Random Discussions On The Case

[GreenIce]

Why did Vanhatter need Nicoles and Rons blood??

Martin,

I think Vanatter never expected this get out. IMO, I think he needed the blood because he did not and could not explain how it got there. He also was in a meeting and realized they didn't have the blood evidence they needed. Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

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

Martin,

Did Rubin testify about the receipt? Do you know?

[martin II]

Martin,

Did Rubin testify about the receipt? Do you know?

I don't remember if he did but he did not work for Bloomingdales so don't know how he could have.

[William Anthony]

GreenIce and Martin,

Suppose someone cuts a finger on his right hand, during a double murder. Assume further that when this person walks away he has his left arm bent about chest high and is holding that arm closest to his body. Further assume that the person then places his right hand with the cut over top of the left arm with his open fingers resting on top of his left bicep? Would not the blood that dropped be to the left of any left shoe print and slightly behind?

[martin II]

GreenIce and Martin,

Suppose someone cuts a finger on his right hand, during a double murder. Assume further that when this person walks away he has his left arm bent about chest high and is holding that arm closest to his body. Further assume that the person then places his right hand with the cut over top of the left arm with his open fingers resting on top of his left bicep? Would not the blood that dropped be to the left of any left shoe print and slightly behind?

i would think so.

[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.:)

My argument is neither circular nor wrong since it is based entirely on what Park and Kaelin actually testified to in the criminal trial and the civil trial regarding what they did that night.

Your argument doesn’t make any sense. You say Park was wrong when he said that he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house down the Ashford pathway with a flashlight and then stop when got to the driveway because Kaelin said he didn’t stop there. Yet you then claim that when Kaelin came out from behind the garage he went “up” the driveway and back to the Ashford pathway and not only do you claim he stopped on that path but he just stood there for a minute to two minutes before he went to the gate control box and opened the gate, something Kaelin never ever said he did.

And that makes sense to you?

It seems to me William you just can’t seem to be able to tell the difference between Park’s correct, corroborated testimony and Park’s obviously mistaken testimony. You have things backwards. You think Park was mistaken when he consistently testified to the same thing he told the police and was also corroborated by Kaelin’s testimony, and you think Park was not mistaken when in he said in his pre criminal trial testimony that Kaelin simply stood on the Ashford path all the time Park was waiting to be let in the gate. Despite the fact Kaelin never said he did that and despite the fact that Park later made it clear he was mistaken about that by testifying he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin during that time. You then throw in your own fantasy creation as to what you imagine Kaelin did after he came out from behind the garage and then claim the inferences you have drawn from your fantasy raises reasonable doubt for you. What a joke.

The real lawyers in this case never suggested, inferred, or claimed anything you have fantasized about this. Bottom line your claim that Park was mistaken when he told the police and then consistently testified that he first saw a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight is a false claim.

bobaugust

[fgump2]

There was no sales receipt with that info on it.Vermich did identify the gloves by price $55.00
According to the books written by Bugliosi and Rantala, there was a sales slip that was from a purchase the Nicole made that pretty much had to have been for two pairs of Aris Leather Lights. It was hand written, and was for two items, the total cost was $77.00, after a 30% discount. I don't think anyone ever questioned this evidence; at least none of the defense people.

[martin II]

My argument is neither circular nor wrong since it is based entirely on what Park and Kaelin actually testified to in the criminal trial and the civil trial regarding what they did that night.

Your argument doesn’t make any sense. You say Park was wrong when he said that he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house down the Ashford pathway with a flashlight and then stop when got to the driveway because Kaelin said he didn’t stop there. Yet you then claim that when Kaelin came out from behind the garage he went “up” the driveway and back to the Ashford pathway and not only do you claim he stopped on that path but he just stood there for a minute to two minutes before he went to the gate control box and opened the gate, something Kaelin never ever said he did.

And that makes sense to you?

It seems to me William you just can’t seem to be able to tell the difference between Park’s correct, corroborated testimony and Park’s obviously mistaken testimony. You have things backwards. You think Park was mistaken when he consistently testified to the same thing he told the police and was also corroborated by Kaelin’s testimony, and you think Park was not mistaken when in he said in his pre criminal trial testimony that Kaelin simply stood on the Ashford path all the time Park was waiting to be let in the gate. Despite the fact Kaelin never said he did that and despite the fact that Park later made it clear he was mistaken about that by testifying he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin during that time. You then throw in your own fantasy creation as to what you imagine Kaelin did after he came out from behind the garage and then claim the inferences you have drawn from your fantasy raises reasonable doubt for you. What a joke.

The real lawyers in this case never suggested, inferred, or claimed anything you have fantasized about this. Bottom line your claim that Park was mistaken when he told the police and then consistently testified that he first saw a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight is a false claim.

bobaugust

Park testified that KATO WAS STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK. Why do you say he was mistaken on that issue and correct on all other issues? Because it does not fit what you think happened?

[fgump2]

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

I don't know all of them; but I think the biggest one was that he never hit Nicole, and never hurt her.

[martin II]

According to the books written by Bugliosi and Rantala, there was a sales slip that was from a purchase the Nicole made that pretty much had to have been for two pairs of Aris Leather Lights. It was hand written, and was for two items, the total cost was $77.00, after a 30% discount. I don't think anyone ever questioned this evidence; at least none of the defense people.
That is not the issue being discussed.The issue is if the color and size was listed on the sales receipt.The gloves cost $55.00 each. i know of no discount shown on the sales receipt.See the testimony of the sales person.

Did Bugliosi or Rantala say the size and color was listed on the sales receipt or that the sales person testified that they were?

[GreenIce]

According to the books written by Bugliosi and Rantala, there was a sales slip that was from a purchase the Nicole made that pretty much had to have been for two pairs of Aris Leather Lights. It was hand written, and was for two items, the total cost was $77.00, after a 30% discount. I don't think anyone ever questioned this evidence; at least none of the defense people.

fgump2,

The problem is the price of the gloves does not give an accurate description of the gloves, as to color and size. There are three types of extra large gloves. Also, the tags in the gloves were taken out--so how do you a comparison to gloves to the receipt.

Also, I find it hard to believe that Bloomingdales that the employees had to hand write every receipt.

Another issue, Tom McCallum did give the defense and the DA's the pair of gloves that Nicole gave for Christmas. We don't know if the tags in these gloves matched the one written on the receipt.

One thing I always wondered was why the DA's did not run DNA tests on the glove lining. I would think you could get DNA from from a person's sweat.

[GreenIce]

I don't know all of them; but I think the biggest one was that he never hit Nicole, and never hurt her.

fgump2,

Simpon said that never hit Nicole, however he did say that he did hurt her and he was responsible for Nicole's injuries.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce and Martin,

Suppose someone cuts a finger on his right hand, during a double murder. Assume further that when this person walks away he has his left arm bent about chest high and is holding that arm closest to his body. Further assume that the person then places his right hand with the cut over top of the left arm with his open fingers resting on top of his left bicep? Would not the blood that dropped be to the left of any left shoe print and slightly behind?

William,

Can't help you on this one. I still can't figure out how a cut on the left finger can leave a bloody fingerprint on the gate lock and manage to end up on the right side of the fence and every single blood drop land on the fence.

I heard of iron being in a person's blood, but a fence being a magnet for blood?

[martin II]

fgump2,

The problem is the price of the gloves does not give an accurate description of the gloves, as to color and size. There are three types of extra large gloves. Also, the tags in the gloves were taken out--so how do you a comparison to gloves to the receipt.

Also, I find it hard to believe that Bloomingdales that the employees had to hand write every receipt.

Another issue, Tom McCallum did give the defense and the DA's the pair of gloves that Nicole gave for Christmas. We don't know if the tags in these gloves matched the one written on the receipt.

One thing I always wondered was why the DA's did not run DNA tests on the glove lining. I would think you could get DNA from from a person's sweat.

From the sales receipt we do not know what size or the color of the gloves purchased.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, as I understand your testimony, Miss Vemich, what you've told us is that if we look at this Bloomingdales glove purchase receipt there, you can't tell us the color of the gloves purchased; is that right?

MS. VEMICH: That's right.

MR. COCHRAN: You can't tell us the size of the gloves purchased; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And as I understand from looking at the receipt, this purchase of two pair of gloves was made on December 18 of 1990; is that correct? Is that your understanding?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And further, if we are to look at the style number of these gloves, 70268 there, if I can make--Jonathan--move on to 70268, please. That style no. 70268, you are telling us that that was not a style number that Bloomingdales purchased from Aris Isotoner in 1990? Is that what you indicate?

MS. VEMICH: I'm indicating that that is not a style number that existed at Bloomingdales ever.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Well, let me ask you this: Is the numbering 70268, is that a style number that existed with Aris Isotoner in 1990?

MS. VEMICH: Not that I know of.

MR. COCHRAN: Have you done any checking in that regard?

MS. VEMICH: I have inquired.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And who did you inquire of?

MS. VEMICH: I called to see--I called Aris Isotoner to see if that number existed.

MR. COCHRAN: And where did you call?

MS. VEMICH: I called the New York office.

MR. COCHRAN: And who--do you know the name of the person that you spoke with, ma'am?

MS. VEMICH: At the time Steph Fogelson.

MR. COCHRAN: Steph Fogelson?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you have a report from Steph Fogelson?

MS. VEMICH: No, not really. He was not sure.

THE COURT: Do you know how to spell Steph Fogelson for our court reporter?

MS. VEMICH: F-o-g-e-l-s-o-n.

THE COURT: How do you spell the first name?

MS. VEMICH: Steph, s-t-e-p-h.

THE COURT: Thank you.

[GreenIce]

My argument is neither circular nor wrong since it is based entirely on what Park and Kaelin actually testified to in the criminal trial and the civil trial regarding what they did that night.

Your argument doesn’t make any sense. You say Park was wrong when he said that he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house down the Ashford pathway with a flashlight and then stop when got to the driveway because Kaelin said he didn’t stop there. Yet you then claim that when Kaelin came out from behind the garage he went “up” the driveway and back to the Ashford pathway and not only do you claim he stopped on that path but he just stood there for a minute to two minutes before he went to the gate control box and opened the gate, something Kaelin never ever said he did.

And that makes sense to you?

It seems to me William you just can’t seem to be able to tell the difference between Park’s correct, corroborated testimony and Park’s obviously mistaken testimony. You have things backwards. You think Park was mistaken when he consistently testified to the same thing he told the police and was also corroborated by Kaelin’s testimony, and you think Park was not mistaken when in he said in his pre criminal trial testimony that Kaelin simply stood on the Ashford path all the time Park was waiting to be let in the gate. Despite the fact Kaelin never said he did that and despite the fact that Park later made it clear he was mistaken about that by testifying he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin during that time. You then throw in your own fantasy creation as to what you imagine Kaelin did after he came out from behind the garage and then claim the inferences you have drawn from your fantasy raises reasonable doubt for you. What a joke.

The real lawyers in this case never suggested, inferred, or claimed anything you have fantasized about this. Bottom line your claim that Park was mistaken when he told the police and then consistently testified that he first saw a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight is a false claim.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

If Park was paying close attention to the clock and Kato, then how does he know that when he saw the black person that he was leaving his house? Did he maintain constant eye contact with Simpson's front door?

[GreenIce]

From the sales receipt we do not know what size or the color of the gloves purchased.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, as I understand your testimony, Miss Vemich, what you've told us is that if we look at this Bloomingdales glove purchase receipt there, you can't tell us the color of the gloves purchased; is that right?

MS. VEMICH: That's right.

MR. COCHRAN: You can't tell us the size of the gloves purchased; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And as I understand from looking at the receipt, this purchase of two pair of gloves was made on December 18 of 1990; is that correct? Is that your understanding?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And further, if we are to look at the style number of these gloves, 70268 there, if I can make--Jonathan--move on to 70268, please. That style no. 70268, you are telling us that that was not a style number that Bloomingdales purchased from Aris Isotoner in 1990? Is that what you indicate?

MS. VEMICH: I'm indicating that that is not a style number that existed at Bloomingdales ever.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Well, let me ask you this: Is the numbering 70268, is that a style number that existed with Aris Isotoner in 1990?

MS. VEMICH: Not that I know of.

MR. COCHRAN: Have you done any checking in that regard?

MS. VEMICH: I have inquired.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And who did you inquire of?

MS. VEMICH: I called to see--I called Aris Isotoner to see if that number existed.

MR. COCHRAN: And where did you call?

MS. VEMICH: I called the New York office.

MR. COCHRAN: And who--do you know the name of the person that you spoke with, ma'am?

MS. VEMICH: At the time Steph Fogelson.

MR. COCHRAN: Steph Fogelson?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you have a report from Steph Fogelson?

MS. VEMICH: No, not really. He was not sure.

THE COURT: Do you know how to spell Steph Fogelson for our court reporter?

MS. VEMICH: F-o-g-e-l-s-o-n.

THE COURT: How do you spell the first name?

MS. VEMICH: Steph, s-t-e-p-h.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Martin,

Why Brenda V doing the LAPD's job? Wouldn't it only make sense the DA's would contact the company?

[martin II]

fgump2,

The problem is the price of the gloves does not give an accurate description of the gloves, as to color and size. There are three types of extra large gloves. Also, the tags in the gloves were taken out--so how do you a comparison to gloves to the receipt.

Also, I find it hard to believe that Bloomingdales that the employees had to hand write every receipt.

Another issue, Tom McCallum did give the defense and the DA's the pair of gloves that Nicole gave for Christmas. We don't know if the tags in these gloves matched the one written on the receipt.

One thing I always wondered was why the DA's did not run DNA tests on the glove lining. I would think you could get DNA from from a person's sweat.


What do you mean by "Three types of extra large gloves" The style number on the receipt was not one that Bloomingdales carried.How did that happen?

[fgump2]

From the sales receipt we do not know what size or the color of the gloves purchased.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, as I understand your testimony, Miss Vemich, what you've told us is that if we look at this Bloomingdales glove purchase receipt there, you can't tell us the color of the gloves purchased; is that right?

MS. VEMICH: That's right.

MR. COCHRAN: You can't tell us the size of the gloves purchased; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: Correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And as I understand from looking at the receipt, this purchase of two pair of gloves was made on December 18 of 1990; is that correct? Is that your understanding?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And further, if we are to look at the style number of these gloves, 70268 there, if I can make--Jonathan--move on to 70268, please. That style no. 70268, you are telling us that that was not a style number that Bloomingdales purchased from Aris Isotoner in 1990? Is that what you indicate?

MS. VEMICH: I'm indicating that that is not a style number that existed at Bloomingdales ever.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Well, let me ask you this: Is the numbering 70268, is that a style number that existed with Aris Isotoner in 1990?

MS. VEMICH: Not that I know of.

MR. COCHRAN: Have you done any checking in that regard?

MS. VEMICH: I have inquired.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And who did you inquire of?

MS. VEMICH: I called to see--I called Aris Isotoner to see if that number existed.

MR. COCHRAN: And where did you call?

MS. VEMICH: I called the New York office.

MR. COCHRAN: And who--do you know the name of the person that you spoke with, ma'am?

MS. VEMICH: At the time Steph Fogelson.

MR. COCHRAN: Steph Fogelson?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you have a report from Steph Fogelson?

MS. VEMICH: No, not really. He was not sure.

THE COURT: Do you know how to spell Steph Fogelson for our court reporter?

MS. VEMICH: F-o-g-e-l-s-o-n.

THE COURT: How do you spell the first name?

MS. VEMICH: Steph, s-t-e-p-h.

THE COURT: Thank you.
According to what I read, the actual style number was 70263, written down, not printed. It is easy to get a number 3 confused with a number 8. I suppose I could look up the testimony on the case. I think it is just another dream team attempt to muddy the waters.

[GreenIce]

What do you mean by "Three types of extra large gloves"

Martin,

Gloves, like shoes have sizes within in the "general" size. An extra large glove can be for the people who have much wider palms, have short fingers or long and narrow fingers.

According to Susan Broadbank, she measured the gloves found at the crime scene and found them to be shorter then the "new" pair of gloves. I hope that came out right.

[martin II]

Martin,

Why Brenda V doing the LAPD's job? Wouldn't it only make sense the DA's would contact the company?

The DA did not want to ask a question they did not have the answer to.There was a problem with the style number on the receipt and no indication to size or color.Maby Nicole purchased a size medium or large glove in black?

[GreenIce]

According to what I read, the actual style number was 70263, written down, not printed. It is easy to get a number 3 confused with a number 8. I suppose I could look up the testimony on the case. I think it is just another dream team attempt to muddy the waters.

fgump2,

Here is the main problem I have with G's. It was the DA's who claimed that Nicole bought those gloves for Simpson and wore them while he was killing Ron and Nicole. However, the sales receipt does not indicate the size or the color of the gloves. So, how can the defense muddy the waters on this issue? Bottom line, without the glove color and size, you have nothing, IMO.

Is it the defense's fault that the tag was cut out of the gloves?

Please note that Brenda only said that Bloomingdales did not carry that model number. However, does that mean no store carried the model number written on the receipt?

[martin II]

Martin,

Gloves, like shoes have sizes within in the "general" size. An extra large glove can be for the people who have much wider palms, have short fingers or long and narrow fingers.

According to Susan Broadbank, she measured the gloves found at the crime scene and found them to be shorter then the "new" pair of gloves. I hope that came out right.

Rubin did not testify that his gloves were like that. He said they were extra large.I have never seen a extra large A.B. and .C.

[GreenIce]

Rubin did not testify that his gloves were like that. He said they were extra large.I have never seen a extra large A.B. and .C.

Martin,

Rubin already knew what was on the receipt. He already knew the tags were missing. He could be as general as he wanted.

However, I just thought of something. All the pictures of Simpson wearing these gloves was when he was working for NBC. What if every other sports caster for that network also wore those types of gloves?

Also, what if the network gave all their sports caster's a clothing allowance, if that is the case, then why would Nicole buy Simpson gloves if she knew was provided gloves by the network?

