes.
It is unusual to have a 17 year relationship with someone without becoming angry, behaving foolishly, and unfairly hurting the other person’s feelings. It may be impossible. In his testimony Orenthal repeatedly denied mistreating Nicole, or even becoming seriously angry, For example, he denied being very angry when he smashed her car windshield with a baseball bat. His reluctance to admit that he made serious mistakes in the relationship is a red flag.
Orenthal also was dumped by Paula Barbieri on the day of the murders. He admitted this to Lenore Walker, an expert on abused women. The fact that he later on vehemently denied being dumped by both Nicole and Paula is incriminating; if it were a simple case of absent mindedness, he wouldn’t have been so emphatic about it. He was concealing part of the motives for the murders.
I think I have given enough evidence here to conclude that Orenthal probably killed Nicole. None of this evidence could have been planted by Mark Fuhrman or caused by cross contamination; I think there is more evidence of guilty behavior by Orenthal that I haven’t listed here.

-

[fgump2]

William,

IMO, the stick was taken off of a fence, most likely from the alley behind Nicole's Condo, with the hope of being able to lodge it on the undercarriage of the Bronco.

When this could not be done, MF used how the Bronco was parked to justify why he went over to it. IMO.

I think you are being too quick to judge people's motives.

[tv]

I am looking forward to your expose.:)

Not an expose -- just a reasonable explanation for why the wood was there. I see we're now on a 'the wood was planted' fairy tale. You guys go ahead and have fun with that one.

[William Anthony]

Not an expose -- just a reasonable explanation for why the wood was there. I see we're now on a 'the wood was planted' fairy tale. You guys go ahead and have fun with that one.

I must have missed your explanation. Would you mind sharing it again or is your explanation that you found a piece of wood near the Bronco odd?

[William Anthony]

In this posting I try to show several things about Orehtnal’s attitudes and behavior to ward Nicole and toward others that are evidence of guilt. I don’t provide links, but if two or more of the NG group want to contest any one of the points I make, I will try to back them up. I may be wrong on some points, but not that I know of.
Nicole dumped Orenthal less than two months before the murders and Orenthal was openly upset about this as late as Memorial Day weekend. The Sunday of that Memorial Day weekend would have been two weeks before the murders.
Orenthal consistently said after the murders the breakup was mutual and that he had moved on; he never acknowledged that she dumped him.
There is evidence that Orenthal showed hostility toward Nicole in the weeks before the murders, which Orenthal also denied afterwards.
Orenthal never showed any remorse or regret that he didn’t act nicer toward Nicole when she was alive; this is unusual.
In the farewell not written less than 5 days after the murders he wrote this about Nicole: ‘I have felt like a battered husband… I took the heat New Year’s 1989 because that was what I was supposed to do. I did not plead no contest for any other reason but to protect our privacy”. In other words it was important for him to shift as much of the relationship blame on to her as he could.
Orenthal repeatedly made remarks about Nicole’s alleged drug use. He was unable or unwilling to back it up with very many specifics in the civil trial. I don’t think that Nicole had much of a drug problem in the months prior to her death. For one thing, her friends denied it, and only Orenthal ever said she had a problem and he had few details to back it up.
Nicole was exercising a lot in the last year of her life, including long jogs. My experience is that people who are deeply involved in physical fitness usually don’t use recreational drugs. I think if she had been involved in drugs in the last year of her life there would have been people noticing it, and talking about it. Either her physical fitness friends would have noticed that something, or her drug taking friends (if any) would have talked about her use of drugs. People who use recreational drugs heavily usually have loose mouths.
Mr. Simpson’s relationship with Nicole was stormy. A lot of people knew this. Allen Cowlings and Alan Austin both said this; and yet he denied this (my impression on his civil depositions and trial testimony). He denied hitting her, becoming seriously angry, or making any serious mistakes.
It is unusual to have a 17 year relationship with someone without becoming angry, behaving foolishly, and unfairly hurting the other person’s feelings. It may be impossible. In his testimony Orenthal repeatedly denied mistreating Nicole, or even becoming seriously angry, For example, he denied being very angry when he smashed her car windshield with a baseball bat. His reluctance to admit that he made serious mistakes in the relationship is a red flag.
Orenthal also was dumped by Paula Barbieri on the day of the murders. He admitted this to Lenore Walker, an expert on abused women. The fact that he later on vehemently denied being dumped by both Nicole and Paula is incriminating; if it were a simple case of absent mindedness, he wouldn’t have been so emphatic about it. He was concealing part of the motives for the murders.
I think I have given enough evidence here to conclude that Orenthal probably killed Nicole. None of this evidence could have been planted by Mark Fuhrman or caused by cross contamination; I think there is more evidence of guilty behavior by Orenthal that I haven’t listed here.

-

So, two weeks before the murders Simpson showed no signs of being upset over the break up.

The next loose mouth person I see I will know is probably a drug user.

Simpson was in denial and that makes him a murder, correct? I guess most alcoholics and other drug users and their loved ones are murderers.

Ms.Lenore Walker said Simpson did not fit the profile of a person, who would progress from spousal abuser to murderer.

Guilty behavior of what?

[William Anthony]

I think what I am trying to say is that it takes more, IMHO, to say that someone is guilty of murder or the latest list of things that seem to indicate guilt to some. There was an incident in which I thought the police were harassing me until I heard the description over the police radio as I was being questioned sitting in the car. The description was so coincidental that, if I had not know better, I would have thought I did it. That kind of coincidence would indicate guilt to me, even though I would have been wrong.

[tv]

I must have missed your explanation. Would you mind sharing it again or is your explanation that you found a piece of wood near the Bronco odd?

Not interested.

[GreenIce]

I think you are being too quick to judge people's motives.

fgump2,

How do you think the stick got there?