[Liam1306]

One thing that has always bothered me about the "gloves, is that when exposed to saltwater all leather gloves will shrink anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 their original size (blood, like sea saltwater is somewhere around 7%).

Goldman's wounds also represent evidence of combat knifefighting training.
Approach your opposition from the rear.
Start with a vicious slash to the inside thigh.
When the opposition reaches to look at, close and treat the first wound, counter with a heavy knifepoint jab to the face.
Follow with slashing to the arm(s), follow through with stabbing to vital organs (chest/neck).

I have always believed in OJ's guilt, until now.

Could he have put these sequence of events in motion?
Yes.
Could he have been present immediately after the fact?
Yes.
Did he carry out these violent crimes?
No.
As a cop, I have witnessed neck ateries jet blood 10-12 feet in the air, with diminished jetting due to loss of blood volume, and finally body spasms.

There isn't enough - although there is some - blood on OJ, his vehicle, and in his home.

[William Anthony]

i would think so.

Then that blows the theory out of the water that the murderer had to have cut his left hand.

[William Anthony]

My argument is neither circular nor wrong since it is based entirely on what Park and Kaelin actually testified to in the criminal trial and the civil trial regarding what they did that night.

bobaugust

Here is your argument.

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.

You see you begin with a assumption and use that assumption to justify your conclusion, which is your assumption.:) You are saying it is true, because you say it is true. You see the testimonies prove that Park saw Kato after Kato completed his first search, which is what you want and must leave out to make your circular reasoning correct, when Thomas Paine knows that all phone records can document is the time phone calls were placed and ended.:)

[William Anthony]

Your argument doesn’t make any sense. You say Park was wrong when he said that he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house down the Ashford pathway with a flashlight and then stop when got to the driveway because Kaelin said he didn’t stop there. Yet you then claim that when Kaelin came out from behind the garage he went “up” the driveway and back to the Ashford pathway and not only do you claim he stopped on that path but he just stood there for a minute to two minutes before he went to the gate control box and opened the gate, something Kaelin never ever said he did.

And that makes sense to you?

bobaugust

You have forgotten Park's testimony that he saw Kato walking, whereas Kato said he was running, Park said kato stopped, Kato said he did not, Park said Kato waved, Kato said he waved after completing his first cursory search, Park testified that Kato stood there and was still standing there for another minute before Kato proceeded to go open the gate, to use your word, which was "undisputed". To say that Park is correct about all these thing and Kato is wrong makes no sense to me or you or it should not. :)

[William Anthony]

It seems to me William you just can’t seem to be able to tell the difference between Park’s correct, corroborated testimony and Park’s obviously mistaken testimony. You have things backwards. You think Park was mistaken when he consistently testified to the same thing he told the police and was also corroborated by Kaelin’s testimony, and you think Park was not mistaken when in he said in his pre criminal trial testimony that Kaelin simply stood on the Ashford path all the time Park was waiting to be let in the gate. Despite the fact Kaelin never said he did that and despite the fact that Park later made it clear he was mistaken about that by testifying he wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin during that time. You then throw in your own fantasy creation as to what you imagine Kaelin did after he came out from behind the garage and then claim the inferences you have drawn from your fantasy raises reasonable doubt for you. What a joke.

bobaugust

It seems to me that you must decide when Park is correct and when he is mistaken, because to do so makes your conclusions correct. I have told you repeatedly that I don't have to be right as I am showing there is reasonable doubt, which means that I don't have to be right as to who is right and wrong, only that there is evidence to support my inferences and evidence to contradict your conclusions.:) You have one thing correct. I am going backwards in my discussions with you. The joke is that you can't see that Park's memory was molded, because every real lawyer or investigator must have realized the same thing that I did, IMHO. One must look for the forest in the trees.:) Kato never said that he did not stand for a minute after completing his first cursory search or asked did he walk diagonally up and across or cross the driveway. You take something that Kato never testified to as somehow contradicting what Park testified to. You see the joke contained in your circular reasoning. Because you believe it did not happen, you believe because Kato was not asked, it could not have happened, because you believe it did not happen. Let me see if I can say it the humorous way, you believe non testimony is testimony.:)

[William Anthony]

One thing that has always bothered me about the "gloves, is that when exposed to saltwater all leather gloves will shrink anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 their original size (blood, like sea saltwater is somewhere around 7%).

Goldman's wounds also represent evidence of combat knifefighting training.
Approach your opposition from the rear.
Start with a vicious slash to the inside thigh.
When the opposition reaches to look at, close and treat the first wound, counter with a heavy knifepoint jab to the face.
Follow with slashing to the arm(s), follow through with stabbing to vital organs (chest/neck).

I have always believed in OJ's guilt, until now.

Could he have put these sequence of events in motion?
Yes.
Could he have been present immediately after the fact?
Yes.
Did he carry out these violent crimes?
No.
As a cop, I have witnessed neck ateries jet blood 10-12 feet in the air, with diminished jetting due to loss of blood volume, and finally body spasms.

There isn't enough - although there is some - blood on OJ, his vehicle, and in his home.

Welcome aboard.

[GreenIce]

One thing that has always bothered me about the "gloves, is that when exposed to saltwater all leather gloves will shrink anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 their original size (blood, like sea saltwater is somewhere around 7%).

Goldman's wounds also represent evidence of combat knifefighting training.
Approach your opposition from the rear.
Start with a vicious slash to the inside thigh.
When the opposition reaches to look at, close and treat the first wound, counter with a heavy knifepoint jab to the face.
Follow with slashing to the arm(s), follow through with stabbing to vital organs (chest/neck).

I have always believed in OJ's guilt, until now.

Could he have put these sequence of events in motion?
Yes.
Could he have been present immediately after the fact?
Yes.
Did he carry out these violent crimes?
No.
As a cop, I have witnessed neck ateries jet blood 10-12 feet in the air, with diminished jetting due to loss of blood volume, and finally body spasms.

There isn't enough - although there is some - blood on OJ, his vehicle, and in his home.

Liam,

I believe Simpson may have been used to put the sequence of events in motion. For example, Paula's SUV being stolen, perhaps the phone call to the women's shelter as well as using Nicole's and OJ's latest war with each other to their advantage. I believe the killers did have information on the couple that was at times, well known but also had knowledge that could have only come from an "insider".

I do not believe Simpson was at the scene after the murders, I just can't see him taking the chance that his children could have found their mother. I also can't see him acting perfectly normal to Kato and the limo driver and to every person me met along the way.

I think you do make an excellent point, however. It has been assumed that the blood footprints were left as one of the killers left the area, yet, I don't see how this could have happened if both Ron and Nicole were dead within a minute and a half and if they were killed from behind.

IMO, I think it is possible the footprints were left by a person who wanted to make sure that certain evidence was left behind and perhaps make sure that the kids did not wake up during this time.

Again, IMO, if Ron was killled because he was witness, then so would have Sydney and Justin. And their dog to. Again, IMO.

[GreenIce]

The DA did not want to ask a question they did not have the answer to.There was a problem with the style number on the receipt and no indication to size or color.Maby Nicole purchased a size medium or large glove in black?

Martin,

You know, I just thought of something. IMO, the glove demo by the DA's really took both gloves out of the equation in regards to the jury. Right there, reasonable doubt---so other then the actual science on the glove, the defense's work was already done on the glove. I wonder had the glove demo gone differently if the defense would have brought out Tom McCollum's gloves.

I think this is where the defense really took the advantage, they very rarely mucked up their own case by opening a door they firmly shut. IMO.

[GreenIce]

It seems to me that you must decide when Park is correct and when he is mistaken, because to do so makes your conclusions correct. I have told you repeatedly that I don't have to be right as I am showing there is reasonable doubt, which means that I don't have to be right as to who is right and wrong, only that there is evidence to support my inferences and evidence to contradict your conclusions.:) You have one thing correct. I am going backwards in my discussions with you. The joke is that you can't see that Park's memory was molded, because every real lawyer or investigator must have realized the same thing that I did, IMHO. One must look for the forest in the trees.:) Kato never said that he did not stand for a minute after completing his first cursory search or asked did he walk diagonally up and across or cross the driveway. You take something that Kato never testified to as somehow contradicting what Park testified to. You see the joke contained in your circular reasoning. Because you believe it did not happen, you believe because Kato was not asked, it could not have happened, because you believe it did not happen. Let me see if I can say it the humorous way, you believe non testimony is testimony.:)

William,

IMO, if Mr. August can say that Marcia Clark could correct her timeline in her closing evidence and therefore the time did change---then isn't Mr. August conceding that Marcia Clark told the jury they should not trust anything Fuhrman said or did? Never once did Clark say that MF did not plant evidence. When she denounced him as a person who never should have been a cop in the first place does not mean they have not proven Simpson guilty. Almost like, so what if he planted the glove, there is other evidence.

She insisted on making that glove her case and IMO, once she slammed MF in her closings, she slammed every other LAPD member that was involved in this case. IMO.

[martin II]

One thing that has always bothered me about the "gloves, is that when exposed to saltwater all leather gloves will shrink anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 their original size (blood, like sea saltwater is somewhere around 7%).

Goldman's wounds also represent evidence of combat knifefighting training.
Approach your opposition from the rear.
Start with a vicious slash to the inside thigh.
When the opposition reaches to look at, close and treat the first wound, counter with a heavy knifepoint jab to the face.
Follow with slashing to the arm(s), follow through with stabbing to vital organs (chest/neck).

I have always believed in OJ's guilt, until now.

Could he have put these sequence of events in motion?
Yes.
Could he have been present immediately after the fact?
Yes.
Did he carry out these violent crimes?
No.
As a cop, I have witnessed neck ateries jet blood 10-12 feet in the air, with diminished jetting due to loss of blood volume, and finally body spasms.

There isn't enough - although there is some - blood on OJ, his vehicle, and in his home.

Too much blood where there should be no blood and not enough blood where there should be more blood.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, if Mr. August can say that Marcia Clark could correct her timeline in her closing evidence and therefore the time did change---then isn't Mr. August conceding that Marcia Clark told the jury they should not trust anything Fuhrman said or did? Never once did Clark say that MF did not plant evidence. When she denounced him as a person who never should have been a cop in the first place does not mean they have not proven Simpson guilty. Almost like, so what if he planted the glove, there is other evidence.

She insisted on making that glove her case and IMO, once she slammed MF in her closings, she slammed every other LAPD member that was involved in this case. IMO.

There were more switches in the Prosecution's case in regard to time lines than there were in the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Line.

Ms. Clark sold the Gs a bill of goods and told them not to trust their senses of taste and smell, because it was fresh prime rib instead of three day old fish.

[martin II]

Liam,

I believe Simpson may have been used to put the sequence of events in motion. For example, Paula's SUV being stolen, perhaps the phone call to the women's shelter as well as using Nicole's and OJ's latest war with each other to their advantage. I believe the killers did have information on the couple that was at times, well known but also had knowledge that could have only come from an "insider".

I do not believe Simpson was at the scene after the murders, I just can't see him taking the chance that his children could have found their mother. I also can't see him acting perfectly normal to Kato and the limo driver and to every person me met along the way.

I think you do make an excellent point, however. It has been assumed that the blood footprints were left as one of the killers left the area, yet, I don't see how this could have happened if both Ron and Nicole were dead within a minute and a half and if they were killed from behind.

IMO, I think it is possible the footprints were left by a person who wanted to make sure that certain evidence was left behind and perhaps make sure that the kids did not wake up during this time.

Again, IMO, if Ron was killled because he was witness, then so would have Sydney and Justin. And their dog to. Again, IMO.

I think it may be possible that oj was there after the fact.

[martin II]

Martin,

Rubin already knew what was on the receipt. He already knew the tags were missing. He could be as general as he wanted.

However, I just thought of something. All the pictures of Simpson wearing these gloves was when he was working for NBC. What if every other sports caster for that network also wore those types of gloves?

Also, what if the network gave all their sports caster's a clothing allowance, if that is the case, then why would Nicole buy Simpson gloves if she knew was provided gloves by the network?

The network could very well have purchased gloves for everyone.No one took photos of the other nbc people.You are correct about Rubin being general in his comments.I think Nicole would have given oj something other than a pair of $55.00 gloves for christmas.

[martin II]

One thing that has always bothered me about the "gloves, is that when exposed to saltwater all leather gloves will shrink anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 their original size (blood, like sea saltwater is somewhere around 7%).

Goldman's wounds also represent evidence of combat knifefighting training.
Approach your opposition from the rear.
Start with a vicious slash to the inside thigh.
When the opposition reaches to look at, close and treat the first wound, counter with a heavy knifepoint jab to the face.
Follow with slashing to the arm(s), follow through with stabbing to vital organs (chest/neck).

I have always believed in OJ's guilt, until now.

Could he have put these sequence of events in motion?
Yes.
Could he have been present immediately after the fact?
Yes.
Did he carry out these violent crimes?
No.
As a cop, I have witnessed neck ateries jet blood 10-12 feet in the air, with diminished jetting due to loss of blood volume, and finally body spasms.

There isn't enough - although there is some - blood on OJ, his vehicle, and in his home.

You have paid attention to a detail that most have ignored.There are other details of the murders that some have ignored such as there must have been two killers for Nicole and Ron to have been killed as they were in the time it is suggested they were killed.

[martin II]

It seems to me that you must decide when Park is correct and when he is mistaken, because to do so makes your conclusions correct. I have told you repeatedly that I don't have to be right as I am showing there is reasonable doubt, which means that I don't have to be right as to who is right and wrong, only that there is evidence to support my inferences and evidence to contradict your conclusions.:) You have one thing correct. I am going backwards in my discussions with you. The joke is that you can't see that Park's memory was molded, because every real lawyer or investigator must have realized the same thing that I did, IMHO. One must look for the forest in the trees.:) Kato never said that he did not stand for a minute after completing his first cursory search or asked did he walk diagonally up and across or cross the driveway. You take something that Kato never testified to as somehow contradicting what Park testified to. You see the joke contained in your circular reasoning. Because you believe it did not happen, you believe because Kato was not asked, it could not have happened, because you believe it did not happen. Let me see if I can say it the humorous way, you believe non testimony is testimony.:)

Bob agrees with all of parks testimony up until it proves what he thinks is impossible to have happened.At this point he just declares Park made a mistake.Bob corrects this mistake by adding what he thinkg Park meant and then he moves on with that faulty argument to claim he is correct.You have pointed this out to him many times and it does no good.He just continues to make the same faulty argument.

[martin II]

There were more switches in the Prosecution's case in regard to time lines than there were in the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Line.

Ms. Clark sold the Gs a bill of goods and told them not to trust their senses of taste and smell, because it was fresh prime rib instead of three day old fish.

The prosecuton switches was why the jury could not understand what the DA were trying to tell them. There was no consistant story line that made sense.

[martin II]

At Nicoles body, how long would it take for a blood pool to form so that a foot print could be made in the pool?

[martin II]

fgump2,

Here is the main problem I have with G's. It was the DA's who claimed that Nicole bought those gloves for Simpson and wore them while he was killing Ron and Nicole. However, the sales receipt does not indicate the size or the color of the gloves. So, how can the defense muddy the waters on this issue? Bottom line, without the glove color and size, you have nothing, IMO.

Is it the defense's fault that the tag was cut out of the gloves?

Please note that Brenda only said that Bloomingdales did not carry that model number. However, does that mean no store carried the model number written on the receipt?

Brenda believes that Bloomingdales was the only store that carried that glove model number.where did that model number come from if Bloomingdales never carried it.did Nicole buy one extra large and another large.There is no proof of what she baught other than some gloves.

[weezer]

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.

can you give the page number that that info is on please?

[weezer]

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?

Rubin didn't have access to Nicole's receipt nor did he testify to Nicole's receipt.

[weezer]

GreenIce and Martin,

Suppose someone cuts a finger on his right hand, during a double murder. Assume further that when this person walks away he has his left arm bent about chest high and is holding that arm closest to his body. Further assume that the person then places his right hand with the cut over top of the left arm with his open fingers resting on top of his left bicep? Would not the blood that dropped be to the left of any left shoe print and slightly behind?

this from the guy who slams the G's for 'maybe, if'? LOL

[martin II]

MR. COCHRAN: Can you tell the size of this glove from looking at it?

MS. VEMICH: Yes. It appears to be an extra large glove.

MR. COCHRAN: May I try this on, your Honor?

MR. COCHRAN: Supposed to be an extra large glove?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Are these gloves, do they come--where are they made?

MS. VEMICH: They are made in the Philippines.

MR. COCHRAN: Do they come--the extra large is kind of small?

MS. VEMICH: No, but they stretch.

MR. COCHRAN: I see. So this is a--this is a normal extra large glove; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: But you are saying they stretch?

MS. VEMICH: Yes, but that doesn't fit you.

MR. COCHRAN: It is too small?

MS. VEMICH: It is too big.

MR. COCHRAN: Since I'm wearing it, it seems too small for me, but we won't argue about that. You are saying--

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I would like to get the other glove out, if I might, and change gloves.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Wooden.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: May I approach again, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. COCHRAN: I believe this purports to be the left-handed glove, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, People's 77.

MR. COCHRAN: People's 77.

MR. COCHRAN: And this People's 77, if you know, does that appear to be at least similar to the other glove that you saw back in January of 1995?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: I presume that you did not put your initials on either of gloves at that time; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: My initials?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. You didn't put your initials on either glove, did you?

MS. VEMICH: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You were just present with Detectives Vannatter and Lange at the time that these gloves were displayed to you; is that correct, ma'am?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And at the time when you saw Detectives Vannatter and Lange handle these gloves at that time, were they using any kind of paper like this?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Were they using any gloves, if you recall?

MS. VEMICH: Absolutely.

MR. COCHRAN: You recall that, do you?

MS. VEMICH: Yes, because I touched the gloves and I had to use the latex gloves and the butcher paper and--

MR. COCHRAN: And this--this particular glove has a label inside of it; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And the label says "Aris"; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And it is a cashmere lined?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And it says "Made in Philippines."

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And it says "Extra large"; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Is there any other--is there a particular lot or style number in either of these gloves indicating this is a 70263 glove?

MS. VEMICH: No, not that I know of.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, do you want to take a look?

MS. VEMICH: I already looked.

[William Anthony]

I guess it becomes necessary for me to set forth in detail what I am saying. It was the prosecution's theory that the murderer, who they claimed was Simpson, cut his finger on his left hand and bled at Bundy after they saw that Simpson had a cut on his finger, which Simpson claimed he got in Chicago. The Prosecution claimed that Simpson's blood being to the left of the shoe prints found at Bundy showed that Simpson was bleeding from his left hand and the cut on his finger was circumstantial evidence that Simpson's left hand was cut during the murders. The Prosecution's case is nothing but theory allowing an inference from what they believed happened. I have now provided a situation in which a cut from the right hand leaves blood drops in the same location. In other words, the prosecution created a scenario to fit the cut, just as they would have if the cut was on the other hand. I am speaking of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the prosecution's theory of how and which hand was cut proves nothing, only that they tailored a story to fit the cut. :)

[martin II]

Martin,

Rubin already knew what was on the receipt. He already knew the tags were missing. He could be as general as he wanted.

However, I just thought of something. All the pictures of Simpson wearing these gloves was when he was working for NBC. What if every other sports caster for that network also wore those types of gloves?

Also, what if the network gave all their sports caster's a clothing allowance, if that is the case, then why would Nicole buy Simpson gloves if she knew was provided gloves by the network?

If the DA showed Rubin the receipt then he would know that size and color was not recorded.

[martin II]

I guess it becomes necessary for me to set forth in detail what I am saying. It was the prosecution's theory that the murderer, who they claimed was Simpson, cut his finger on his left hand and bled at Bundy after they saw that Simpson had a cut on his finger, which Simpson claimed he got in Chicago. The Prosecution claimed that Simpson's blood being to the left of the shoe prints found at Bundy showed that Simpson was bleeding from his left hand and the cut on his finger was circumstantial evidence that Simpson's left hand was cut during the murders. The Prosecution's case is nothing but theory allowing an inference from what they believed happened. I have now provided a situation in which a cut from the right hand leaves blood drops in the same location. In other words, the prosecution created a scenario to fit the cut, just as they would have if the cut was on the other hand. I am speaking of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the prosecution's theory of how and which hand was cut proves nothing, only that they tailored a story to fit the cut. :)


you are correct,

[William Anthony]

The problem with a closed mind is that it keeps the owner imprisoned in a dungeon with no way out (a Williamism).

[William Anthony]

MR. COCHRAN: Can you tell the size of this glove from looking at it?

MS. VEMICH: Yes. It appears to be an extra large glove.

MR. COCHRAN: May I try this on, your Honor?

MR. COCHRAN: Supposed to be an extra large glove?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Are these gloves, do they come--where are they made?

MS. VEMICH: They are made in the Philippines.

MR. COCHRAN: Do they come--the extra large is kind of small?

MS. VEMICH: No, but they stretch.

MR. COCHRAN: I see. So this is a--this is a normal extra large glove; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: But you are saying they stretch?

MS. VEMICH: Yes, but that doesn't fit you.

MR. COCHRAN: It is too small?

MS. VEMICH: It is too big.

MR. COCHRAN: Since I'm wearing it, it seems too small for me, but we won't argue about that. You are saying--

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I would like to get the other glove out, if I might, and change gloves.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Wooden.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: May I approach again, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. COCHRAN: I believe this purports to be the left-handed glove, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, People's 77.

MR. COCHRAN: People's 77.

MR. COCHRAN: And this People's 77, if you know, does that appear to be at least similar to the other glove that you saw back in January of 1995?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: I presume that you did not put your initials on either of gloves at that time; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: My initials?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. You didn't put your initials on either glove, did you?

MS. VEMICH: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You were just present with Detectives Vannatter and Lange at the time that these gloves were displayed to you; is that correct, ma'am?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And at the time when you saw Detectives Vannatter and Lange handle these gloves at that time, were they using any kind of paper like this?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Were they using any gloves, if you recall?

MS. VEMICH: Absolutely.

MR. COCHRAN: You recall that, do you?

MS. VEMICH: Yes, because I touched the gloves and I had to use the latex gloves and the butcher paper and--

MR. COCHRAN: And this--this particular glove has a label inside of it; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And the label says "Aris"; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And it is a cashmere lined?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And it says "Made in Philippines."

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And it says "Extra large"; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Is there any other--is there a particular lot or style number in either of these gloves indicating this is a 70263 glove?

MS. VEMICH: No, not that I know of.

MR. COCHRAN: Well, do you want to take a look?

MS. VEMICH: I already looked.

Thanks for this Martin. It's good to have you back.

[martin II]

according to Brenda the gloves stretch as if they were made of knit fabric and according to Rubin they shrink as if they were made of cotton fabric.

[William Anthony]

according to Brenda the gloves stretch as if they were made of knit fabric and according to Rubin they shrink as if they were made of cotton fabric.

Rubin said the gloves had memory when I think he should have said that Ms. Vemich had memory. :)

[martin II]

Thanks for this Martin. It's good to have you back.

There was no marking on the glove that said it was a style 70263 there was a sales receipt that said it was 70268 which Bloomingdales never carried.So what was the style number of the gloves purchased that the jury could believe?

[martin II]

Rubin said the gloves had memory when I think he should have said that Ms. Vemich had memory. :)

If the gloves had memory then they should have returned to their original size not 20% smaller as he claimed at one time.

[William Anthony]

There was no marking on the glove that said it was a style 70263 there was a sales receipt that said it was 70268 which Bloomingdales never carried.So what was the style number of the gloves purchased that the jury could believe?

They should have believed the testimony, IMHO. There was no evidence that the gloves came from that lot.

[William Anthony]

If the gloves had memory then they should have returned to their original size not 20% smaller as he claimed at one time.

Unless they had a faulty memory.:)

[martin II]

MR. COCHRAN: So is it in there?

MS. VEMICH: Not to the visible eye, no.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Well--not to the visible eye?

MS. VEMICH: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you use anything other than the visible eye to try to determine that?

MS. VEMICH: That is what I used.

MR. COCHRAN: That is what you used?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You did not see anything that indicated 70263, did you?

MS. VEMICH: No, I did not.

[weezer]

MR. COCHRAN: So is it in there?

MS. VEMICH: Not to the visible eye, no.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Well--not to the visible eye?

MS. VEMICH: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you use anything other than the visible eye to try to determine that?

MS. VEMICH: That is what I used.

MR. COCHRAN: That is what you used?

MS. VEMICH: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You did not see anything that indicated 70263, did you?

MS. VEMICH: No, I did not.

I have to give it to you martin -- this was a real 'Perry Mason' moment! :rolleyes:

[martin II]

They should have believed the testimony, IMHO. There was no evidence that the gloves came from that lot.

The proof about the gloves was a mess from the beginning and Darden made it worse by his little stunt on the demo.

[martin II]

I have to give it to you martin -- this was a real 'Perry Mason' moment! :rolleyes:

Brenda was caught trying to be smart.
They kept the person that actually sold the gloves out of court.

[Kayleighjo]

The problem with a closed mind is that it keeps the owner imprisoned in a dungeon with no way out (a Williamism).

Thanks for the reminder on that - can only hope some of the NG posse can remember it.

[Kayleighjo]

You have paid attention to a detail that most have ignored.There are other details of the murders that some have ignored such as there must have been two killers for Nicole and Ron to have been killed as they were in the time it is suggested they were killed.

Dr. Lee testified in the civil trial that the killings could have taken as little as one minute. Why the hell do the NGs always ignore things like that?

That's the problem with the NG posse; they love you when you say something favorable for the Juice and they hate you or ignore you when you something that isn't so favorable.

[tv]

can you give the page number that that info is on please?

I'll help you out, weezer. I know this will astonish you but this claim is a huge exaggeration. The sweats were never sent out. The reference to the sweats is on page 95 of Lange and Vannatters book:

"A brief flurry of activity did erupt after red stains were found on the clothing in Simpson's washing machine. But Fung quickly determined that the red stains had merely been caused by some rust along the rim of the washer."

[Kayleighjo]

Boastful when there is nothing to boast about.

Opinions William and we've all got them. Some a little more logical than others but really opinion is the majority of what this board is all about.

[Kayleighjo]

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.

When you decide you want to be fair on this one let someone know.

Are you really going to sit here and put those innuendo spinning fingers on your keyboard and tell me that NGs don't get insulting and rude? As far as the race thing, it's damn near impossible to discuss it on this board because if you're white you're damned if you do and damned if you don't in the eyes of those that are black.

[martin II]

I'll help you out, weezer. I know this will astonish you but this claim is a huge exaggeration. The sweats were never sent out. The reference to the sweats is on page 95 of Lange and Vannatters book:

"A brief flurry of activity did erupt after red stains were found on the clothing in Simpson's washing machine. But Fung quickly determined that the red stains had merely been caused by some rust along the rim of the washer."

would rusk be red

[martin II]

MS. VEMICH: And the style number and the price, $55.00, tells me that it is an Aris leather light glove.

MR. COCHRAN: But then when you look at the style number, that is a style number that was not a style number assigned to Bloomingdales; isn't that correct?

MS. VEMICH: All except the last number.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm asking you, is that number--that is not a number that was assigned to Bloomingdales, was it?

MS. VEMICH: It was not a number that was assigned to Bloomingdales.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And Mr. Darden pointed out, that is a mistake, you believe?

MS. VEMICH: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: But you were not present at the time of this purchase; is that correct?

MS. VEMICH: No, I was not.

[tv]

this from the guy who slams the G's for 'maybe, if'? LOL

Uh-oh, someone left the gate open at the fantasy farm -- wild speculation and baseless theories have escaped again...! :eek:

[martin II]

Why did Brenda testify about the sale and not the actual sales person that made the sale?

[Kayleighjo]

Uh-oh, someone left the gate open at the fantasy farm -- wild speculation and baseless theories have escaped again...! :eek:

:biggrin:

[tv]

:biggrin:

Hi Kayleighjo! It's so nice to see you posting today. :)

[martin II]

fgump2,

Here is the main problem I have with G's. It was the DA's who claimed that Nicole bought those gloves for Simpson and wore them while he was killing Ron and Nicole. However, the sales receipt does not indicate the size or the color of the gloves. So, how can the defense muddy the waters on this issue? Bottom line, without the glove color and size, you have nothing, IMO.

Is it the defense's fault that the tag was cut out of the gloves?

Please note that Brenda only said that Bloomingdales did not carry that model number. However, does that mean no store carried the model number written on the receipt?


i don't see the sales person taking the time to write in hand all the manufactures numbers and not the color and size of the gloves at crowded christmas selling days . If you have been at that store at christmas time you know that the glove counter is piled up with all kinds of gloves all mixed togeather.

[martin II]

fgump2,

Here is the main problem I have with G's. It was the DA's who claimed that Nicole bought those gloves for Simpson and wore them while he was killing Ron and Nicole. However, the sales receipt does not indicate the size or the color of the gloves. So, how can the defense muddy the waters on this issue? Bottom line, without the glove color and size, you have nothing, IMO.

Is it the defense's fault that the tag was cut out of the gloves?

Please note that Brenda only said that Bloomingdales did not carry that model number. However, does that mean no store carried the model number written on the receipt?

Wonder why Aris never got back to Brenda about the faulty style number.Brenda purcghased gloves for all Bloomingdales stores not just the NY
store.

[weezer]

Wonder why Aris never got back to Brenda about the faulty style number.Brenda purcghased gloves for all Bloomingdales stores not just the NY
store.

for those who don't understand the testimony/evidence on the gloves:

Glove evidence: (1) left glove found at Bundy and right glove found at Simpson residence are Aris Light gloves, size XL, (2) Nicole Brown bought pair of Aris Light XL gloves in 1990 at Bloomingdale's, (3) Simpson wore Aris Light gloves from 1990 to June, 1994.


"The book plays down the importance of the now-infamous glove demonstration, however, in which prosecutor Christopher Darden had Simpson try on the evidence gloves found at his estate and at the crime scene. The gloves appeared not to fit, but the jurors said they weren't convinced.

"Those gloves fit," Bess wrote. "He wasn't putting them on right."

"Sure," added Rubin-Jackson, "you know, they fit. ... I must have had an expression on my face because as he stood there, it was like he was talking to me, and he went, 'They don't fit.' They would have fit anybody."

[weezer]

:biggrin:

hi -- good to see you posting

[weezer]

would rusk be red

LOL -- orenthal had an old rusty washing machine -- LOL

[fgump2]

fgump2,

Here is the main problem I have with G's. It was the DA's who claimed that Nicole bought those gloves for Simpson and wore them while he was killing Ron and Nicole. However, the sales receipt does not indicate the size or the color of the gloves. So, how can the defense muddy the waters on this issue? Bottom line, without the glove color and size, you have nothing, IMO.

Is it the defense's fault that the tag was cut out of the gloves?

Please note that Brenda only said that Bloomingdales did not carry that model number. However, does that mean no store carried the model number written on the receipt?

The defense argued that since the sales slip had the wrong number on it, 70268 meant that it wasn't for that type of glove. This is an invalid argument for several reasons.
First of all, the Bloomingdale s never sold any items with the style number 70268, and since the sales slip was hand written, one of the digits must be wrong. It is easy to confuse a "3" and an "8". The vendor number, price, and category all matched up for the style number to be 70263. The defense seemed to be arguing that the style number of 70268 was accurate; but since the store said they never used that style number that can't be true.

I don't give much importance to the sales slip because photos showed Mr. Simpson wearing gloves that pretty much had to be those kind of gloves in both colors, brown and black. I think that he was photographed wearing these gloves in 1993, but I could be wrong about that. I don't know if there was an outside chance that the photos could have ben another type of glove, but I thought the defense accepted the fact that Mr. Simpson was photoraphed wearing that type of glove in both colors.

I think the photographs make the sales slip irrelevant, but I could be overlooking something.

I guess Mr. Simpson lost the other pair. I can't rememer what color the trial evidence gloves were, but if Mr. Simpson had the other pair I suppose that would have come out at the trial.

I was sort of expecting Mr. Simpson to ask for his gloves and hat back after the trial, but maybe one of his lawyers advised against it.

[martin II]

The defense argued that since the sales slip had the wrong number on it, 70268 meant that it wasn't for that type of glove. The defence did not argue that point they only asked questions.This is an invalid argument for several reasons.
First of all, the Bloomingdale s never sold any items with the style number 70268, and since the sales slip was hand written, one of the digits must be wrong. It is easy to confuse a "3" and an "8".That is true only if you want to support the prosecutions claim. The vendor number, price, and category all matched up for the style number to be 70263.We don't know what color or size gloves nicole purchased.she could have purchased size large and that would mean that the prosecution presented the wrong size gloves and that the size gloves found were not the gloves she purchased. The defense seemed to be arguing that the style number of 70268 was accurate; but since the store said they never used that style number that can't be true.

I don't give much importance to the sales slip because photos showed Mr. Simpson wearing gloves that pretty much Pretty much had to be even if they were not?had to be those kind of gloves in both colors, brown and black. I think that he was photographed wearing these gloves in 1993, but I could be wrong about that. I don't know if there was an outside chance that the photos could have ben another type of glove, but I thought the defense accepted the fact that Mr. Simpson was photoraphed wearing that type of glove in both colors. Are you suggesting that Nicole purchased three sets of gloves?

I think the photographs make the sales slip irrelevant, but I could be overlooking something.

I guess Mr. Simpson lost the other pair.One pair was given to a friend so what pair did oj loose I can't rememer what color the trial evidence gloves were, but if Mr. Simpson had the other pair I suppose that would have come out at the trial.

I was sort of expecting Mr. Simpson to ask for his gloves and hat back after the trial, but maybe one of his lawyers advised against it.


After the slam dunk glove demo oj had no reason to be concerned about the glove.They didn't fit.

[martin II]

Most people that watched the glove demo on tv came to the conclusion that the glove demo was a bomb because the gloves did not fit and people were surprised that the prosecution would try to pull such a bonner on tv.

Two jury members said in their opinion the gloves did fit the other 10 felt they did not fit. yet some post that the "JURY" said they fit.hahaha

[martin II]

The defense argued that since the sales slip had the wrong number on it, 70268 meant that it wasn't for that type of glove. This is an invalid argument for several reasons.
First of all, the Bloomingdale s never sold any items with the style number 70268, and since the sales slip was hand written, one of the digits must be wrong. It is easy to confuse a "3" and an "8". The vendor number, price, and category all matched up for the style number to be 70263. The defense seemed to be arguing that the style number of 70268 was accurate; but since the store said they never used that style number that can't be true.

I don't give much importance to the sales slip because photos showed Mr. Simpson wearing gloves that pretty much had to be those kind of gloves in both colors, brown and black. I think that he was photographed wearing these gloves in 1993, but I could be wrong about that. I don't know if there was an outside chance that the photos could have ben another type of glove, but I thought the defense accepted the fact that Mr. Simpson was photoraphed wearing that type of glove in both colors.

I think the photographs make the sales slip irrelevant, but I could be overlooking something.

I guess Mr. Simpson lost the other pair. I can't rememer what color the trial evidence gloves were, but if Mr. Simpson had the other pair I suppose that would have come out at the trial.

I was sort of expecting Mr. Simpson to ask for his gloves and hat back after the trial, but maybe one of his lawyers advised against it.

The issue at trial was the glove fitting.The prosecution could not prove that the glove found was the glove Nicole purchased and gave to oj because there was no proof of the size glove Nicole purchased. The sales slip was the only way to prove this and since the slip did not have this info the sales slip was very important for this proof.