[GreenIce]

In this posting I try to show several things about Orehtnal’s attitudes and behavior to ward Nicole and toward others that are evidence of guilt. I don’t provide links, but if two or more of the NG group want to contest any one of the points I make, I will try to back them up. I may be wrong on some points, but not that I know of.
Nicole dumped Orenthal less than two months before the murders and Orenthal was openly upset about this as late as Memorial Day weekend. The Sunday of that Memorial Day weekend would have been two weeks before the murders.
Orenthal consistently said after the murders the breakup was mutual and that he had moved on; he never acknowledged that she dumped him.
There is evidence that Orenthal showed hostility toward Nicole in the weeks before the murders, which Orenthal also denied afterwards.
Orenthal never showed any remorse or regret that he didn’t act nicer toward Nicole when she was alive; this is unusual.
In the farewell not written less than 5 days after the murders he wrote this about Nicole: ‘I have felt like a battered husband… I took the heat New Year’s 1989 because that was what I was supposed to do. I did not plead no contest for any other reason but to protect our privacy”. In other words it was important for him to shift as much of the relationship blame on to her as he could.
Orenthal repeatedly made remarks about Nicole’s alleged drug use. He was unable or unwilling to back it up with very many specifics in the civil trial. I don’t think that Nicole had much of a drug problem in the months prior to her death. For one thing, her friends denied it, and only Orenthal ever said she had a problem and he had few details to back it up.
Nicole was exercising a lot in the last year of her life, including long jogs. My experience is that people who are deeply involved in physical fitness usually don’t use recreational drugs. I think if she had been involved in drugs in the last year of her life there would have been people noticing it, and talking about it. Either her physical fitness friends would have noticed that something, or her drug taking friends (if any) would have talked about her use of drugs. People who use recreational drugs heavily usually have loose mouths.
Mr. Simpson’s relationship with Nicole was stormy. A lot of people knew this. Allen Cowlings and Alan Austin both said this; and yet he denied this (my impression on his civil depositions and trial testimony). He denied hitting her, becoming seriously angry, or making any serious mistakes.
It is unusual to have a 17 year relationship with someone without becoming angry, behaving foolishly, and unfairly hurting the other person’s feelings. It may be impossible. In his testimony Orenthal repeatedly denied mistreating Nicole, or even becoming seriously angry, For example, he denied being very angry when he smashed her car windshield with a baseball bat. His reluctance to admit that he made serious mistakes in the relationship is a red flag.
Orenthal also was dumped by Paula Barbieri on the day of the murders. He admitted this to Lenore Walker, an expert on abused women. The fact that he later on vehemently denied being dumped by both Nicole and Paula is incriminating; if it were a simple case of absent mindedness, he wouldn’t have been so emphatic about it. He was concealing part of the motives for the murders.
I think I have given enough evidence here to conclude that Orenthal probably killed Nicole. None of this evidence could have been planted by Mark Fuhrman or caused by cross contamination; I think there is more evidence of guilty behavior by Orenthal that I haven’t listed here.

-

fgump2,

In regards to Paula, why did she "dump" him? Why was she angry with Simpson? Why did Paula just want Nicole to "go away"?

Divorce and break ups do not bring the best in people.

Why did Nicole and Simpson stop trying to make it work after a year?

Why did Kris Jenner and Cora Fischman express deep concern over Nicole's behavior several weeks before her murder?

[bobaugust]

You have called my inferences illogical, ridiculous and claim that I created things out of my imagination. If the discussion isn't about you, then it certainly should not have been about me. The discussion is about your posts in which you use the ifs, maybes, could haves, entirely possibles to claim to support your false inferences. I posted the testimony of Park which was contradicted by Kato's testimony, which you admit is important.:) You can't say that Park's testimony did not change and then say it did change or maybe you can, since you did (your posts).:) I make up no evidence, just post the testimony but you add ifs, maybes, could haves, entirely possibles and perceptions to attempt to make your inferences correct, even though the ifs, could have, maybe, entirely possibles and perceptions are not in the evidence. Instead of admitting that Kato said he ran down the Ashford pathway and Park said he walked, which a reasonable inference could be drawn that Park did not see Kato then, you come up with the aforementioned phrases and words to support your conclusions and ignore all the other contradictions and the evidence that Petrocelli and others molded Park's memory. :) I am not talking about you but how you create your posts.:)

This discussion is about you William since you’re the only one who has ever made the accusation that Park was mistaken when he told the police and then consistently testified that the first person he saw on Simpson estate that night was a white male who came from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight.

The fact is that no attorney in this case has ever disputed that testimony by Park since they all understood that Kaelin corroborates Parks testimony when he testified that is exactly what he did that night.

It’s clear to me and I believe to any other poster who has followed this discussion that the reason you created your imaginary scenario and false claim that Park never saw Kaelin until Kaelin returned from his first trip behind the garage is because you understand how incriminating Park’s undisputed testimony actually is for Simpson. You understand that when Park saw Kaelin shortly after Kaelin said he heard the noises and almost simultaneously Park saw Simpson come from the driveway enter his house and lights come on that that is consistent with Simpson having come from behind Kaelin’s room.

Park’s testimony suggests it took Kaelin and Simpson the same amount of time after the noises for each of them to make it around the house to the front of the house each going their own way. Simpson went around the south side of the house and Kaelin went around the north side of the house. Park’s telephone records not only document the time Park saw them both for the first time that night as shortly before 10:55, but based on Kaelin’s testimony that he left his room about two to three minutes after hearing the noises Park’s telephone records document the time Kaelin heard the noises as 10:51, 10:52. And that’s something you evidently are just not intellectually capable of accepting or admitting.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Not interested.

That's what I suspected.

[William Anthony]

This discussion is about you William since you’re the only one who has ever made the accusation that Park was mistaken when he told the police and then consistently testified that the first person he saw on Simpson estate that night was a white male who came from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight.

bobaugust

This discussion is about the case but I do understand your need to make it about me as I support my posts with evidence/testimonies and not ifs, could haves, maybes, entirely possibles and perceptions. I have never said that Park was not consistently mistaken about seeing Kato come from behind the house but you have said he was correct in some parts and mistaken in others as they fit your ifs, maybes, could haves....

[William Anthony]

The fact is that no attorney in this case has ever disputed that testimony by Park since they all understood that Kaelin corroborates Parks testimony when he testified that is exactly what he did that night.

bobaugust

When you make posts that Parks testimony did not change and then say it did change, I must make allowances for this as the magnificent one stated Park was mistaken and Mr. Baker trapped Park and made a mockery of Park's testimony. They all understood, as do I, IMHO, that Park had to change his testimony to allow Kato to make a trip down the pathway to do his first cursory search or Park was mistaken (as the magnificent one said) as to when he could have first saw Kato. Hence the change in Park's testimony that he looked at the dashboard for a minute and did not pay attention to Kato when his first testimony when the events were fresh in his mind was that Kato stood there and was still standing there in the same position that he was for another minute before he proceeded to open the gate.

[William Anthony]

It’s clear to me and I believe to any other poster who has followed this discussion that the reason you created your imaginary scenario and false claim that Park never saw Kaelin until Kaelin returned from his first trip behind the garage is because you understand how incriminating Park’s undisputed testimony actually is for Simpson. You understand that when Park saw Kaelin shortly after Kaelin said he heard the noises and almost simultaneously Park saw Simpson come from the driveway enter his house and lights come on that that is consistent with Simpson having come from behind Kaelin’s room.

bobaugust

It is clear to me and to all others on this board that you have to invent things from the evidence, because it contradicts your conclusion. I do not know of what "undisputed" testimony of park you speak.:) There is nothing incriminating at all about someone being on his own property. There is only direct evidence of one person being behind Kato's quarters alone in the area of where the glove was allegedly found, which is MF. I think you realize how incriminating that is. Let's not forget all the testimony as Kato testified he waited two to three minutes after hearing the noises to exit his room and begin his first cursory search. Don't you think, if Simpson made the noises, he would have been inside his home by then?:)

[William Anthony]

Park’s testimony suggests it took Kaelin and Simpson the same amount of time after the noises for each of them to make it around the house to the front of the house each going their own way. Simpson went around the south side of the house and Kaelin went around the north side of the house. Park’s telephone records not only document the time Park saw them both for the first time that night as shortly before 10:55, but based on Kaelin’s testimony that he left his room about two to three minutes after hearing the noises Park’s telephone records document the time Kaelin heard the noises as 10:51, 10:52. And that’s something you evidently are just not intellectually capable of accepting or admitting.

bobaugust

Ah, so you want to talk about intellectual capabilities.:) Tell me how an inanimate object, such as a phone record, documents anything except for the length of a phone call? :) Even the judge in the socio political production understood that. You seem to have bought the prosecution's argument hook, line and sinker but to others who draw reasonable inferences from the evidence including the judge in the socio political production it is fish three days old and they don't buy it.

Let's take an intellectual look at the testimonies in connection with Park's. Ah, most of us have so done. Park's testimony suggests that he did not see the person some believe that was Simpson until after Kato completed his first cursory search, which means that in addition to the two to three minutes Kato waited on the phone, it took Simpson longer to enter the house, because Kato had finished his search. You want to add an if or maybe in somewhere to explain this with your intellectual arguments?

We now have your portion of your argument restated as a conclusion, which is done in the form of a circular argument, and not one of the best forms of intellectual arguments, which is that those inanimate phone records document the sound of noises that Kato heard, who wasn't on the phone with Park at anytime that night.:) What it seems that you are intellectually incapable of understanding is that all the evidence suggests that Park did not see Kato until after he finished his first cursory search and that Petrocelli and others molded Park's memory in an order to explain away the discrepancies in Park's testimony that showed he did not see Kato until after Kato had completed that search. What you realize but don't have the intellectual honesty, IMHO, to admit is that we have to allow for the time it took Kato to do the search which makes the sound of the thumps closer to ten forty five, Which Kato tried to change to ten fifty in the socio political production. I think in the future, no, I know that in the future, you should stick to posting about the evidence and not posters' intellectual abilities, as I am of the opinion that they all have abilities equal to, if not greater than yours, and to insult anyone is against the rules. Thanks in anticipation for your professional cooperation in this delicate matter.:)

[tv]

That's what I suspected.

No need for you to be suspicious. I'm not interested in reading your sarcastic posts in response to what I have to say. If you really want to know abuot the wood there are a variety of sources in books and on the internet that will tell you what you want to know. I'm fairly sure none of them involve Paul Bunyan.

[tv]

It is clear to me and to all others on this board that you have to invent things from the evidence, because it contradicts your conclusion. I do not know of what "undisputed" testimony of park you speak.:) There is nothing incriminating at all about someone being on his own property. There is only direct evidence of one person being behind Kato's quarters alone in the area of where the glove was allegedly found, which is MF. I think you realize how incriminating that is. Let's not forget all the testimony as Kato testified he waited two to three minutes after hearing the noises to exit his room and begin his first cursory search. Don't you think, if Simpson made the noises, he would have been inside his home by then?:)

I'm one of the 'all others'. Please don't speak for me -- I haven't seen bobaugust invent anything from the evidence.

[William Anthony]

No need for you to be suspicious. I'm not interested in reading your sarcastic posts in response to what I have to say. If you really want to know abuot the wood there are a variety of sources in books and on the internet that will tell you what you want to know. I'm fairly sure none of them involve Paul Bunyan.

You made the remark about the wood and the toothpick. If you don't want to support your claims, just say so.:)

[William Anthony]

I'm one of the 'all others'. Please don't speak for me -- I haven't seen bobaugust invent anything from the evidence.