[weezer]

:eek:The issue at trial was the glove fitting.The prosecution could not prove that the glove found was the glove Nicole purchased and gave to oj because there was no proof of the size glove Nicole purchased. The sales slip was the only way to prove this and since the slip did not have this info the sales slip was very important for this proof.

all these years later and you continue to 'whistle near the cemetary'!:eek: :D

[William Anthony]

Opinions William and we've all got them. Some a little more logical than others but really opinion is the majority of what this board is all about.

That is my opinion of Petro and some others. :)

[William Anthony]

Uh-oh, someone left the gate open at the fantasy farm -- wild speculation and baseless theories have escaped again...! :eek:

Don't worry I have reminded those Gs that leave the gate open to go back and close it as they sometimes post based on the evidence and reasonable inferences.:)

[martin II]

The defense argued that since the sales slip had the wrong number on it, 70268 meant that it wasn't for that type of glove. This is an invalid argument for several reasons.
First of all, the Bloomingdale s never sold any items with the style number 70268, and since the sales slip was hand written, one of the digits must be wrong. It is easy to confuse a "3" and an "8". The vendor number, price, and category all matched up for the style number to be 70263. The defense seemed to be arguing that the style number of 70268 was accurate; but since the store said they never used that style number that can't be true.

I don't give much importance to the sales slip because photos showed Mr. Simpson wearing gloves that pretty much had to be those kind of gloves in both colors, brown and black. I think that he was photographed wearing these gloves in 1993, but I could be wrong about that. I don't know if there was an outside chance that the photos could have ben another type of glove, but I thought the defense accepted the fact that Mr. Simpson was photoraphed wearing that type of glove in both colors.

I think the photographs make the sales slip irrelevant, but I could be overlooking something.

I guess Mr. Simpson lost the other pair. I can't rememer what color the trial evidence gloves were, but if Mr. Simpson had the other pair I suppose that would have come out at the trial.

I was sort of expecting Mr. Simpson to ask for his gloves and hat back after the trial, but maybe one of his lawyers advised against it.


have you thought that the style number 70268 could have been the manufactures style number that came with the gloves and that that sales person had used it in many sales and Brenda did not know that sales people had used it.

[William Anthony]

When you decide you want to be fair on this one let someone know.

Are you really going to sit here and put those innuendo spinning fingers on your keyboard and tell me that NGs don't get insulting and rude? As far as the race thing, it's damn near impossible to discuss it on this board because if you're white you're damned if you do and damned if you don't in the eyes of those that are black.

There are only two NGs that have posted frequently on this forum. I think that all one has to do is to look at the posts and see wherein lies the problem as to who starts the insults. However, we have all been told to ignore them.

One of the first posts I read that made me want to join was that the criminal jury was uneducated, ignorant and racially biased. After I joined and wanted to discuss why some to the posters felt that way and offered my views on the subject, I was told that they did not want to discuss race. I don't understand what you mean damned if you do and damned if you don't. I guess Blacks should just accept those type of statements made against the criminal jury, because Whites should not fell damned, correct?

[William Anthony]

I was sort of expecting Mr. Simpson to ask for his gloves and hat back after the trial, but maybe one of his lawyers advised against it.

I heard a rumor that he was going to have those items framed as LE tried to frame him but LE said that, since they couldn't prove they belonged to Simpson or anyone else, there would be no framing.

[GreenIce]

I think it may be possible that oj was there after the fact.

Martin,

I know many people do feel that he was there after the fact. I think Mr. Dear paints a strong case against Jason. However, I do not see Simpson taking the heat for his son. IMO, if that was his plan, then he would have told the detectives a different date when he was last at Nicole's.

In fact, in OJ's statement, he does something that is very rare, he does not point the finger at anybody else. Also, if Simpson was at the scene after the fact, he was able to pull off his demeanor on the way to Chicago, then I would be very, very worried--just like if he passed the lie detector test. IMO.

[GreenIce]

If the DA showed Rubin the receipt then he would know that size and color was not recorded.

Martin,

According to Lange and VA's book, Rubin corrected the hand written receipt as well as saying that he had a receipt with the size and color of the gloves.
And wasn't it two pairs of gloves that she bought?

Getting back to NBC, it may be possible that any clothes or other items, like gloves, would be bought by the broadcaster and they just needed to submit the receipt to the company.

Either way, without the exact size of the gloves, the exact model of the gloves and the color of the gloves, the DA's didn't prove anything other then the gloves didn't not fit, they did not shrink as much as Rubin said they did and one of them should have been dry when it was first seen.

I still love the people who blame the latex gloves---they don't make your hands grow!

[martin II]

Martin,

I know many people do feel that he was there after the fact. I think Mr. Dear paints a strong case against Jason. However, I do not see Simpson taking the heat for his son. IMO, if that was his plan, then he would have told the detectives a different date when he was last at Nicole's.

In fact, in OJ's statement, he does something that is very rare, he does not point the finger at anybody else. Also, if Simpson was at the scene after the fact, he was able to pull off his demeanor on the way to Chicago, then I would be very, very worried--just like if he passed the lie detector test. IMO.

There are some issues that cause me not to believe oj was there after the fact but the killing of the two people in the time it is believed they were killed
is strong info that there were two killers.Especially when one looks at the wounds on Ron to the left ear first and then the others not to mention those to Nicole and how they were carried out.A two killer situation seems to fit more than one killer.imo
I agree that Dear made a strong case against Jason based on medical history
and how he could have lost it because of the cancelled dinner.etc

[martin II]

Martin,

According to Lange and VA's book, Rubin corrected the hand written receipt as well as saying that he had a receipt with the size and color of the gloves.
And wasn't it two pairs of gloves that she bought?

Getting back to NBC, it may be possible that any clothes or other items, like gloves, would be bought by the broadcaster and they just needed to submit the receipt to the company.

Either way, without the exact size of the gloves, the exact model of the gloves and the color of the gloves, the DA's didn't prove anything other then the gloves didn't not fit, they did not shrink as much as Rubin said they did and one of them should have been dry when it was first seen.

I still love the people who blame the latex gloves---they don't make your hands grow!

a funny comment by Rubin.
After testifying that the gloves could shrink by 15-20% when asked by Cochran if his expensive thin expensive gloves would shrink if 3 cc of liquid was applied to them he responded.NO.
Remember Brenda said the gloves had memory and would revert to their original size.

i agree that the latex gloves did not make ojs hands grow from xlarge to xxlarge.That is a silly argument by those with no argument.

[martin II]

Martin,

According to Lange and VA's book, Rubin corrected the hand written receipt as well as saying that he had a receipt with the size and color of the gloves.
And wasn't it two pairs of gloves that she bought?

Getting back to NBC, it may be possible that any clothes or other items, like gloves, would be bought by the broadcaster and they just needed to submit the receipt to the company.

Either way, without the exact size of the gloves, the exact model of the gloves and the color of the gloves, the DA's didn't prove anything other then the gloves didn't not fit, they did not shrink as much as Rubin said they did and one of them should have been dry when it was first seen.

I still love the people who blame the latex gloves---they don't make your hands grow!

Again, Rubin just flat out lied and Vanatter and Lang put it in their book.

[martin II]

Martin,

According to Lange and VA's book, Rubin corrected the hand written receipt as well as saying that he had a receipt with the size and color of the gloves.
And wasn't it two pairs of gloves that she bought?

Getting back to NBC, it may be possible that any clothes or other items, like gloves, would be bought by the broadcaster and they just needed to submit the receipt to the company.

Either way, without the exact size of the gloves, the exact model of the gloves and the color of the gloves, the DA's didn't prove anything other then the gloves didn't not fit, they did not shrink as much as Rubin said they did and one of them should have been dry when it was first seen.

I still love the people who blame the latex gloves---they don't make your hands grow!

it is believed that Nicole purchased two pair of some kimd of gloves.
Rubin just lied about the sales receipt as he lied about other issues.

[tv]

LOL -- orenthal had an old rusty washing machine -- LOL

A collection of big screen tvs in one room and an old rusty appliance in another -- secrets of the rich and famous...LOL

[tv]

There are only two NGs that have posted frequently on this forum. I think that all one has to do is to look at the posts and see wherein lies the problem as to who starts the insults. However, we have all been told to ignore them.

One of the first posts I read that made me want to join was that the criminal jury was uneducated, ignorant and racially biased. After I joined and wanted to discuss why some to the posters felt that way and offered my views on the subject, I was told that they did not want to discuss race. I don't understand what you mean damned if you do and damned if you don't. I guess Blacks should just accept those type of statements made against the criminal jury, because Whites should not fell damned, correct?

You miscounted the number of NGs that post frequently on this forum but it's not important. I think the problem with discussing race in this trial is you want to go back to the beginning of time and bash people over the head with racial inequality. OJ Simpson was a pampered, spoiled celebrity in Brentwood -- catered to by the police and given special treatment in jail. He doesn't represent whoever the jury was trying to avenge. In other words, he's no Rodney King.

[tv]

The defense argued that since the sales slip had the wrong number on it, 70268 meant that it wasn't for that type of glove. This is an invalid argument for several reasons.
First of all, the Bloomingdale s never sold any items with the style number 70268, and since the sales slip was hand written, one of the digits must be wrong. It is easy to confuse a "3" and an "8". The vendor number, price, and category all matched up for the style number to be 70263. The defense seemed to be arguing that the style number of 70268 was accurate; but since the store said they never used that style number that can't be true.

I don't give much importance to the sales slip because photos showed Mr. Simpson wearing gloves that pretty much had to be those kind of gloves in both colors, brown and black. I think that he was photographed wearing these gloves in 1993, but I could be wrong about that. I don't know if there was an outside chance that the photos could have ben another type of glove, but I thought the defense accepted the fact that Mr. Simpson was photoraphed wearing that type of glove in both colors.

I think the photographs make the sales slip irrelevant, but I could be overlooking something.

I guess Mr. Simpson lost the other pair. I can't rememer what color the trial evidence gloves were, but if Mr. Simpson had the other pair I suppose that would have come out at the trial.

I was sort of expecting Mr. Simpson to ask for his gloves and hat back after the trial, but maybe one of his lawyers advised against it.

Alan Dershowitz referred to the gloves as Mr. Simpson's so I wouldn't have been surprised. He showed years later that he just wants his 'stuff' back. LOL.

I've never put much importance on Nicole purchasing the gloves or where the gloves were purchased. The fact that a glove was found at the Bundy crime scene and an identical glove with the DNA of OJS and both victims was found at Rockingham is more than enough to implicate Simpson. The photos of him wearing the same style of gloves was just icing on the cake.

[bobaugust]

You have forgotten Park's testimony that he saw Kato walking, whereas Kato said he was running, Park said kato stopped, Kato said he did not, Park said Kato waved, Kato said he waved after completing his first cursory search, Park testified that Kato stood there and was still standing there for another minute before Kato proceeded to go open the gate, to use your word, which was "undisputed". To say that Park is correct about all these thing and Kato is wrong makes no sense to me or you or it should not. :)

In the criminal trial and the civil trial Park’s telephone records were used to document the time Park saw Simpson enter his house. Park was on the telephone with his boss when he said he first saw Kaelin come from around the house and down the pathway with a flashlight and almost simultaneously saw Simpson walk up and enter his house. After seeing Simpson enter his house Park estimated that he continued to talk to St. John for about 10 to 30 seconds before ending that call. The documented time on Park’s telephone records show that phone call ended at 10:55 and 12 seconds. Based on Park’s estimate means he saw both Kaelin and Simpson shortly before 10:54

Kaelin estimated that it was about two to three minutes after hearing the noises that he finished his phone call, left his room and went down pathway to the driveway. Since Park saw Kaelin and almost simultaneously saw Simpson walk up and enter his house would mean based on Park’s telephone records and Kaelin’s time estimate the noises occurred about 10:51.

There is no evidence that the first time Park saw Kaelin that night was when Kaelin returned from his first search. Park first told the police and then consistently testified the first person he saw that night on Simpson’s estate was a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight. Kaelin corroborated Park’s testimony when he consistently testified that is was what he did he did after leaving his room to investigate the noises he had just heard on his back wall.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You see you begin with a assumption and use that assumption to justify your conclusion, which is your assumption.:) You are saying it is true, because you say it is true. You see the testimonies prove that Park saw Kato after Kato completed his first search, which is what you want and must leave out to make your circular reasoning correct, when Thomas Paine knows that all phone records can document is the time phone calls were placed and ended.:)

In the criminal trial Park said he saw a white male walk from behind the house on a pathway yet Kaelin in his pre criminal trial testimony said he ran down the path, in the criminal trial Kaelin said he walked the front pathway out his front door to the driveway, and in his civil trial testimony he said he walked briskly. Kaelin could have done all three, he was not in race. Park said Kaelin stopped when he got to the driveway yet Kaelin didn’t say he stopped he said he saw the limo, so one of them perceived or recalled that incorrectly. When Park was asked if Kaelin had acknowledged him Park said “from what I remember, he kind of gave me a hand gesture to let me know he was there.” Kaelin didn’t say he did that so one of them perceived or recalled that incorrectly.

I never said Park was correct about all those things.

Witnesses often differ on small details based on what they perceive or recall but what is more important and reliable is what they actually agree on. Both Kaelin and Park testified that Kaelin came from behind the house and down the pathway to the driveway with a flashlight. Both Kaelin and Park testified that Kaelin later came “up” the driveway (up meaning coming from the garage area) to the gate control box (located on the other side of the driveway from the Ashford path) and opened the gate. Both made that clear pointing out what they did on the diagram of the Rockingham estate.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

It seems to me that you must decide when Park is correct and when he is mistaken, because to do so makes your conclusions correct. I have told you repeatedly that I don't have to be right as I am showing there is reasonable doubt, which means that I don't have to be right as to who is right and wrong, only that there is evidence to support my inferences and evidence to contradict your conclusions.:) You have one thing correct. I am going backwards in my discussions with you. The joke is that you can't see that Park's memory was molded, because every real lawyer or investigator must have realized the same thing that I did, IMHO. One must look for the forest in the trees.:) Kato never said that he did not stand for a minute after completing his first cursory search or asked did he walk diagonally up and across or cross the driveway. You take something that Kato never testified to as somehow contradicting what Park testified to. You see the joke contained in your circular reasoning. Because you believe it did not happen, you believe because Kato was not asked, it could not have happened, because you believe it did not happen. Let me see if I can say it the humorous way, you believe non testimony is testimony.:)

Every time Kaelin was asked what he did when he came out from behind the garage he consistently said he saw the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. He even pointed that out on the diagram of the Rockingham estate where he went “up” the driveway to the gate control box.

Kaelin didn’t say he went to the Ashford path and stand there when he came from the behind the garage because he never did that. For you to say that just because no lawyer in this case ever asked Kaelin if he did what you imagine he did somehow means he could have done what you imagined is ridiculous and you know it. If the defense had somehow believed or suspected Kaelin went back to the Ashford path and stood there they would have asked him that, but they didn’t because they understood his answer that he went directly to the gate control box.

For you to say that there is evidence to support your inference for what you imagine Kaelin did and then call that reasonable doubt I’m sorry to say is also ridiculous. There is no evidence that supports your inference, there is only imaginary evidence you have created based on some contradictory recollections regarding some minor details. And there is your refusal to admit that Park’s pre criminal trial testimony was obviously mistaken testimony since he never repeated it in the criminal trial and later in the civil trial he testified he just didn’t pay any attention to Kaelin after he saw Simpson enter his house.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

a funny comment by Rubin.
After testifying that the gloves could shrink by 15-20% when asked by Cochran if his expensive thin expensive gloves would shrink if 3 cc of liquid was applied to them he responded.NO.
Remember Brenda said the gloves had memory and would revert to their original size.

i agree that the latex gloves did not make ojs hands grow from xlarge to xxlarge.That is a silly argument by those with no argument.

Martin,

I am very surprised that Richard and Brenda were allowed to testify to the fit and sizes of the gloves as well as the model number. Shouldn't a representative from the actual company who tmade the glove testify as well testify to what stores they were sold to?

[William Anthony]

You miscounted the number of NGs that post frequently on this forum but it's not important. I think the problem with discussing race in this trial is you want to go back to the beginning of time and bash people over the head with racial inequality. OJ Simpson was a pampered, spoiled celebrity in Brentwood -- catered to by the police and given special treatment in jail. He doesn't represent whoever the jury was trying to avenge. In other words, he's no Rodney King.

This post has what to do with the criminal jury being called uneducated, ignorant and racially biases and whether or not there was reasonable doubt or whether or not there was evidence of the motive, means and opportunity of a racist detective to plant evidence? Racial connotations and innuendos permeate this case and posts.

[tv]

This post has what to do with the criminal jury being called uneducated, ignorant and racially biases and whether or not there was reasonable doubt or whether or not there was evidence of the motive, means and opportunity of a racist detective to plant evidence? Racial connotations and innuendos permeate this case and posts.

Sorry I didn't address every statement you made in your post. I addressed the part of your post that interested me. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

In the criminal trial Park said he saw a white male walk from behind the house on a pathway yet Kaelin in his pre criminal trial testimony said he ran down the path, in the criminal trial Kaelin said he walked the front pathway out his front door to the driveway, and in his civil trial testimony he said he walked briskly. Kaelin could have done all three, he was not in race. Park said Kaelin stopped when he got to the driveway yet Kaelin didn’t say he stopped he said he saw the limo, so one of them perceived or recalled that incorrectly. When Park was asked if Kaelin had acknowledged him Park said “from what I remember, he kind of gave me a hand gesture to let me know he was there.” Kaelin didn’t say he did that so one of them perceived or recalled that incorrectly.

I never said Park was correct about all those things.