Because you haven't seen it or don't understand that ifs, maybes, could haves, entirely possibles, changes in testimony that are claimed not to be changes in testimony and perceptions are not attempts to invent evidence, then I will not speak for you.

[tv]

You made the remark about the wood and the toothpick. If you don't want to support your claims, just say so.:)

The only claim I've made is that the wood was out of place. If you're truly interested you can research it yourself. If not, you can discuss it with the clairvoyant who is sure that Mark Fuhrman planted the wood. Since you've already stated there's no way the wood was connected to the murders I'm wondering how you're going to find a way to agree with the planting theory.

[tv]

Because you haven't seen it or don't understand that ifs, maybes, could haves, entirely possibles, changes in testimony that are claimed not to be changes in testimony and perceptions are not attempts to invent evidence, then I will not speak for you.

You and other supporters of the not guilty verdict have spun so many tales of fantasy about this case that you should be ashamed to accuse anyone else of not understanding the testimony.

[William Anthony]

The only claim I've made is that the wood was out of place. If you're truly interested you can research it yourself. If not, you can discuss it with the clairvoyant who is sure that Mark Fuhrman planted the wood. Since you've already stated there's no way the wood was connected to the murders I'm wondering how you're going to find a way to agree with the planting theory.

Socks out of place in a bedroom and wood out of place on a street. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

You and other supporters of the not guilty verdict have spun so many tales of fantasy about this case that you should be ashamed to accuse anyone else of not understanding the testimony.

I can only speak for myself and say that I support my inferences with evidence, as I believe others, who support the not guilty verdict, even those who believe Simpson is guilty, have done. Those, who do not support the not guilty verdict, become insulting and are forced to use ifs, maybes, etc. etc. to support their conclusions, or bring race into the picture and then claim not to want to discuss it, IMHO.

[tv]

I can only speak for myself and say that I support my inferences with evidence, as I believe others, who support the not guilty verdict, even those who believe Simpson is guilty, have done. Those, who do not support the not guilty verdict, become insulting and are forced to use ifs, maybes, etc. etc. to support their conclusions, or bring race into the picture and then claim not to want to discuss it, IMHO.

Not going there. Find someone else to read your sad story.

[William Anthony]

Not going there. Find someone else to read your sad story.

The sad story is that when all else fails there are some who believe Simpson is guilty and blame it on the race of the criminal jury, when it is pointed out that the evidence fails and, after they have made such a remark, claim they do not want to discuss race.:) I believe that is true as they just want to make inflammatory statements about race.

[tv]

The sad story is that when all else fails there are some who believe Simpson is guilty and blame it on the race of the criminal jury, when it is pointed out that the evidence fails and, after they have made such a remark, claim they do not want to discuss race.:) I believe that is true as they just want to make inflammatory statements about race.

Having fun having a dicussion with yourself about race?

[William Anthony]

Having fun having a dicussion with yourself about race?

I have fun analyzing evidence and posts.:)

[tv]

I have fun analyzing evidence and posts.:)

Then I'm sure you'll have a lovely day. :)

[William Anthony]

Then I'm sure you'll have a lovely day. :)

Interesting, fun filled and rewarding, if not lovely.:)

[weezer]

It is clear to me and to all others on this board that you have to invent things from the evidence, because it contradicts your conclusion. I do not know of what "undisputed" testimony of park you speak.:) There is nothing incriminating at all about someone being on his own property. There is only direct evidence of one person being behind Kato's quarters alone in the area of where the glove was allegedly found, which is MF. I think you realize how incriminating that is. Let's not forget all the testimony as Kato testified he waited two to three minutes after hearing the noises to exit his room and begin his first cursory search. Don't you think, if Simpson made the noises, he would have been inside his home by then?:)

william, you and the NG's are the ones who continue to make up crap to post about the trial. you have yet to support any of your fantasies/theories with credible fact/evidence instead of the silly parsing of words.

[William Anthony]

Who thinks they are the credibility police?:)

[weezer]

and who continues to try to rewrite history, facts and evidence to support their silly claims?

[martin II]

You always profess to be so fair minded. Why don't you ask what Lange and Vannatter supposedly lied about before you agree with someone that's well known on this forum to invent over half of what they post? I see an accusation of good old boying and pathetic lies but yet we don't know what these 'lies' are. Then you jump in and call Lange two-faced. Real fair of you, William.

Start with the search warrant and the missing blood and you will find many lies they told.

[martin II]

William, there is no evidence that supports your claim that when Kaelin returned from behind the garage he went back to the Ashford path and stood there for a minute to two minutes before going to the gate control box and opening the gate. You simply made that up. No attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed that ever happened. No witness in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed that ever happened.

Your inference based on imaginary evidence and contradicted by Park and Kaelin’s undisputed testimony is neither logical, reasonable, nor credible.

You keep saying that when there are two inferences to be drawn, one pointing to guilt and the other pointing to innocence the jury must accept the one pointing to innocence. First of all this is a discussion group not a trial and I hate to tell you but you are not a juror here. But tell us William based on your imaginary inference regarding this issue who is the person who is innocent, Park or Kaelin?

bobaugust


Both are guilty of changing their testimony depending on who was asking the questions.Especially Park.

[William Anthony]

Who has admitted to wanting to be an editor?

[William Anthony]

William, there is no evidence that supports your claim that when Kaelin returned from behind the garage he went back to the Ashford path and stood there for a minute to two minutes before going to the gate control box and opening the gate. You simply made that up. No attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed that ever happened. No witness in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed that ever happened.

Your inference based on imaginary evidence and contradicted by Park and Kaelin’s undisputed testimony is neither logical, reasonable, nor credible.