Witnesses often differ on small details based on what they perceive or recall but what is more important and reliable is what they actually agree on. Both Kaelin and Park testified that Kaelin came from behind the house and down the pathway to the driveway with a flashlight. Both Kaelin and Park testified that Kaelin later came “up” the driveway (up meaning coming from the garage area) to the gate control box (located on the other side of the driveway from the Ashford path) and opened the gate. Both made that clear pointing out what they did on the diagram of the Rockingham estate.

bobaugust

The evidence is that Park's and Kato's memories were molded. When the events were fresher in his mind Kato said he ran. When the events were fresher in park's mind he said he saw Kato standing and still standing not coming up the driveway. Park said that Petro and others told him he was wrong. :) You know that what Ms. Clark says is not evidence, smile, and I posted the question that Petro asked, which was sustained in that socio political production, because, even in that production, the question was to far off base to try to document whether or not Park first saw Kato by Park's phone records, smile. To post anything else is just not truthful, IMHO. If something is not evidence, it can only be persuasive (regarding the lawyer's arguments), which means the records document nothing other than the time and length of a phone call.

[William Anthony]

Every time Kaelin was asked what he did when he came out from behind the garage he consistently said he saw the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. He even pointed that out on the diagram of the Rockingham estate where he went “up” the driveway to the gate control box.

Kaelin didn’t say he went to the Ashford path and stand there when he came from the behind the garage because he never did that. For you to say that just because no lawyer in this case ever asked Kaelin if he did what you imagine he did somehow means he could have done what you imagined is ridiculous and you know it. If the defense had somehow believed or suspected Kaelin went back to the Ashford path and stood there they would have asked him that, but they didn’t because they understood his answer that he went directly to the gate control box.

For you to say that there is evidence to support your inference for what you imagine Kaelin did and then call that reasonable doubt I’m sorry to say is also ridiculous. There is no evidence that supports your inference, there is only imaginary evidence you have created based on some contradictory recollections regarding some minor details. And there is your refusal to admit that Park’s pre criminal trial testimony was obviously mistaken testimony since he never repeated it in the criminal trial and later in the civil trial he testified he just didn’t pay any attention to Kaelin after he saw Simpson enter his house.

bobaugust

The evidence is what it is and the questions asked are what they are. Based on what you call major and minor, you may call a private a major. :)

[William Anthony]

Bobaugust,

Did Park ever say he did not see Kato come from behind the house?

Park

From the moment that you saw that person appear to your left on the property inside the gates, to the end of the call with Dale St. John, about how much time elapsed?

A. Thirty seconds.

Q. So, looking at the cell phone records, if you got off the phone with Dale St. John at 10:55 and 12, seconds you believe you saw the person with blond hair appear to the left at around approximately 10:54 and 30 seconds p.m.?

A. Correct.

Q. We're going to go back to Exhibit 116.

Now, this isn't to scale, but if you could describe to the -- to the jury -- if you would get off the witness stand, please -- where you saw the person with blond hair at around 10:54 p.m. and 30 seconds.

(Witness indicates to Exhibit 116.)

A. He would be in this area over --

THE REPORTER: Excuse me I didn't hear the rest of the answer.

Q. He's pointing to the area generally where this pathway from the back of the house intersects the driveway; is that right?

A. That's correct.

I ask you to note that Petro used Park to try to insinuate this was the time that Kato exited his quarters but that question was not asked. However, let's see what happened when Petro asked Kato.

Kato

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

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

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

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

MR. PETROCELLI: It is not leading.

THE COURT: Sustained. I'll sustain it.

So you see the records were not used to document when Kato left his room, nor the time Kato heard the thumps in either the criminal trial or the socio political production.

[martin II]

Martin,

I am very surprised that Richard and Brenda were allowed to testify to the fit and sizes of the gloves as well as the model number. Shouldn't a representative from the actual company who tmade the glove testify as well testify to what stores they were sold to?

yes i agree the manufacturer would have been the proper expert.

[fgump2]

I continue to think that Mr. Simpson's behavior in the bronco chase and his farewell/suicide note point rather strongly toward guilt.

There is a big descrepancy between what Mr. Simpson wrote in the note, and what Nicole wrote in her diary and told her friends, and her therapists, Susan Forward.
From OJS farewell note: Recently, we came to the understanding that for now we were not right for each other, at least for now. Despite our love we were different, and that's why we mutually agreed to go our separate ways.
It was tough splitting for a second time, but we both knew it was for the best. Inside I had no doubt that in the future, we would be close as friends or more. Unlike what has been written in the press, Nicole and I had a great relationship for most of our lives together.

In her diary Nicole wrote that one of Mr. Simpson's last words to her was: "you hung up on me you *****, you'll pay for this". That wasn't Mr. Simpson's last word with her, that would have been at the recital or on the phone afterwards, but it is an ugly thing to say, and inconsistent with the farewell note.

Faye Resnick said that Mr. Simpson said to her over the phone a few months or weeks before the killings: If I catch her with another man before August, I'll kill her. OJS defenders dismiss this by saying that Faye was a liar and a dope addict.
Two other people heard the same phrase from Faye before the killings. Kris Jenner, and Chris Reichardt. Mr. Reichardt said he thought it was meant in a joking manner; but Faye and Kris Jenner thought it was a serious threat. Talking about killing people is a strange way to joke.

Faye and Kris Jenner both thought that Nicole was quite afraid of Mr. Simpson.

I would imagine a person as frightened as Nicole was might turn to drugs or booze.

I think one of the posters her criticized Susan Forward for breaking professional rules by going public with opinion of Nicole. That is worth writing about, but Nicole's fear of Orenthal is also worth writng about.

Of course the fact that Orenthal had nice things to say to and about the detectives arresting him also points toward guilt.

For Simpson to proclaim his love for her, then express no remorse that he didn't act nicer to her, and no remorse about the nasty letter to her about the IRS. His lawyer Skip Taft toned the letter down, so the letter represented a personal grudge.

The fact of the matter is that the breakup wasn't mutual. Nicole dumped him, and there were several witnesses who testified to this, and I think none who supported him on it. Orenthal never admitted this.

To bring up another question someone asked: What were Orenthal's lies under oath? One important one is that he claimed the breakup was either mutual or by him, when it was that she dumped him. I don't expect the NG crowd to apply the Mark Fuhrman rule of credibility - that if a person lies about one thing, they should be distrusted about everything.

[William Anthony]

I continue to think that Mr. Simpson's behavior in the bronco chase and his farewell/suicide note point rather strongly toward guilt.



I know.

[William Anthony]

The defense argued that since the sales slip had the wrong number on it, 70268 meant that it wasn't for that type of glove. This is an invalid argument for several reasons.
First of all, the Bloomingdale s never sold any items with the style number 70268, and since the sales slip was hand written, one of the digits must be wrong. It is easy to confuse a "3" and an "8". The vendor number, price, and category all matched up for the style number to be 70263. The defense seemed to be arguing that the style number of 70268 was accurate; but since the store said they never used that style number that can't be true.

I guess Mr. Simpson lost the other pair. I can't rememer what color the trial evidence gloves were, but if Mr. Simpson had the other pair I suppose that would have come out at the trial.



I agree that portion of your argument is not supported by anything but I would call that portion of your argument unsupported and not the harsh term invalid.

[tv]

I know.

William, what's your explanation for why OJS was contemplating suicide?

[William Anthony]

Sorry I didn't address every statement you made in your post. I addressed the part of your post that interested me. :shrug:

Am I to take from that the fact that the criminal jury is called uneducated, ignorant and racially biased does not interest you? If so, then I must ask why you referred to their alleged statements and the salute?

[William Anthony]

William, what's your explanation for why OJS was contemplating suicide?

Let me think for a moment. Someone he once loved very deeply had been found brutally murdered and he had mistreated her in life. It has been said that Simpson was noted for running. I think suicide is a way of running from life.

[tv]

Am I to take from that the fact that the criminal jury is called uneducated, ignorant and racially biased does not interest you? If so, then I must ask why you referred to their alleged statements and the salute?

Take what you want; nothing I say will be accepted by you in any event. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

Take what you want; nothing I say will be accepted by you in any event. :shrug:

Why don't you give it a try and let's see if it can be accepted by me?:)

[William Anthony]

Originally Posted by tvdinner View Post
You miscounted the number of NGs that post frequently on this forum but it's not important. I think the problem with discussing race in this trial is you want to go back to the beginning of time and bash people over the head with racial inequality. OJ Simpson was a pampered, spoiled celebrity in Brentwood -- catered to by the police and given special treatment in jail. He doesn't represent whoever the jury was trying to avenge. In other words, he's no Rodney King.

This post has what to do with the criminal jury being called uneducated, ignorant and racially biases and whether or not there was reasonable doubt or whether or not there was evidence of the motive, means and opportunity of a racist detective to plant evidence? Racial connotations and innuendos permeate this case and posts.

Originally Posted by tvdinner View Post
Sorry I didn't address every statement you made in your post. I addressed the part of your post that interested me.

Can you understand why I ask?

[GreenIce]

This post has what to do with the criminal jury being called uneducated, ignorant and racially biases and whether or not there was reasonable doubt or whether or not there was evidence of the motive, means and opportunity of a racist detective to plant evidence? Racial connotations and innuendos permeate this case and posts.

William,

From TV's post:

Originally Posted by tvdinner
You miscounted the number of NGs that post frequently on this forum but it's not important. I think the problem with discussing race in this trial is you want to go back to the beginning of time and bash people over the head with racial inequality. OJ Simpson was a pampered, spoiled celebrity in Brentwood -- catered to by the police and given special treatment in jail. He doesn't represent whoever the jury was trying to avenge. In other words, he's no Rodney King.

TV forgets that she has won the race to the beginning of time to racial inequality. William, I hate to tell you and Martin this but she totally smoked to two in this race, yes indeed she did.

TV forgets she is the basher of heads on this subject because she insists that she has the right to tell people of another race on how they should feel about racial inequality. She feels she has the right to dictate when it is appropriate to discuss race and when it is not.

She also forgets she has sugar coated MF in this case, she has defended him every step of the way, to even include bashing Chris Darden on how he treated MF. If that is not the action of racial head basher, I don't what it is.

IMO, TV has every right to sugar coat MF and the racial issues in this country, however, she does not have the right to expect that you or any other person will sugar coat their reactions to MF and American's racial history.

Again, TV already had her dinner, took a nice long bubble bath, got into her favorite jammies with the favorite slippers, watch a couple of hours of TV, read a complete book and finally went to sleep even before you and Martin even crossed the finish line. IMO.

[tv]

Let me think for a moment. Someone he once loved very deeply had been found brutally murdered and he had mistreated her in life. It has been said that Simpson was noted for running. I think suicide is a way of running from life.

He never mentioned mistreating her in his suicide note but I'm glad to see you acknowledge that he did. I can see him being sad but since believers in his innocence say he was planning a future with Paula Barbieri and had put Nicole behind him I think the natural thing for him to be interested in would be the protection and welfare of his children. The last thing an innocent man would want to do is leave his children orphaned. Of course he waited until Tuesday to see them and they left the next day so he didn't give them too much consideration. I thnk the first thing a loving father would want to do is see and comfort his children after their mother's brutal murder. My opinion is that he was ashamed to face them after killing their mother.

He did say in his suicide note that he couldn't stand the finger pointing. That's about the only reason he gave in the note for his thoughts of suicide. Of course, we can believe the alternative -- he was pretending to contemplate suicide to cover up for the fact that he was running from the police. Either scenario makes him look guilty.

[tv]

Why don't you give it a try and let's see if it can be accepted by me?:)

I appreciate the offer but I'm not in the mood to be called a racist today. I'm sure you understand. :)

[tv]

Can you understand why I ask?

Yes I understand and I promise not to mention race again. I can't change what the jurors said and did, however. As far as I'm concerned everyone in the case was one color...good enough?

[William Anthony]

William,

From TV's post:

Originally Posted by tvdinner
You miscounted the number of NGs that post frequently on this forum but it's not important. I think the problem with discussing race in this trial is you want to go back to the beginning of time and bash people over the head with racial inequality. OJ Simpson was a pampered, spoiled celebrity in Brentwood -- catered to by the police and given special treatment in jail. He doesn't represent whoever the jury was trying to avenge. In other words, he's no Rodney King.

TV forgets that she has won the race to the beginning of time to racial inequality. William, I hate to tell you and Martin this but she totally smoked to two in this race, yes indeed she did.

TV forgets she is the basher of heads on this subject because she insists that she has the right to tell people of another race on how they should feel about racial inequality. She feels she has the right to dictate when it is appropriate to discuss race and when it is not.

She also forgets she has sugar coated MF in this case, she has defended him every step of the way, to even include bashing Chris Darden on how he treated MF. If that is not the action of racial head basher, I don't what it is.

IMO, TV has every right to sugar coat MF and the racial issues in this country, however, she does not have the right to expect that you or any other person will sugar coat their reactions to MF and American's racial history.

Again, TV already had her dinner, took a nice long bubble bath, got into her favorite jammies with the favorite slippers, watch a couple of hours of TV, read a complete book and finally went to sleep even before you and Martin even crossed the finish line. IMO.

The view is that Simpson was pampered and this somehow negates the fact that Simpson was Black. However, let us take a closer look at the treatment. Simpson's home was invaded to include his tennis courts by upward of 40 members of LAPD led by that Black champion, Mr. Ron Shipp. It is sort of reminiscent of the house and field slaves. There have always been some Blacks that have been favored depending on how the master looked upon but, in the end, as Darden found out, IMHO, he nor any other Black was any different from Rodney King. However, we may thank those nationally publicized events, because they may have been instrumental in providing the change that led to the election of President Obama.

My parents did not have the luxury and the time to take bubble baths or watch endless hours of tv, as they were forced to work overtime to make the amount of money that Caucasians made for working eight hours. My father often told me that there were people in Washington thinking as we sleep on ways to keep us down. I realized that lack of time to think and fatigue were symptoms of overwork and overwork was a symptom on racial inequality.

[William Anthony]

I appreciate the offer but I'm not in the mood to be called a racist today. I'm sure you understand. :)

Not willing to discuss race with me, today?:)

[William Anthony]

Yes I understand and I promise not to mention race again. I can't change what the jurors said and did, however. As far as I'm concerned everyone in the case was one color...good enough?

How can you say that everyone in the case was one color when you say that Simpson was no Rodney King, unless Vannatter, Lang, DF, MF, Mazzola, Matheson, Martz, just to name a few were all the same color as Simpson and King?

[tv]

The view is that Simpson was pampered and this somehow negates the fact that Simpson was Black. However, let us take a closer look at the treatment. Simpson's home was invaded to include his tennis courts by upward of 40 members of LAPD led by that Black champion, Mr. Ron Shipp. It is sort of reminiscent of the house and field slaves. There have always been some Blacks that have been favored depending on how the master looked upon, bu them, but, in the end, as Darden found out, IMHO, he nor any other Black was any different from Rodney King. However, we may thank those nationally publicized events, because they may have been instrumental in providing the change that led to the election of President Obama.

My parents did not have the luxury and the time to take bubble baths or watch endless hours of tv, as they were forced to work overtime to make the amount of money that Caucasians made for working eight hours. My father often told me that there were people in Washington thinking as we sleep on ways to keep us down. I realized that lack of time to think and fatigue were symptoms of overwork and overwork was a symptom on racial inequality.

William, my mother worked two jobs for most of her life. Right up until the time she recently passed away she felt like she should be working even though she was constantly reassured by her children that it wasn't necessary and she'd earned her rest. My step-father worked as a carpenter until he was nearly 80 years old and no one would hire him any longer so don't think one group has the monopoly on having to work hard to make ends meet.

[tv]

How can you say that everyone in the case was one color when you say that Simpson was no Rodney King, unless Vannatter, Lang, DF, MF, Mazzola, Matheson, Martz, just to name a few were all the same color as Simpson and King?

Oh, did I forget to add that it's my new way of avoiding being called racist? I must have left that out. I think it's going to work for me. :)

[tv]

Not willing to discuss race with me, today?:)

Or anyday. I'm sure if you want to know how I feel about race, GreenIce, the clairvoyant, knows what's in my mind and will fill you in. :)

Thank you, by the way, for quoting her disgusting post so I could see it. I can always count on you and martin to make sure I don't miss anything.

[William Anthony]

William, my mother worked two jobs for most of her life. Right up until the time she recently passed away she felt like she should be working even though she was constantly reassured by her children that it wasn't necessary and she'd earned her rest. My step-father worked as a carpenter until he was nearly 80 years old and no one would hire him any longer so don't think one group has the monopoly on having to work hard to make ends meet.

This has nothing to do with making ends meet or working until one reaches old age. My father died at fifty. It has to do with how much Black people were being paid, because of inferior educations, if they were granted the privilege to get one, being forced to work lower paying jobs in order to raise a family with two children and I don't know how many were in your family. Perhaps, you have forgotten why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed?

[William Anthony]

Oh, did I forget to add that it's my new way of avoiding being called racist? I must have left that out. I think it's going to work for me. :)

I hope any means of avoidance works for you. :)

[William Anthony]

Or anyday. I'm sure if you want to know how I feel about race, GreenIce, the clairvoyant, knows what's in my mind and will fill you in. :)

Thank you, by the way, for quoting her disgusting post so I could see it. I can always count on you and martin to make sure I don't miss anything.

I simply responded to a post that interested me.

[tv]

This has nothing to do with making ends meet or working until one reaches old age. My father died at fifty. It has to do with how much Black people were being paid, because of inferior educations, if they were granted the privilege to get one, being forced to work lower paying jobs in order to raise a family with two children and I don't know how many were in your family. Perhaps, you have forgotten why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed?

I realize you're trying to goad me into a discussion about race. My parents worked very hard to provide for a large family to the detriment of their health and I won't allow you to diminish my love or pride for what they did because we are white. Rather then feel that you and I have a kinship for having loving parents that sacrificed for us you want to use color to throw down barriers. I'm not playing your game any longer.

[tv]

I simply responded to a post that interested me.

Then ask GreenIce. She knows what's in my mind and can be of great help to you. Plus, she'll do it with a smile. :)

[martin II]

I continue to think that Mr. Simpson's behavior in the bronco chase and his farewell/suicide note point rather strongly toward guilt.