You keep saying that when there are two inferences to be drawn, one pointing to guilt and the other pointing to innocence the jury must accept the one pointing to innocence. First of all this is a discussion group not a trial and I hate to tell you but you are not a juror here. But tell us William based on your imaginary inference regarding this issue who is the person who is innocent, Park or Kaelin?

bobaugust

Why do you not understand as I have repeatedly posted, I joined this discussion group of seeing the negative comments made about the criminal jury and because I believe there was reasonable doubt. I am not the one that keeps saying that one must accept the inference toward innocence if there are two reasonable inferences to be drawn and one points toward guilt. That is what the jury instruction said. I likewise feel compelled to tell you that not only are you not a juror, you are not a judge, party, lawyer, clerk, stenographer, bailiff or assistant moderator or moderator. Both are innocent as no charges were brought against them. :)

[weezer]

Why do you not understand as I have repeatedly posted, I joined this discussion group of seeing the negative comments made about the criminal jury and because I believe there was reasonable doubt. I am not the one that keeps saying that one must accept the inference toward innocence if there are two reasonable inferences to be drawn and one points toward guilt. That is what the jury instruction said. I likewise feel compelled to tell you that not only are you not a juror, you are not a judge, party, lawyer, clerk, stenographer, bailiff or assistant moderator or moderator. Both are innocent as no charges were brought against them. :)

you forgot 'wannabe' -- light hearted banter, light hearted banter. . . .

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

First, Martin, welcome back! Hope you had a great time.

I am reading Lange and VA's book and again, it gives little hints that don't help their side at all.

For example, Clark does not use any of the evidence at Rockingham, as in the socks or the glove in the prelim hearing. I think the reason she gave is because the blood on the glove needed more testing because Mathison could only say that he could only testify that there was a mixture of at least two people on the glove but other testing would have to be conducted.

Why this is important is because, if I am reading it correctly, it appears he had Nicole's and Ron's blood "alone" and that his how he was able to make his call.

However, while reading this, the first thing that came to my mind is that how did he miss Simpson's blood that was allegedly always there? Are we to believe that he did not pull or examine the insides on the glove looking for blood? Shouldn't he have been able to testify that the blood found on the inside of the glove was consistent with Simpson's?

Another point in their book, Clark was all over the lab and the detectives regarding test results on the glove---never is any focus put on the socks. I would think Clark would be all over the socks since they were found inside the house and she didn't have deal with the same problems she had with the glove.

Also, have either one of you read Jerry Rubin's testimony?

[martin II]

William, we both agree part of Park’s testimony regarding what Kaelin did was mistaken. We know that from Kaelin’s consistent testimony telling us what he did that night. But the part you want to believe Park was mistaken about is what Kaelin said he actually did and didn’t contradict what Park said and the part you want to believe Park was correct about was what Kaelin never said he did and did contradict what Park said.

The evidence in the criminal trial is that Park was talking on the phone with his boss when he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house, and down the Ashford sidewalk with a flashlight. Park said when Kaelin got to the driveway he stopped and almost simultaneously Park saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up into the front entranceway, enter the house, and lights come on downstairs. Park testified to what he did after that while waiting about two minutes to be let into the estate; he finished his phone conversation with his boss, sat and waited, got out of the limo and went to the intercom and spoke with Simpson, went back to the limo and continued to sit and wait until he saw Kaelin go to the gate control box and open the gate.

The evidence in the criminal trial is that Kaelin testified he left his room about two to three minutes after hearing the noises on his back wall, went around the house, and down the Ashford sidewalk with a flashlight. He said when he got to the driveway he saw the limo parked at the gate. Kaelin said he continued on past the front of Simpson's house to the garage, went behind the garage, turned around and went back to the driveway, saw that the limo was still there, went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

I SAY that Park was mistaken in his pre criminal trial testimony when he said that after Kaelin stopped on the Ashford sidewalk Kaelin just stood there before going to the gate control box and opening the gate. I SAY that Park only thought that because after Park saw Simpson enter his house Park did not pay any attention to Kaelin when he finished his phone conversation with his boss and never saw Kaelin continue on past the front of the house. I SAY Park was unaware that Kaelin had continued on to the garage and in the criminal trial and the next time he saw Kaelin was when Kaelin returned from behind the garage came down the driveway and go to the gate control box and opened the gate.

YOU SAY Kaelin left his room about two to three minutes after hearing the noises on his back wall and went around the house and down the Ashford sidewalk with a flashlight. When he got to the driveway he saw the limo parked at the gate and then continued on to the garage. YOU SAY Park did not see Kaelin come down the Ashford sidewalk or when Kaelin continued on past the front of Simpson’s house to the garage. Kaelin went behind the garage, turned around and went back to the driveway, saw the limo was still there, and YOU SAY Kaelin then went back to the Ashford sidewalk and stood there. YOU SAY that was when Park first saw Kaelin that night and then almost simultaneously Park saw Simpson for the first time that night walk up into the front entranceway, enter the house, and lights come on downstairs. YOU SAY that Kaelin continued standing on the Ashford sidewalk while Park finished his phone conversation with his boss, sat and waited to be let in, got out of the limo and went to the intercom and spoke with Simpson, didn’t see or say anything to Kaelin who was still standing on the sidewalk in front of him, went back to the limo to sit and wait and then Park saw Kaelin go to the gate control box and open the gate.

Am I correct as to what you say William?

I said the testimony you posted did not make it clear what downstairs windows Kaelin was referring to. The only time I recall Kaelin being asked if he saw any lights on in the front of the house that faces the driveway was in the civil trial and Kaelin answered no. There were no windows in the front of Simpson’s house that faces the driveway that Kaelin could have seen the foyer light on.

As to Kaelin’s flashlight, let’s use a little common sense here. Park testified that when he saw Kaelin come from around the house down the Ashford path Kaelin had a flashlight in his hand. Kaelin testified the flashlight he had was very small. How do you think Park could have seen that small flashlight in Kaelin’s hand if the flashlight wasn’t on?

bobaugust

You are wrong. in the civil trial Kato testified that he saw the coach lights not on and then on.Not the house lights.