There is a big descrepancy between what Mr. Simpson wrote in the note, and what Nicole wrote in her diary and told her friends, and her therapists, Susan Forward.
From OJS farewell note: Recently, we came to the understanding that for now we were not right for each other, at least for now. Despite our love we were different, and that's why we mutually agreed to go our separate ways.
It was tough splitting for a second time, but we both knew it was for the best. Inside I had no doubt that in the future, we would be close as friends or more. Unlike what has been written in the press, Nicole and I had a great relationship for most of our lives together.

In her diary Nicole wrote that one of Mr. Simpson's last words to her was: "you hung up on me you *****, you'll pay for this". That wasn't Mr. Simpson's last word with her, that would have been at the recital or on the phone afterwards, but it is an ugly thing to say, and inconsistent with the farewell note.

Faye Resnick said that Mr. Simpson said to her over the phone a few months or weeks before the killings: If I catch her with another man before August, I'll kill her. OJS defenders dismiss this by saying that Faye was a liar and a dope addict.
Two other people heard the same phrase from Faye before the killings. Kris Jenner, and Chris Reichardt. Mr. Reichardt said he thought it was meant in a joking manner; but Faye and Kris Jenner thought it was a serious threat. Talking about killing people is a strange way to joke.

Faye and Kris Jenner both thought that Nicole was quite afraid of Mr. Simpson.

I would imagine a person as frightened as Nicole was might turn to drugs or booze.

I think one of the posters her criticized Susan Forward for breaking professional rules by going public with opinion of Nicole. That is worth writing about, but Nicole's fear of Orenthal is also worth writng about.

Of course the fact that Orenthal had nice things to say to and about the detectives arresting him also points toward guilt.

For Simpson to proclaim his love for her, then express no remorse that he didn't act nicer to her, and no remorse about the nasty letter to her about the IRS. His lawyer Skip Taft toned the letter down, so the letter represented a personal grudge.

The fact of the matter is that the breakup wasn't mutual. Nicole dumped him, and there were several witnesses who testified to this, and I think none who supported him on it. Orenthal never admitted this.

To bring up another question someone asked: What were Orenthal's lies under oath? One important one is that he claimed the breakup was either mutual or by him, when it was that she dumped him. I don't expect the NG crowd to apply the Mark Fuhrman rule of credibility - that if a person lies about one thing, they should be distrusted about everything.

you think that ojs announcement that he and Paula were a couple again was not a signal that he had moved on from Nicole?

[martin II]

I realize you're trying to goad me into a discussion about race. My parents worked very hard to provide for a large family to the detriment of their health and I won't allow you to diminish my love or pride for what they did because we are white. Rather then feel that you and I have a kinship for having loving parents that sacrificed for us you want to use color to throw down barriers. I'm not playing your game any longer.

Don't you think that the harsh work life style your parents were forced to live is in some ways simular but not equal to the harsh life style minorities were forced to live as a result of the power that white males held over all non rich non powerful famalies.Dosen't this cause you to have some understanding of minorities complaints?

[Kayleighjo]

William,

From TV's post:

Originally Posted by tvdinner
You miscounted the number of NGs that post frequently on this forum but it's not important. I think the problem with discussing race in this trial is you want to go back to the beginning of time and bash people over the head with racial inequality. OJ Simpson was a pampered, spoiled celebrity in Brentwood -- catered to by the police and given special treatment in jail. He doesn't represent whoever the jury was trying to avenge. In other words, he's no Rodney King.

TV forgets that she has won the race to the beginning of time to racial inequality. William, I hate to tell you and Martin this but she totally smoked to two in this race, yes indeed she did.

TV forgets she is the basher of heads on this subject because she insists that she has the right to tell people of another race on how they should feel about racial inequality. She feels she has the right to dictate when it is appropriate to discuss race and when it is not.

She also forgets she has sugar coated MF in this case, she has defended him every step of the way, to even include bashing Chris Darden on how he treated MF. If that is not the action of racial head basher, I don't what it is.

IMO, TV has every right to sugar coat MF and the racial issues in this country, however, she does not have the right to expect that you or any other person will sugar coat their reactions to MF and American's racial history.

Again, TV already had her dinner, took a nice long bubble bath, got into her favorite jammies with the favorite slippers, watch a couple of hours of TV, read a complete book and finally went to sleep even before you and Martin even crossed the finish line. IMO.

After I finish laughing ~ which I think is going to take awhile because ignorance always brings out insane bouts of laughter from me ~ I think you're possibly one of the most ignorant chicks I've had the pleasure of posting with.

Here's the deal sweetie, my kids are bi-racial and there have been times that it's definitely been a struggle for them in certain situations they have been up against. What I can tell you with certainty is this - blacks are every bit as capable of being filled with racism and prejudices as the whiteys you love to pigeonhole so much. Some of the black kids used to not want to play with them because they had white in them and some of the white kids used to not want to play because they had black in them.

My kids are taught to understand and celebrate proudly all parts of their heritage. They study black history and their German roots and they live openly and honestly. One thing I will not tolerate from them is to get any idea whatsoever that they can somehow stick their heads in the sand and make excuses because their ancestors were once slaves.

I've said it once and I'll say it again ~ blacks are STILL in present time enslaving blacks over in Africa but I don't see you yapping about that and I'm pretty sure I get why. You only want to yap about the injustices and oppression that whitey put on blacks but I'm guessing you don't want to really know what's going on. You probably don't care to admit that blacks are also capable of being the lowest of the low and enslaving each other.

It's called being HUMAN and some human beings, no matter the f'ing color, are capable of heinous and unforgettable acts. Why do people like you always have to separate the colors?

You're part of the problem little miss GreenIce, try being halfway educated and become part of the solution. Or if all else fails just paint your skin since it's clear that whites disgust you and you don't want to be one.

[tv]

William and martin,

I'm not going to discuss race with either one of you so find someone else to beat up on. I'm here to discuss the life and crimes of OJ Simpson -- nothing more and nothing less.

[Kayleighjo]

There are only two NGs that have posted frequently on this forum. I think that all one has to do is to look at the posts and see wherein lies the problem as to who starts the insults. However, we have all been told to ignore them.

One of the first posts I read that made me want to join was that the criminal jury was uneducated, ignorant and racially biased. After I joined and wanted to discuss why some to the posters felt that way and offered my views on the subject, I was told that they did not want to discuss race. I don't understand what you mean damned if you do and damned if you don't. I guess Blacks should just accept those type of statements made against the criminal jury, because Whites should not fell damned, correct?

On this board William you absolutely are damned if you do and damned if you don't if you're of the white variety.

You claim to want people to talk honestly about race here but the moment they do and it's not want you want to hear you just start berating and you won't stop. And I think that's garbage.

You claim that silence is agreement but when it comes to your comrades on here it doesn't matter. They can say whatever they want to whoever they want and you turn the hypocritical cheek and whistle into the wind.

You don't promote equality OR honesty and I find it almost impossible to engage in anything that requires either of the two with you.

[William Anthony]

I realize you're trying to goad me into a discussion about race. My parents worked very hard to provide for a large family to the detriment of their health and I won't allow you to diminish my love or pride for what they did because we are white. Rather then feel that you and I have a kinship for having loving parents that sacrificed for us you want to use color to throw down barriers. I'm not playing your game any longer.

Now, you feel that you can address my motivations but you make my point in so doing. You speak of a large family but my family was a small one, four. I am not downplaying the love or pride you had in them but I simply say they had a large family and had to work hard to provide for them, whereas, all things being equal my family had to work harder to provide for an equivalent size small family than did their Caucasian counterparts. It is not a game. Those are facts, which led to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act.

[William Anthony]

Then ask GreenIce. She knows what's in my mind and can be of great help to you. Plus, she'll do it with a smile. :)

This has what to do with my post? :)

[tv]

After I finish laughing ~ which I think is going to take awhile because ignorance always brings out insane bouts of laughter from me ~ I think you're possibly one of the most ignorant chicks I've had the pleasure of posting with.

Here's the deal sweetie, my kids are bi-racial and there have been times that it's definitely been a struggle for them in certain situations they have been up against. What I can tell you with certainty is this - blacks are every bit as capable of being filled with racism and prejudices as the whiteys you love to pigeonhole so much. Some of the black kids used to not want to play with them because they had white in them and some of the white kids used to not want to play because they had black in them.

My kids are taught to understand and celebrate proudly all parts of their heritage. They study black history and their German roots and they live openly and honestly. One thing I will not tolerate from them is to get any idea whatsoever that they can somehow stick their heads in the sand and make excuses because their ancestors were once slaves.

I've said it once and I'll say it again ~ blacks are STILL in present time enslaving blacks over in Africa but I don't see you yapping about that and I'm pretty sure I get why. You only want to yap about the injustices and oppression that whitey put on blacks but I'm guessing you don't want to really know what's going on. You probably don't care to admit that blacks are also capable of being the lowest of the low and enslaving each other.

It's called being HUMAN and some human beings, no matter the f'ing color, are capable of heinous and unforgettable acts. Why do people like you always have to separate the colors?

You're part of the problem little miss GreenIce, try being halfway educated and become part of the solution. Or if all else fails just paint your skin since it's clear that whites disgust you and you don't want to be one.

Love ya, girl! :beer:

[tv]

This has what to do with my post? :)

You want to discuss race with me then just bypass me because GreenIce knows what's in everyone's mind including mine. Just cut out the middle man.

[tv]

Now, you feel that you can address my motivations but you make my point in so doing. You speak of a large family but my family was a small one, four. I am not downplaying the love or pride you had in them but I simply say they had a large family and had to work hard to provide for them, whereas, all things being equal my family had to work harder to provide for an equivalent size small family than did their Caucasian counterparts. It is not a game. Those are facts, which led to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act.

You are so pompous. No one suffers as much as William. You have no idea if your family worked harder than mine...you are the eternal victim.

[William Anthony]

On this board William you absolutely are damned if you do and damned if you don't if you're of the white variety.

You claim to want people to talk honestly about race here but the moment they do and it's not want you want to hear you just start berating and you won't stop. And I think that's garbage.

You claim that silence is agreement but when it comes to your comrades on here it doesn't matter. They can say whatever they want to whoever they want and you turn the hypocritical cheek and whistle into the wind.

You don't promote equality OR honesty and I find it almost impossible to engage in anything that requires either of the two with you.

I have quite a different view of how thing occur on this board than you do. People throw out remarks about the jury and snide and insensitive remarks about race and when asked to support them come up with a myriad of reasons why they don't want to discuss race.

I have never, save one/maybe two of the Caucasian persuasion, speak open and honestly about race on this board. I have heard refusals to acknowledge certain comments and defenses of others but one acknowledge that the food remark was inappropriate. It is that feigned unawareness of the offensive nature of the post that is almost as insulting as the original post.

When I asked others to speak out they denied that silence was consent. They refused to speak out. Please, allow me that same privilege as I do believe that is fair and equal.

I find your last paragraph as a creative way of speaking on race and making accusations and then saying I do want to discuss race with you.:)

[William Anthony]

You are so pompous. No one suffers as much as William. You have no idea if your family worked harder than mine...you are the eternal victim.

I think your attitude is rather presumptuous. I never said which family, yours or mine worked harder. I pointed to the difference in sizes and made the comparison of a Caucasian family that was similar in size to mine and how hard my family had to work when compared to that family and reminded you of the purpose for the Civil Rights Act.

[tv]

I have quite a different view of how thing occur on this board than you do. People throw out remarks about the jury and snide and insensitive remarks about race and when asked to support them come up with a myriad of reasons why they don't want to discuss race.

I have never, save one/maybe two of the Caucasian persuasion, speak open and honestly about race on this board. I have heard refusals to acknowledge certain comments and defenses of others but one acknowledge that the food remark was inappropriate. It is that feigned unawareness of the offensive nature of the post that is almost as insulting as the original post.

When I asked others to speak out they denied that silence was consent. They refused to speak out. Please, allow me that same privilege as I do believe that is fair and equal.

I find your last paragraph as a creative way of speaking on race and making accusations and then saying I do want to discuss race with you.:)

You mean like your feigned unawareness of the offensiveness of calling Daniel Petrocelli greasy? You're still referring to him in a racially derogatory way but you seem to have the right to slur other ethnic groups without blame. I don't get it but it seems to be the standard when it comes to you on this board.

[William Anthony]

You want to discuss race with me then just bypass me because GreenIce knows what's in everyone's mind including mine. Just cut out the middle man.

Does this mean that you are giving GreenIce you power of attorney to speak for you on racial questions I might ask of you?

[tv]

I think your attitude is rather presumptuous. I never said which family, yours or mine worked harder. I pointed to the difference in sizes and made the comparison of a Caucasian family that was similar in size to mine and how hard my family had to work when compared to that family and reminded you of the purpose for the Civil Rights Act.

You don't have to remind me of the civil rights act. I lived 10 miles outside of DC during the civil rights movement and was very aware of what was happening.

[martin II]

He never mentioned mistreating her in his suicide note but I'm glad to see you acknowledge that he did. I can see him being sad but since believers in his innocence say he was planning a future with Paula Barbieri and had put Nicole behind him I think the natural thing for him to be interested in would be the protection and welfare of his children. The last thing an innocent man would want to do is leave his children orphaned. Of course he waited until Tuesday to see them and they left the next day so he didn't give them too much consideration. I thnk the first thing a loving father would want to do is see and comfort his children after their mother's brutal murder. My opinion is that he was ashamed to face them after killing their mother.

He did say in his suicide note that he couldn't stand the finger pointing. That's about the only reason he gave in the note for his thoughts of suicide. Of course, we can believe the alternative -- he was pretending to contemplate suicide to cover up for the fact that he was running from the police. Either scenario makes him look guilty.
OJ knew his kids were in the safe hands of the Browns.You don;t know how much contact he had with them by phone and he knew he was about to be charged with murder.I think he had enough on his plate to deal with and it is understandable why he did not move in with the browns to be with the kids at that time.I don't think there is any evidence to support the idea that oj had not cared for and supported his kids in every way.

[tv]

Does this mean that you are giving GreenIce you power of attorney to speak for you on racial questions I might ask of you?She hasn't asked for permission before. Why would she start now?

[Kayleighjo]

I have quite a different view of how thing occur on this board than you do. People throw out remarks about the jury and snide and insensitive remarks about race and when asked to support them come up with a myriad of reasons why they don't want to discuss race.

I have never, save one/maybe two of the Caucasian persuasion, speak open and honestly about race on this board. I have heard refusals to acknowledge certain comments and defenses of others but one acknowledge that the food remark was inappropriate. It is that feigned unawareness of the offensive nature of the post that is almost as insulting as the original post.

When I asked others to speak out they denied that silence was consent. They refused to speak out. Please, allow me that same privilege as I do believe that is fair and equal.

I find your last paragraph as a creative way of speaking on race and making accusations and then saying I do want to discuss race with you.:)

I think you need to accept that not all unawareness is feigned. There really are some people that just don't know.

You're not allowed the same privilege because you're the one that's been flapping from the beginning and berating people for not speaking up. But you can berate all you want and turn around and do the same thing and expect not to be called on it? That's garbage too.

Stop insulting and berating people for the very things you partake in. THAT is a show of equality.

[William Anthony]

You mean like your feigned unawareness of the offensiveness of calling Daniel Petrocelli greasy? You're still referring to him in a racially derogatory way but you seem to have the right to slur other ethnic groups without blame. I don't get it but it seems to be the standard when it comes to you on this board.

Believe it or not, I went to school with Italians and dated a couple. I have never heard the word grease ball or greaser associated with them. The only racial slur I was aware of was d**o. I do refer to Petro in a racially disparaging manner, because I did not know or care what his race was until you mentioned it. I refer to his boasting and tactics by in regard to the first portion of his last name, Petro.

[Kayleighjo]

Love ya, girl! :beer:

Love you too!

[tv]

Believe it or not, I went to school with Italians and dated a couple. I have never heard the word grease ball or greaser associated with them. The only racial slur I was aware of was d**o. I do refer to Petro in a racially disparaging manner, because I did not know or care what his race was until you mentioned it. I refer to his boasting and tactics by in regard to the first portion of his last name, Petro.

Why wouldn't I believe you went to school with Italians or dated a couple?

[William Anthony]

I think you need to accept that not all unawareness is feigned. There really are some people that just don't know.

You're not allowed the same privilege because you're the one that's been flapping from the beginning and berating people for not speaking up. But you can berate all you want and turn around and do the same thing and expect not to be called on it? That's garbage too.

Stop insulting and berating people for the very things you partake in. THAT is a show of equality.

I have never said that all awareness is feigned but I do think it is commonly known what boy means when directed at a Black man and you will not change my opinion on that issue.

My flapping and berating as you call it was ignored as I am now going to ignore yours.:)

As for this, "But you can berate all you want and turn around and do the same thing and expect not to be called on it? That's garbage too.
Stop insulting and berating people for the very things you partake in. THAT is a show of equality". I think you should follow your own advice. :)

[Kayleighjo]

I have never said that all awareness is feigned but I do think it is commonly known what boy means when directed at a Black man and you will not change my opinion on that issue.

My flapping and berating as you call it was ignored as I am now going to ignore yours.:)

As for this, "But you can berate all you want and turn around and do the same thing and expect not to be called on it? That's garbage too.
Stop insulting and berating people for the very things you partake in. THAT is a show of equality". I think you should follow your own advice. :)

You say you want honesty and you're getting it. Don't ask for what you can't take.

[William Anthony]

Why wouldn't I believe you went to school with Italians or dated a couple?

Then why would you believe when I say I had not ever heard the word grease ball or greaser associated with them or accuse me of using racial slurs, when I never defended my use and told you that I would provide a disclaimer when I used it, which you never said, only that it is okay to say boy, because you have done it to Black men in the south?

[William Anthony]

You say you want honesty and you're getting it. Don't ask for what you can't take.

I can take it but can you?:)

[tv]

Then why would you believe when I say I had not ever heard the word grease ball or greaser associated with them or accuse me of using racial slurs, when I never defended my use and told you that I would provide a disclaimer when I used it, which you never said, only that it is okay to say boy, because you have done it to Black men in the south?

William, don't misquote me. I said in the south we refer to men of every color as boys and mean nothing racial by it.

[tv]

Then why would you believe when I say I had not ever heard the word grease ball or greaser associated with them or accuse me of using racial slurs, when I never defended my use and told you that I would provide a disclaimer when I used it, which you never said, only that it is okay to say boy, because you have done it to Black men in the south?

I have no way of knowing if you already knew or not. You're known for having an indirect and sly way of stating things so it was logical to me that you were using the 'double meaning' that you say your family uses all the time. Funny thing is I didn't say anything about 'greaser' and you just used it in your post. Hmm...makes me wonder.

[Kayleighjo]

I can take it but can you?:)

I love honesty but it's got to be real honesty and not feigned.

[William Anthony]

I have no way of knowing if you already knew or not. You're known for having an indirect and sly way of stating things so it was logical to me that you were using the 'double meaning' that you say your family uses all the time. Funny thing is I didn't say anything about 'greaser' and you just used it in your post. Hmm...makes me wonder.

That is because I never heard greaser associated with or let me say that I did not associate it with the Italian race. I heard Caucasians speak of greasers and they were speaking of Mexicans. When I heard grease ball, it was usually describing a person that was dirty or had poor hygiene. Yes, there was an indirect way of saying that Petro's tactics were oily, as Park's testimony confirmed.

[William Anthony]

I love honesty but it's got to be real honesty and not feigned.

Then ask yourself who were the ones that called the criminal jury ignorant, uneducated and racially biased?

[William Anthony]

William, don't misquote me. I said in the south we refer to men of every color as boys and mean nothing racial by it.

Which means that you address Black men as boys and that is okay in the south.

[Kayleighjo]

Then ask yourself who were the ones that called the criminal jury ignorant, uneducated and racially biased?

I'd call that jury the same.

[Kayleighjo]

Which means that you address Black men as boys.

I think she's made it clear that it's all men that are often addressed as boys.

[William Anthony]

I'd call that jury the same.

Okay, then the next question would logically be, do you call MF racially biased?

[William Anthony]

I think she's made it clear that it's all men that are often addressed as boys.

I did not say that it was discriminatory. I said that it was insulting to a Black man but she said it's okay in the south or words to that effect.

[Kayleighjo]

Okay, then the next question would logically be, do you call MF racially biased?

Sure he was, or is.

[tv]

That is because I never heard greaser associated with or let me say that I did not associate it with the Italian race. I heard Caucasians speak of greasers and they were speaking of Mexicans. When I heard grease ball, it was usually describing a person that was dirty or had poor hygiene. Yes, there was an indirect way of saying that Petro's tactics were oily, as Park's testimony confirmed.The word you used before was greasy. Why have you changed it to greaser? I didn't tell you it's also derogatory toward Italians. More feigned unawareness?

[William Anthony]

Sure he was, or is.

Have you ever said so before today?

[tv]

Which means that you address Black men as boys and that is okay in the south.

I meant what I said. All men regardless of color are often referred to as boys without any racial meaning attached to it.

[Kayleighjo]

I did not say that it was discriminatory. I said that it was insulting to a Black man but she said it's okay in the south or words to that effect.

Different places have different understandings. Out in Montana in the rodeo circuit they all call each other "boy". Not meant to be insulting, and they probably honestly don't get the fact that here in MN it's common knowledge that it can be insulting.

[tv]

I did not say that it was discriminatory. I said that it was insulting to a Black man but she said it's okay in the south or words to that effect.
No, I didn't say that. I said in the south all men are often referred to as boys with no racial meaning attached.

[William Anthony]

The word you used before was greasy. Why have you changed it to greaser? I didn't tell you it's also derogatory toward Italians. More feigned unawareness?

Yes, that was the word I used, which you tried to change to grease ball and make it have some racial connotations, because I questioned some of your posts. :) I then told you that I did not know that grease ball had any racial connotations but I was aware of how Caucasians I was around used the word greaser.

[tv]

Yes, that was the word I used, which you tried to change to grease ball and make it have some racial connotations, because I questioned some of your posts. :) I then told you that I did not know that grease ball had any racial connotations but I was aware of how Caucasians I was around used the word greaser.

So you knew about the word being offensive and you still used it. How unbiased of you, William. I didn't change anything. I posted the definition and you read it. I'm sorry if you feel you must continue to deny that you were aware of it's meaning.

[William Anthony]

No, I didn't say that. I said in the south all men are often referred to as boys with no racial meaning attached.

So, are you saying that, even thought there is no racial meaning attached and you call men of every race, that it is not okay to call Black men in the south boy?:shrug:

[William Anthony]

So you knew about the word being offensive and you still used it. How unbiased of you, William.

I did not use it. You did. You admit I said greasy. I have not referred to anyone as a grease ball or a greaser.

[William Anthony]

Different places have different understandings. Out in Montana in the rodeo circuit they all call each other "boy". Not meant to be insulting, and they probably honestly don't get the fact that here in MN it's common knowledge that it can be insulting.

So, once someone has been told that something is insulting, what should be the next step, to include a disclaimer of to continue to defend the insulting use?

[tv]

I did not use it. You did. You admit I said greasy. I have not referred to anyone as a grease ball or a greaser.

That's right -- you're incapable of racial bias...sorry I forget for a minute.

[tv]

So, once someone has been told that something is insulting, what should be the next step, to include a disclaimer of to continue to defend the insulting use?

You defended calling DP greasy and said you would continue to do so because you didn't mean it as a racial insult. Since you've decided that disclaimers are acceptable then we can all do that. :)

[Kayleighjo]

Have you ever said so before today?

To you, or to anyone in general? To you I have no idea.

[Kayleighjo]

So, once someone has been told that something is insulting, what should be the next step, to include a disclaimer of to continue to defend the insulting use?

It depends.

[William Anthony]

That's right -- you're incapable of racial bias...sorry I forget for a minute.

I am not incapable of being showing racial bias. However, in this case, I am not guilty.

[William Anthony]

It depends.

On what?

[tv]

I am not incapable of being showing racial bias. However, in this case, I am not guilty.

I know -- I was being sarcastic. ;)

[William Anthony]

I know -- I was being sarcastic. ;)

I was being open and honest.:)

[Kayleighjo]

On what?

On the person that's advising me. If it's someone who has also continued to do/say things once I have said that they are insulting then I'd think twice before handing out that courtesy.

[William Anthony]

She hasn't asked for permission before. Why would she start now?

I just want to know that your are agreeable to the answers she may provide for you. :)

[tv]

I was being open and honest.:)

Sure you were. :)

[William Anthony]

On the person that's advising me. If it's someone who has also continued to do/say things once I have said that they are insulting then I'd think twice before handing out that courtesy.

Would you continue to defend a person, who uses that term, after that person has been told it was insulting?

I never got an answer to this question,

Have you ever said so (MF was/is racially biased, on this board) before today?

[William Anthony]

Sure you were. :)

That's a big ten four.

[tv]

I just want to know that your are agreeable to the answers she may provide for you. :)

I've never been agreeable to her because of her tendency to post lies and call people names but that hasn't stopped her in the past. You know that part of the serenity prayer that says 'help me to accept the things I cannot change..' -- that's my GreenIce policy. It's kind of like algae on the shady side of the house -- not matter how much you clean it up it just keeps coming back. The ignore feature helps. :)

[William Anthony]

I've never been agreeable to her because of her tendency to post lies and call people names but that hasn't stopped her in the past. You know that part of the serenity prayer that says 'help me to accept the things I cannot change..' -- that's my GreenIce policy. It's kind of like algae on the shady side of the house -- not matter how much you clean it up it just keeps coming back. The ignore feature helps. :)

If you feel that way, you shouldn't tell me to ask her. Let me guess. Your were being sarcastic. :)

[tv]

If you feel that way, you shouldn't tell me to ask her. Let me guess. Your were being sarcastic. :)

Nothing gets by you. :tongue:

[Kayleighjo]

Would you continue to defend a person, who uses that term, after that person has been told it was insulting?

I never got an answer to this question,

Have you ever said so (MF was/is racially biased, on this board) before today?

Again that depends on the same scenario. If the people involved weren't all willing to give that courtesy then I'd say it's a free for all.

You didn't ask if I've ever said so on this board. You asked only if I've ever said that before today and I answered. I said, to you I don't know. But if you're asking about this board, yes I've said it once or twice.

[William Anthony]

Nothing gets by you. :tongue:

Not even attempts to falsely accuse me. :tongue:

[tv]

Not even attempts to falsely accuse me. :tongue:

Not taking the bait on that. Is there some reason that we're discussing race AGAIN instead of the case? Or are they one and same to you?

[William Anthony]

Again that depends on the same scenario. If the people involved weren't all willing to give that courtesy then I'd say it's a free for all.

You didn't ask if I've ever said so on this board. You asked only if I've ever said that before today and I answered. I said, to you I don't know. But if you're asking about this board, yes I've said it once or twice.

Well, I think one should protect himself as best as possible in a discourteous free for all.

Well, I am glad to hear that you are not one of those who feels that MF was only creating a part in a screen play. Now with that said, what evidence do you use to support the fact that the jury was racially biased?

[William Anthony]

Not taking the bait on that. Is there some reason that we're discussing race AGAIN instead of the case? Or are they one and same to you?

Yes, I think it was due to your post on Simpson and Rodney king and the jury having an agenda or words to that effect and not seeing any different colors in the trial. :) IIRC.

[Kayleighjo]

Well, I think one should protect himself as best as possible in a discourteous free for all.

Well, I am glad to hear that you are not one of those who feels that MF was only creating a part in a screen play. Now with that said, what evidence do you use to support the fact that the jury was racially biased?

I don't doubt that he was taking part in creating a screenplay. I just think he was using his real feelings in doing it. I'm also not going to assume that because someone is racist means they framed a person, same as you don't assume that because Simpson beat Nicole means he killed her.

I think you should have asked "what evidence do you use to support YOUR OPINION (not fact) that the jury was racially biased. I use the book that was written by three of the jurors to support my opinion.

[William Anthony]

I don't doubt that he was taking part in creating a screenplay. I just think he was using his real feelings in doing it. I'm also not going to assume that because someone is racist means they framed a person, same as you don't assume that because Simpson beat Nicole means he killed her.

I think you should have asked "what evidence do you use to support YOUR OPINION (not fact) that the jury was racially biased. I use the book that was written by three of the jurors to support my opinion.

Your original statement was that you would have called the jury that not that it was your opinion that the jury was that. However, I accept the corrections. Since we are having a civil discussion and an open one on the issue of race as it may have related to the trial, let's not speak of framing, okay?

Did those jurors feel that MF was racist? Was there any statement in the book that the jurors decision was motivated solely because of race? I am not trying to deny your opinion only trying to find out to what extent you feel that the jury may have been racially biased.

[martin II]

Which means that you address Black men as boys and that is okay in the south.

Any person in 2009 that calls a adult black man "boy" and then try to justify it by talking about what happens in the south is just ignoring the historical meaning/rejection of that use and or trying to justify using it now because they just want to. For some it does not matter if its use is hurtful or not.imo

[martin II]

Your original statement was that you would have called the jury that not that it was your opinion that the jury was that. However, I accept the corrections. Since we are having a civil discussion and an open one on the issue of race as it may have related to the trial, let's not speak of framing, okay?

Did those jurors feel that MF was racist? Was there any statement in the book that the jurors decision was motivated solely because of race? I am not trying to deny your opinion only trying to find out to what extent you feel that the jury may have been racially biased.

Some on the jury MAY have felt MF had some racial issues but all agreed that this had no bearing on their verdict.

[Kayleighjo]

Your original statement was that you would have called the jury that not that it was your opinion that the jury was that. However, I accept the corrections. Since we are having a civil discussion and an open one on the issue of race as it may have related to the trial, let's not speak of framing, okay?

Did those jurors feel that MF was racist? Was there any statement in the book that the jurors decision was motivated solely because of race? I am not trying to deny your opinion only trying to find out to what extent you feel that the jury may have been racially biased.

Don't get all crazy on me - my original statement was indeed that I would have called the jury that. Period. It wasn't stated as any fact. There are no corrections you need to accept.

When you're willing to acknowledge that then let's move on with discussion.

[tv]

Yes, I think it was due to your post on Simpson and Rodney king and the jury having an agenda or words to that effect and not seeing any different colors in the trial. :) IIRC.

My new outlook is that everyone involved in the murders and trial are all the same color. I'm not discussing race with you. :)

[William Anthony]

Don't get all crazy on me - my original statement was indeed that I would have called the jury that. Period. It wasn't stated as any fact. There are no corrections you need to accept.

When you're willing to acknowledge that then let's move on with discussion.

I thought I was acknowledging that. The correction was my acceptance of the statement as your opinion. That's all. :)

[William Anthony]

My new outlook is that everyone involved in the murders and trial are all the same color. I'm not discussing race with you. :)

Well, that's a novel outlook. :)

[tv]

Well, that's a novel outlook. :)

Not really. I said the same thing earlier today. It's old news. :)

[William Anthony]

Not really. I said the same thing earlier today. It's old news. :)

Perhaps, I should have said an interesting outlook.:)

[weezer]

The view is that Simpson was pampered and this somehow negates the fact that Simpson was Black. However, let us take a closer look at the treatment. Simpson's home was invaded to include his tennis courts by upward of 40 members of LAPD led by that Black champion, Mr. Ron Shipp. It is sort of reminiscent of the house and field slaves. There have always been some Blacks that have been favored depending on how the master looked upon but, in the end, as Darden found out, IMHO, he nor any other Black was any different from Rodney King. However, we may thank those nationally publicized events, because they may have been instrumental in providing the change that led to the election of President Obama.

My parents did not have the luxury and the time to take bubble baths or watch endless hours of tv, as they were forced to work overtime to make the amount of money that Caucasians made for working eight hours. My father often told me that there were people in Washington thinking as we sleep on ways to keep us down. I realized that lack of time to think and fatigue were symptoms of overwork and overwork was a symptom on racial inequality.

OMG -- the violin music is deafening!

[weezer]

On this board William you absolutely are damned if you do and damned if you don't if you're of the white variety.

You claim to want people to talk honestly about race here but the moment they do and it's not want you want to hear you just start berating and you won't stop. And I think that's garbage.

You claim that silence is agreement but when it comes to your comrades on here it doesn't matter. They can say whatever they want to whoever they want and you turn the hypocritical cheek and whistle into the wind.

You don't promote equality OR honesty and I find it almost impossible to engage in anything that requires either of the two with you.


:beer::beer:

[weezer]

Let me think for a moment. Someone he once loved very deeply had been found brutally murdered and he had mistreated her in life. It has been said that Simpson was noted for running. I think suicide is a way of running from life.

or -- as in this case -- he had committed two very brutal murders and thought he was caught.

[weezer]

I think your attitude is rather presumptuous. I never said which family, yours or mine worked harder. I pointed to the difference in sizes and made the comparison of a Caucasian family that was similar in size to mine and how hard my family had to work when compared to that family and reminded you of the purpose for the Civil Rights Act.

william, where were you when people were fighting for the Civil Rights Act?

[weezer]

Believe it or not, I went to school with Italians and dated a couple. I have never heard the word grease ball or greaser associated with them. The only racial slur I was aware of was d**o. I do refer to Petro in a racially disparaging manner, because I did not know or care what his race was until you mentioned it. I refer to his boasting and tactics by in regard to the first portion of his last name, Petro.

believe it or not, some of my best friends are Black.

[weezer]

That is because I never heard greaser associated with or let me say that I did not associate it with the Italian race. I heard Caucasians speak of greasers and they were speaking of Mexicans. When I heard grease ball, it was usually describing a person that was dirty or had poor hygiene. Yes, there was an indirect way of saying that Petro's tactics were oily, as Park's testimony confirmed.

really? the first time I ever heard greaser, it was a Black speaking of a Mexican. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

I was tending during the fight for Civil rights.

[William Anthony]

I don't think that I know of any Blacks who use the term greaser. It must be a thing with southern Blacks.

[William Anthony]

Some thing are much, much, much, much, much harder to believe than others, :)such as, there was no reasonable doubt in the Simpson criminal trial.

[William Anthony]

Don't get all crazy on me - my original statement was indeed that I would have called the jury that. Period. It wasn't stated as any fact. There are no corrections you need to accept.

When you're willing to acknowledge that then let's move on with discussion.


Was there any statement in the book that the jurors decision was motivated solely because of race? I am not trying to deny your opinion only trying to find out to what extent you feel that the jury may have been racially biased.

[weezer]

Was there any statement in the book that the jurors decision was motivated solely because of race? I am not trying to deny your opinion only trying to find out to what extent you feel that the jury may have been racially biased.

if they were too ignorant to understand the evidence, made statements that 'we take care of our own', and gave orenthal the black power salute -- a reasonable reference is they used race to come to their conclusion. now don't get me wrong -- I too thought cockroach's little ditty was quite catching.

[fgump2]

I think that supporters of the 1995 innocent verdict are often guilty of double standards and a lack of interest in justice. One example of this is William Anthony's (didn't use the initials there) calling Cochran the Magnificent one, and also harshly criticizing Petrocelli for coaching or leading a witness. Harsh is a matter of degree, Mr. Anthony's criticism of Petrocelli could very easily have been harsher.

Mr. Cochran broke the mutual discovery law 14 times on his opening speech for the criminal trial. He got an official rebuke from Ito for this. I am pretty sure he got an second official rebuke for a second violation of the discovery law, although I don't remember what for.

Mr. Petrocelli didn't recieve an official rebuke from the judge, although I think the judge upheld Mr. Baker's objection.

I think that Mr. Cochran's mistakes were worse because he got an official rebuke, and Petrocelli didn't, and Cochran repeated the mistake. Also breaking the discovery law as often as Cochran did involved conscious premeditaton. I think that leading or coaching a witness could be done as a spur of the moment thing, being carried away with emotion.

As far as racial bias, I think the experiments with mock juries and public opinion polls showed that race bias was a part of Americans thoughts on the subject. I think that race bias probably was part of the 1995 jury's decision.