[martin II]

Martin and William,

First, Martin, welcome back! Hope you had a great time.

I am reading Lange and VA's book and again, it gives little hints that don't help their side at all.

For example, Clark does not use any of the evidence at Rockingham, as in the socks or the glove in the prelim hearing. I think the reason she gave is because the blood on the glove needed more testing because Mathison could only say that he could only testify that there was a mixture of at least two people on the glove but other testing would have to be conducted.

Why this is important is because, if I am reading it correctly, it appears he had Nicole's and Ron's blood "alone" and that his how he was able to make his call.

However, while reading this, the first thing that came to my mind is that how did he miss Simpson's blood that was allegedly always there? Are we to believe that he did not pull or examine the insides on the glove looking for blood? Shouldn't he have been able to testify that the blood found on the inside of the glove was consistent with Simpson's?

Another point in their book, Clark was all over the lab and the detectives regarding test results on the glove---never is any focus put on the socks. I would think Clark would be all over the socks since they were found inside the house and she didn't have deal with the same problems she had with the glove.

Also, have either one of you read Jerry Rubin's testimony?


GI
Thanks for your greeting.
i think the sock was a non issue until the DA saw their case fall apart and thought they needed some help and this is when they pulled out the glove and 'FOUND" blood on it.

[GreenIce]

It is clear to me and to all others on this board that you have to invent things from the evidence, because it contradicts your conclusion. I do not know of what "undisputed" testimony of park you speak.:) There is nothing incriminating at all about someone being on his own property. There is only direct evidence of one person being behind Kato's quarters alone in the area of where the glove was allegedly found, which is MF. I think you realize how incriminating that is. Let's not forget all the testimony as Kato testified he waited two to three minutes after hearing the noises to exit his room and begin his first cursory search. Don't you think, if Simpson made the noises, he would have been inside his home by then?:)

William,

Did Rachel F., change her timeline for the civil trial?

[GreenIce]

GI
Thanks for your greeting.
i think the sock was a non issue until the DA saw their case fall apart and thought they needed some help and this is when they pulled out the glove and 'FOUND" blood on it.

Martin,

That is just it! They should have been a huge, huge, huge issue--they were found inside the house. IMO, they had to know very early on, like that day that there was no evidence of anyone going over the fence. Marica was warned by some of her own collegues that there is something wrong with that glove.

[William Anthony]

William,

Did Rachel F., change her timeline for the civil trial?

GreenIce,

I believe her testimony stayed the same.

[William Anthony]

Martin and William,

First, Martin, welcome back! Hope you had a great time.

I am reading Lange and VA's book and again, it gives little hints that don't help their side at all.

For example, Clark does not use any of the evidence at Rockingham, as in the socks or the glove in the prelim hearing. I think the reason she gave is because the blood on the glove needed more testing because Mathison could only say that he could only testify that there was a mixture of at least two people on the glove but other testing would have to be conducted.

Why this is important is because, if I am reading it correctly, it appears he had Nicole's and Ron's blood "alone" and that his how he was able to make his call.

However, while reading this, the first thing that came to my mind is that how did he miss Simpson's blood that was allegedly always there? Are we to believe that he did not pull or examine the insides on the glove looking for blood? Shouldn't he have been able to testify that the blood found on the inside of the glove was consistent with Simpson's?

Another point in their book, Clark was all over the lab and the detectives regarding test results on the glove---never is any focus put on the socks. I would think Clark would be all over the socks since they were found inside the house and she didn't have deal with the same problems she had with the glove.

Also, have either one of you read Jerry Rubin's testimony?

Maybe, Ms. Clark had a reason to tell Darden not to try the glove demo.:)

[GreenIce]

GreenIce,

I believe her testimony stayed the same.

William,

I don't think some G's understand the language barrier that both Kato and Park had to to overcome.

Park's mother was the only one who understood what he son really meant when he gave his testimony. While I have no problem with his mother being in the courtroom while testifying, I do have a major problem with her sitting at the DA's table. She made it clear that her son was not a neutral witness and that she was mad at the defense lawyers. While I understand her anger, it should not have played a role in the trial.

Apparently Kato speaks a language that only he can speak and only his lawyer and Petrocelli could understand. When Petrocelli used the "Kato Speak" explaination and people actually bought it, don't ask me why but I was schocked. It will always amaze me just how gullible people can be. IMO.

I could not believe Petrocelli took credit for getting Kato to say what he wanted him to say! IMO, Petrocelli treated Park and Kato almost as if they were mildly retarded and he and only he, Daniel Petrocelli could understand them.

However, Kato was an actor and even a slow person can memorize a script. IMO, it is obvious that both Kato and Park were given scripts to follow and they did so. Again, I think they tried their best but I think they were very easily led. Again, IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

I don't think some G's understand the language barrier that both Kato and Park had to to overcome.

Park's mother was the only one who understood what he son really meant when he gave his testimony. While I have no problem with his mother being in the courtroom while testifying, I do have a major problem with her sitting at the DA's table. She made it clear that her son was not a neutral witness and that she was mad at the defense lawyers. While I understand her anger, it should not have played a role in the trial.

Apparently Kato speaks a language that only he can speak and only his lawyer and Petrocelli could understand. When Petrocelli used the "Kato Speak" explaination and people actually bought it, don't ask me why but I was schocked. It will always amaze me just how gullible people can be. IMO.

I could not believe Petrocelli took credit for getting Kato to say what he wanted him to say! IMO, Petrocelli treated Park and Kato almost as if they were mildly retarded and he and only he, Daniel Petrocelli could understand them.

However, Kato was an actor and even a slow person can memorize a script. IMO, it is obvious that both Kato and Park were given scripts to follow and they did so. Again, I think they tried their best but I think they were very easily led. Again, IMO.

I have never heard that "Kato speak" explanation. It appears to me that Kato and Park were easily intimidated and both are the people pleasing types.

[GreenIce]

Maybe, Ms. Clark had a reason to tell Darden not to try the glove demo.:)

William,

I think Clark had several reasons for forbidding Darden to go through with the glove demonstration. However, she would have had to tell him the truth, the gloves weren't going to fit and their best evidence on the glove was going to come in their rebuttal case and use pictures.

I am sure Darden will never admit it but I do wonder if he felt set up by his own side. First they want to give him Fuhrman, then they give him another witness regarding the gloves--of course Darden was going to ask Simpson to try the gloves on.

Clark should have told Darden no matter what, don't do a glove demonstration. But she couldn't. IMO, the DA's set up Darden.

[GreenIce]

I have never heard that "Kato speak" explanation. It appears to me that Kato and Park were easily intimidated and both are the people pleasing types.

William,

Yes, that is how Petrocelli explained Kato's changes in testimony. Petrocelli also took full credit for Kato finally getting off his butt and do a demonstration against the wall to what he heard that night. However, I find it impossible to believe that the only time Kato did that demonstration was in the civil trial courtroom.

Are we to believe he just didn't jump up and show the DA's, to try to explain to them what he heard? Are we to believe that he never once did this demonstration for friends or family?

Again, another example of just how gullible some people be, IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

I think Clark had several reasons for forbidding Darden to go through with the glove demonstration. However, she would have had to tell him the truth, the gloves weren't going to fit and their best evidence on the glove was going to come in their rebuttal case and use pictures.

I am sure Darden will never admit it but I do wonder if he felt set up by his own side. First they want to give him Fuhrman, then they give him another witness regarding the gloves--of course Darden was going to ask Simpson to try the gloves on.

Clark should have told Darden no matter what, don't do a glove demonstration. But she couldn't. IMO, the DA's set up Darden.

I think that Darden may have realized that he had been used in the end.

[William Anthony]

William,

Yes, that is how Petrocelli explained Kato's changes in testimony. Petrocelli also took full credit for Kato finally getting off his butt and do a demonstration against the wall to what he heard that night. However, I find it impossible to believe that the only time Kato did that demonstration was in the civil trial courtroom.

Are we to believe he just didn't jump up and show the DA's, to try to explain to them what he heard? Are we to believe that he never once did this demonstration for friends or family?

Again, another example of just how gullible some people be, IMO.

It seems Petro is one who likes to boast.:)

[GreenIce]

I think that Darden may have realized that he had been used in the end.

William,

IMO, I agree. However, if he didn't realize this to the end, it is because he did not want to believe it when he first suspected it. IMO, he did the same thing Clark did when it came to MF.

[GreenIce]

It seems Petro is one who likes to boast.:)

William,

It does seem that way, doesn't it?

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, I agree. However, if he didn't realize this to the end, it is because he did not want to believe it when he first suspected it. IMO, he did the same thing Clark did when it came to MF.

I think Darden's tears were tears of recognition.

[William Anthony]

William,

It does seem that way, doesn't it?

I wonder how the world survived before Petro made his arrival?:)

[weezer]

Today would have been Nicole's 50th birthday. RIP :rose:

[weezer]

I wonder how the world survived before Petro made his arrival?:)

LOL -- wasn't it cockroach that had the personal license plates that read "JC JR"?

[tv]

Here's the reference to Job:

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you believe--you said it was a somewhat unusual circumstance--did you believe that the focus of that examination on the 15th was in part to start preparing a possible Defense in the event Mr. Simpson was charged?

DR. HUIZENGA: Two--two sub-answers to that. No. 1, if I would have thought that, obviously the first thing I should have done is documented any infirmity in terms of these orthopedic problems to the nth degree. That is not really not the tact I took. I took the tact to address his mental status problems and his insomnia and his difficulty handling this incredible, incredible stress that maybe no other human being short of job has endured. And no. 2, to address a problem that I felt was potentially life-threatening and that was what acute lymph node under his arm associated with night sweats and clubbing, and I went after that. That had nothing to do with this incident. And that is where all my attention and energy was focused during this initial several weeks and when he even he went into the jailhouse and the physician there initially said he didn't have a lymph node, all my efforts were aimed in that direction, which I think had nothing to do with the Defense. I think they probably wished I would go away. I just, you know, took pictures of the cuts, and you know obviously, I just wanted everything documented in that regard, but I did--really I followed the advice of somebody that gave me a long time ago, and that is that you treat all patients the same. The minute you start doing special stuff for special patients, you get yourself into a heap of trouble as a doctor.

DR. HUIZENGA: I think the pressure that was on him, for whatever reason, was a tremendous weight, the change in his life status that very few, if any, people have experienced, in my opinion.

MR. KELBERG: And if he had murdered two human beings, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman, would that be the kind of thing that would cause a great weight to be on a man's shoulders?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, improper.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.

DR. HUIZENGA: If someone hypothetically killed someone, they certainly would have a great weight on their shoulders.

MR. KELBERG: I'm asking--you have described Mr. Simpson. I'm asking you assuming he had done, that would that be, in your opinion, a great weight on Mr. Simpson's shoulder to bear, not a hypothetical to anyone but Mr. Simpson?

MR. SHAPIRO: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

[tv]

LOL -- wasn't it cockroach that had the personal license plates that read "JC JR"?

So now we have Job and JC...and they think Petrocelli is arrogant? :eek:

[tv]

I wonder how the world survived before Petro made his arrival?:)

He certainly made OJ Simpson's life more uncomfortable and made him humiliate himself on the witness stand. :)

[weezer]

He certainly made OJ Simpson's life more uncomfortable and made him humiliate himself on the witness stand. :)

funny how the world hasn't even hiccuped since cockroach left us -- :eek:

[tv]

funny how the world hasn't even hiccuped since cockroach left us -- :eek:

Yep, I see his law firm advertised on tv all the time. Time stands still for no one -- not even La Cucaracha. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

Yep, I see his law firm advertised on tv all the time. Time stands still for no one -- not even La Cucaracha. :tongue:

There is noting wrong in being arrogant, if one has something to be arrogant about, IMHO, such as did the magnificent one.

[William Anthony]

So now we have Job and JC...and they think Petrocelli is arrogant? :eek:

Boastful when there is nothing to boast about.

[William Anthony]

He certainly made OJ Simpson's life more uncomfortable and made him humiliate himself on the witness stand. :)

I am waiting for you to post all those lies that Petro and you claim Petro trapped Simpson in.:)

[martin II]

William,

IMO, I agree. However, if he didn't realize this to the end, it is because he did not want to believe it when he first suspected it. IMO, he did the same thing Clark did when it came to MF.

Darden gambeled in a effort to become famous.I am sure he felt confident when he gave oj the gloves.

[weezer]

I am waiting for you to post all those lies that Petro and you claim Petro trapped Simpson in.:)

oh geez -- this one's easy -- just read orenthal's depositions and testimony -- begin with "Did you ever hit Nicole?"

[William Anthony]

Darden gambeled in a effort to become famous.I am sure he felt confident when he gave oj the gloves.

I am sure he felt less confident after the gloves were given back. :)

[GreenIce]

Darden gambeled in a effort to become famous.I am sure he felt confident when he gave oj the gloves.

Martin,

IMO, Darden should have felt confident about the gloves and when they didn't fit, he realized there was a reason why Clark told him not to do it. However, she was still first chair and she should have taken the hit for this, not Darden.

Also, Fung never found any tags inside the gloves, so how did the glove expert say those were the gloves?

[GreenIce]

Martin and William,

Got VA and Lange in a complete and total lie that not even a G can defend or explain. In their book, VA says he went to Dr. Golden to get tubes of Nicole's and Ron's blood. He was going to take it to the SID office. He said that Dr. Golden told a tech to give the reference samples to the detectives and this tech made VA sign for it.

Well, first off, he did go to the Coroner's office but he was told that they did not have the reference sample, that he had to go to the SID office to get it. The "tech" was Gary L. Siglar. Who said this was very, very rare but he did see it once or twice before. However, Siglar did not know that VA went to the coroner for the blood first.

Then after he gets the tubes, to goes Matheson and Collin Y. He tells Collin Y that he is not responsible for getting these tubes of blood booked into evidence.

How did this not come in criminal trial?

Also, that glove. In their book they say that Jerry R--their glove expert had a receipt with the exact same color and size on a receipt---but didn't it come out that there was no size or color on the receipt? That the only way that Vermich was able to do any research was by the price?

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, Darden should have felt confident about the gloves and when they didn't fit, he realized there was a reason why Clark told him not to do it. However, she was still first chair and she should have taken the hit for this, not Darden.

Also, Fung never found any tags inside the gloves, so how did the glove expert say those were the gloves?

Clarke told him to say they were.imo

[martin II]

Martin and William,

Got VA and Lange in a complete and total lie that not even a G can defend or explain. In their book, VA says he went to Dr. Golden to get tubes of Nicole's and Ron's blood. He was going to take it to the SID office. He said that Dr. Golden told a tech to give the reference samples to the detectives and this tech made VA sign for it.

Well, first off, he did go to the Coroner's office but he was told that they did not have the reference sample, that he had to go to the SID office to get it. The "tech" was Gary L. Siglar. Who said this was very, very rare but he did see it once or twice before. However, Siglar did not know that VA went to the coroner for the blood first.

Then after he gets the tubes, to goes Matheson and Collin Y. He tells Collin Y that he is not responsible for getting these tubes of blood booked into evidence.

How did this not come in criminal trial?

Also, that glove. In their book they say that Jerry R--their glove expert had a receipt with the exact same color and size on a receipt---but didn't it come out that there was no size or color on the receipt? That the only way that Vermich was able to do any research was by the price?


There was no sales receipt with that info on it.Vermich did identify the gloves by price $55.00

[martin II]

Martin and William,

Got VA and Lange in a complete and total lie that not even a G can defend or explain. In their book, VA says he went to Dr. Golden to get tubes of Nicole's and Ron's blood. He was going to take it to the SID office. He said that Dr. Golden told a tech to give the reference samples to the detectives and this tech made VA sign for it.

Well, first off, he did go to the Coroner's office but he was told that they did not have the reference sample, that he had to go to the SID office to get it. The "tech" was Gary L. Siglar. Who said this was very, very rare but he did see it once or twice before. However, Siglar did not know that VA went to the coroner for the blood first.

Then after he gets the tubes, to goes Matheson and Collin Y. He tells Collin Y that he is not responsible for getting these tubes of blood booked into evidence.

How did this not come in criminal trial?

Also, that glove. In their book they say that Jerry R--their glove expert had a receipt with the exact same color and size on a receipt---but didn't it come out that there was no size or color on the receipt? That the only way that Vermich was able to do any research was by the price?

Why did Vanhatter need Nicoles and Rons blood??

[GreenIce]

There was no sales receipt with that info on it.Vermich did identify the gloves by price $55.00

Martin,

I have read a lot on this case, both sides and as well as books that were written by others who were not involved in the actual trial. I can't believe just how many times questionable evidence has been taken as the truth.

Rubin left the company how long ago but still had access to Nicole's receipt? Does that make sense?

[GreenIce]

According Lange and VA, the clothes in the washing machine were taken and/or tested for blood. No blood was found, only rust on the clothes.

If anyone has an issue with this, take up with the authors.