I think many black people admire Cochran because he won a verbal duel with the LA prosecutors office, and therefore a symbolic victory over white americans.

In Petrocelli's book they staged some mock juries, and the juries were polorized by race. Petrocelli quoted one black woman, a college graduate, who after the mock jury decision stated:"I still don't know if Simpson was guilty or not, but when I heard the innocent verdict, I was happy, I thought this is one black man that they won't be sending to prison". I could understand and sympathisze with her for feeling this way, but I wouldn't want to deal with her; at least not where these emotions would come up.

I think that many whites are reluctant to deal with blacks except at arms length distance because of things like that. Martin's hostility and scorn for Fred Goldman, and his sympathy for Orenthal Simpson is another example of the type of bias that most whites are reluctant to deal with. I am willing to write about these things, but it is hard to use a thread for both racial problems and the Simpson cases at the same time. The two subjects are two big, arouse too much emotion. It is better to keep race as a background subject here.

[bobaugust]

The evidence is that Park's and Kato's memories were molded. When the events were fresher in his mind Kato said he ran. When the events were fresher in park's mind he said he saw Kato standing and still standing not coming up the driveway. Park said that Petro and others told him he was wrong. :) You know that what Ms. Clark says is not evidence, smile, and I posted the question that Petro asked, which was sustained in that socio political production, because, even in that production, the question was to far off base to try to document whether or not Park first saw Kato by Park's phone records, smile. To post anything else is just not truthful, IMHO. If something is not evidence, it can only be persuasive (regarding the lawyer's arguments), which means the records document nothing other than the time and length of a phone call.

The evidence in this case is that the first person Park saw on Simpson’s estate that night was a white male come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight. The evidence is that white male was Kato Kaelin. The evidence is that while seeing Kaelin come down the pathway Park almost simultaneously saw a black person walk from the driveway into the front entranceway, enter the house, and lights come on in the downstairs windows. The evidence is that black person was O.J. Simpson. The evidence is that Kaelin continued on past the front of the house to the garage and went a short distance behind the garage before turning around and returning to the driveway. The evidence is that when Kaelin came out from behind the garage he saw the limo was still parked outside the gate, so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate to let the limo onto the estate.

The evidence is that after Park saw Simpson enter his house he told his boss someone was there and finished his telephone conversation without paying any attention to Kaelin and never saw or knew at that time Kaelin continue on to the garage.

The evidence is for the next couple of minutes Park was either sitting in the limo waiting to be let in or talking to Simpson on the intercom. The evidence is that the next time Park saw Kaelin again was when Kaelin returned from the garage area and went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

In the criminal trial in Clark’s closing argument she put forth the logical reasonable inference that the noises occurred at about 10:51, 10:52. She based that inference on Park’s telephone records that established the time Park first saw Kaelin and then Simpson as shortly before 10:55 and Kaelin’s estimate that he left his room about two to three minutes after hearing the noises.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The evidence is what it is and the questions asked are what they are. Based on what you call major and minor, you may call a private a major. :)

I agree the evidence is what it is and the questions asked are what they are and the evidence is that when Kaelin came put from behind the garage he saw the limo was still parked outside the gate so he went to the gate control box, opened the gate, and the limo drove up to the front entrance of the house.

We know that whether or not Kaelin was sometimes running, sometimes walking, and sometimes walking briskly was a minor irrelevant issue since Simpson’s attorneys never brought it up in the criminal trial or the civil trial.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

So you see the records were not used to document when Kato left his room, nor the time Kato heard the thumps in either the criminal trial or the socio political production.

I don’t recall ever saying that Park’s telephone records were used in the civil trial to establish the time of the noises. Marcia Clark used that logical reasonable inference in her closing argument in the criminal trial.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

I think that supporters of the 1995 innocent verdict are often guilty of double standards and a lack of interest in justice. One example of this is William Anthony's (didn't use the initials there) calling Cochran the Magnificent one, and also harshly criticizing Petrocelli for coaching or leading a witness. Harsh is a matter of degree, Mr. Anthony's criticism of Petrocelli could very easily have been harsher.

Mr. Cochran broke the mutual discovery law 14 times on his opening speech for the criminal trial. He got an official rebuke from Ito for this. I am pretty sure he got an second official rebuke for a second violation of the discovery law, although I don't remember what for.

Mr. Petrocelli didn't recieve an official rebuke from the judge, although I think the judge upheld Mr. Baker's objection.

I think that Mr. Cochran's mistakes were worse because he got an official rebuke, and Petrocelli didn't, and Cochran repeated the mistake. Also breaking the discovery law as often as Cochran did involved conscious premeditaton. I think that leading or coaching a witness could be done as a spur of the moment thing, being carried away with emotion.

As far as racial bias, I think the experiments with mock juries and public opinion polls showed that race bias was a part of Americans thoughts on the subject. I think that race bias probably was part of the 1995 jury's decision.

I think many black people admire Cochran because he won a verbal duel with the LA prosecutors office, and therefore a symbolic victory over white americans.

In Petrocelli's book they staged some mock juries, and the juries were polorized by race. Petrocelli quoted one black woman, a college graduate, who after the mock jury decision stated:"I still don't know if Simpson was guilty or not, but when I heard the innocent verdict, I was happy, I thought this is one black man that they won't be sending to prison". I could understand and sympathisze with her for feeling this way, but I wouldn't want to deal with her; at least not where these emotions would come up.

I think that many whites are reluctant to deal with blacks except at arms length distance because of things like that. Martin's hostility and scorn for Fred Goldman, and his sympathy for Orenthal Simpson is another example of the type of bias that most whites are reluctant to deal with. I am willing to write about these things, but it is hard to use a thread for both racial problems and the Simpson cases at the same time. The two subjects are two big, arouse too much emotion. It is better to keep race as a background subject here.

An interesting post, which deserves some attention, IMHO. For now let me just say that the poster seems a tad bit confused and I will address it in more detail in a tad bit.

[William Anthony]

The evidence in this case is that the first person Park saw on Simpson’s estate that night was a white male come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight. The evidence is that white male was Kato Kaelin. The evidence is that while seeing Kaelin come down the pathway Park almost simultaneously saw a black person walk from the driveway into the front entranceway, enter the house, and lights come on in the downstairs windows. The evidence is that black person was O.J. Simpson. The evidence is that Kaelin continued on past the front of the house to the garage and went a short distance behind the garage before turning around and returning to the driveway. The evidence is that when Kaelin came out from behind the garage he saw the limo was still parked outside the gate, so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate to let the limo onto the estate.

The evidence is that after Park saw Simpson enter his house he told his boss someone was there and finished his telephone conversation without paying any attention to Kaelin and never saw or knew at that time Kaelin continue on to the garage.

The evidence is for the next couple of minutes Park was either sitting in the limo waiting to be let in or talking to Simpson on the intercom. The evidence is that the next time Park saw Kaelin again was when Kaelin returned from the garage area and went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

In the criminal trial in Clark’s closing argument she put forth the logical reasonable inference that the noises occurred at about 10:51, 10:52. She based that inference on Park’s telephone records that established the time Park first saw Kaelin and then Simpson as shortly before 10:55 and Kaelin’s estimate that he left his room about two to three minutes after hearing the noises.

bobaugust

A very long post to agree with me that there was no evidence, either in the criminal trial or the socio political production that Park's phone records document the time that Kato ran down the pathway or that Kato heard the thumps.:)

[William Anthony]

I agree the evidence is what it is and the questions asked are what they are and the evidence is that when Kaelin came put from behind the garage he saw the limo was still parked outside the gate so he went to the gate control box, opened the gate, and the limo drove up to the front entrance of the house.

We know that whether or not Kaelin was sometimes running, sometimes walking, and sometimes walking briskly was a minor irrelevant issue since Simpson’s attorneys never brought it up in the criminal trial or the civil trial.

bobaugust

The one thing that I noticed about some Gs is when the evidence contradicts what they think happens it is minor or irrelevant or, as stated by this poster, in this case, both.:)

[GreenIce]

I think that supporters of the 1995 innocent verdict are often guilty of double standards and a lack of interest in justice. One example of this is William Anthony's (didn't use the initials there) calling Cochran the Magnificent one, and also harshly criticizing Petrocelli for coaching or leading a witness. Harsh is a matter of degree, Mr. Anthony's criticism of Petrocelli could very easily have been harsher.

Mr. Cochran broke the mutual discovery law 14 times on his opening speech for the criminal trial. He got an official rebuke from Ito for this. I am pretty sure he got an second official rebuke for a second violation of the discovery law, although I don't remember what for.

Mr. Petrocelli didn't recieve an official rebuke from the judge, although I think the judge upheld Mr. Baker's objection.

I think that Mr. Cochran's mistakes were worse because he got an official rebuke, and Petrocelli didn't, and Cochran repeated the mistake. Also breaking the discovery law as often as Cochran did involved conscious premeditaton. I think that leading or coaching a witness could be done as a spur of the moment thing, being carried away with emotion.

As far as racial bias, I think the experiments with mock juries and public opinion polls showed that race bias was a part of Americans thoughts on the subject. I think that race bias probably was part of the 1995 jury's decision.

I think many black people admire Cochran because he won a verbal duel with the LA prosecutors office, and therefore a symbolic victory over white americans.

In Petrocelli's book they staged some mock juries, and the juries were polorized by race. Petrocelli quoted one black woman, a college graduate, who after the mock jury decision stated:"I still don't know if Simpson was guilty or not, but when I heard the innocent verdict, I was happy, I thought this is one black man that they won't be sending to prison". I could understand and sympathisze with her for feeling this way, but I wouldn't want to deal with her; at least not where these emotions would come up.

I think that many whites are reluctant to deal with blacks except at arms length distance because of things like that. Martin's hostility and scorn for Fred Goldman, and his sympathy for Orenthal Simpson is another example of the type of bias that most whites are reluctant to deal with. I am willing to write about these things, but it is hard to use a thread for both racial problems and the Simpson cases at the same time. The two subjects are two big, arouse too much emotion. It is better to keep race as a background subject here.

fgump2,

You are wrong regarding NG's and their double standards. I have consistently asked you over and over again to put your son in the defendant's chair or yourself in the defendant's chair and would you still find the excuses you have provided them to be harmless?

It is the G's who have the double standards and don't give a rat's butt about justice. You counted up all of JC's infractions but did you count up the DA's? The LAPD's and the Crime labs? If, you are as fair as you claim to be you will see that the defense were not the leaders on this board.

You can't compare the criminal trial lawyers to the civil trial lawyers. Petrocelli in his motion explained that, don't you remember? He was said that Simpson raised reasonable doubts in the criminal trial but this trial was going by a new set of rules. Rules that clear are not fair to any defendant, IMO--in this case.

Both sides do play games with evidence, both sides play games with the witnesses. Where is the justice two judges upholding a search warrant when they know the cops are lying? Where was the justice when Ito allowed the search warrant to stand but made it clear that Vanatter lied to get it. That Vanatter knew he was lying when he wrote it? Where is the justice in that?

Where was the justice when the evidence numbers kept on changing? Where was the justice when four state employees, four experts testified they didn't see any blood on the socks because they were dark but refused to use the equipment they needed to see it--if it was there?

The DA's had no interest in justice. They just wanted to win "The Big One" after so many losses and knew in the courtroom they were never going to do it so they went after the public.

Name me on G poster who has ever expressed outrage at how Nicole was treated by the police?

[martin II]

I think that supporters of the 1995 innocent verdict are often guilty of double standards and a lack of interest in justice. One example of this is William Anthony's (didn't use the initials there) calling Cochran the Magnificent one, and also harshly criticizing Petrocelli for coaching or leading a witness. Harsh is a matter of degree, Mr. Anthony's criticism of Petrocelli could very easily have been harsher.

Mr. Cochran broke the mutual discovery law 14 times on his opening speech for the criminal trial. He got an official rebuke from Ito for this. I am pretty sure he got an second official rebuke for a second violation of the discovery law, although I don't remember what for.

Mr. Petrocelli didn't recieve an official rebuke from the judge, although I think the judge upheld Mr. Baker's objection.

I think that Mr. Cochran's mistakes were worse because he got an official rebuke, and Petrocelli didn't, and Cochran repeated the mistake. Also breaking the discovery law as often as Cochran did involved conscious premeditaton. I think that leading or coaching a witness could be done as a spur of the moment thing, being carried away with emotion.

As far as racial bias, I think the experiments with mock juries and public opinion polls showed that race bias was a part of Americans thoughts on the subject. I think that race bias probably was part of the 1995 jury's decision.

I think many black people admire Cochran because he won a verbal duel with the LA prosecutors office, and therefore a symbolic victory over white americans.

In Petrocelli's book they staged some mock juries, and the juries were polorized by race. Petrocelli quoted one black woman, a college graduate, who after the mock jury decision stated:"I still don't know if Simpson was guilty or not, but when I heard the innocent verdict, I was happy, I thought this is one black man that they won't be sending to prison". I could understand and sympathisze with her for feeling this way, but I wouldn't want to deal with her; at least not where these emotions would come up.

I think that many whites are reluctant to deal with blacks except at arms length distance because of things like that. Martin's hostility and scorn for Fred Goldman, and his sympathy for Orenthal Simpson is another example of the type of bias that most whites are reluctant to deal with. I am willing to write about these things, but it is hard to use a thread for both racial problems and the Simpson cases at the same time. The two subjects are two big, arouse too much emotion. It is better to keep race as a background subject here.

Fgump2

Are we to understand that your negative comments and untruths about OJ Simpson are the results of your honest and fair minded use of your LOGIC and my comments about Fred Goldman are the results of my unfair bias against him? Are opinions different from yours all based on bias and yours are based on logical progressions of facts and honesty? Your opinion that whites are reluctant to deal with blacks is based on some logical factual study conducted
by you or someone you trust?
The larger question is if it were true that whites are reluctant to deal with blacks,this means what? Exactly what differance does this make?

[William Anthony]

I don’t recall ever saying that Park’s telephone records were used in the civil trial to establish the time of the noises. Marcia Clark used that logical reasonable inference in her closing argument in the criminal trial.

bobaugust

Did you forget this?

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.

[William Anthony]

I think that supporters of the 1995 innocent verdict are often guilty of double standards and a lack of interest in justice. One example of this is William Anthony's (didn't use the initials there) calling Cochran the Magnificent one, and also harshly criticizing Petrocelli for coaching or leading a witness. Harsh is a matter of degree, Mr. Anthony's criticism of Petrocelli could very easily have been harsher.


There was no verdict of innocence. I call him the magnificent one after observing his skill in the courtroom and his command of that courtroom. I did not observe the oily one but I have looked the transcripts and I think Petro deserves the names, as some believe in calling cockroach and flee.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9192161

Mr. Cochran broke the mutual discovery law 14 times on his opening speech for the criminal trial. He got an official rebuke from Ito for this. I am pretty sure he got an second official rebuke for a second violation of the discovery law, although I don't remember what for.

[/QUOTE]

Both sides had discovery violations and both sides were sanctioned, if that is what you mean by official rebuke.

[William Anthony]

Mr. Petrocelli didn't recieve an official rebuke from the judge, although I think the judge upheld Mr. Baker's objection.



Petro had a different judge. However, you seem to be confusing leading a witness with coaching a witness and I don't think you fully understand the difference as coaching is an ethical violation. I have presented the testimony on coaching but you seemed to be focused on the hypothetical presented Kato, not Park, as Park confirmed the coaching.

[William Anthony]

I think that Mr. Cochran's mistakes were worse because he got an official rebuke, and Petrocelli didn't, and Cochran repeated the mistake. Also breaking the discovery law as often as Cochran did involved conscious premeditaton. I think that leading or coaching a witness could be done as a spur of the moment thing, being carried away with emotion.



There are no such things as discovery laws but there are such things as the Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules of Criminal Law, Local Rules of Court, Rules of Evidence that deal with discovery and, in certain cases, the Rules of Ethics.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9192161




As far as racial bias, I think the experiments with mock juries and public opinion polls showed that race bias was a part of Americans thoughts on the subject. I think that race bias probably was part of the 1995 jury's decision.



[/QUOTE]

Do you think that Caucasian racial bias played any part in the unwillingness to accept there was reasonable doubt?

[fgump2]

fgump2,

You are wrong regarding NG's and their double standards. I have consistently asked you over and over again to put your son in the defendant's chair or yourself in the defendant's chair and would you still find the excuses you have provided them to be harmless?

It is the G's who have the double standards and don't give a rat's butt about justice. You counted up all of JC's infractions but did you count up the DA's? The LAPD's and the Crime labs? If, you are as fair as you claim to be you will see that the defense were not the leaders on this board. Johnnie Cochran's mistakes were deliberate. You can't compare accidental mistakes to deliberate actions. Also comparing lab mistakes, or Mazzola's mistakes to Cochran's mistakes is invalid, they have different job categories. More like apples and walnuts than apples and oranges.

You can't compare the criminal trial lawyers to the civil trial lawyers. Petrocelli in his motion explained that, don't you remember? He was said that Simpson raised reasonable doubts in the criminal trial but this trial was going by a new set of rules. Rules that clear are not fair to any defendant, IMO--in this case.
That is a new argument, that the civil trial rules were wrong. That should be on a different thread


Both sides do play games with evidence, both sides play games with the witnesses. Where is the justice two judges upholding a search warrant when they know the cops are lying? Where was the justice when Ito allowed the search warrant to stand but made it clear that Vanatter lied to get it. That Vanatter knew he was lying when he wrote it? Where is the justice in that?

Where was the justice when the evidence numbers kept on changing? Where was the justice when four state employees, four experts testified they didn't see any blood on the socks because they were dark but refused to use the equipment they needed to see it--if it was there?

The DA's had no interest in justice. They just wanted to win "The Big One" after so many losses and knew in the courtroom they were never going to do it so they went after the public. You have a habit of making disparaging remarks about other people's motives. You went too far on this one.

Name me on G poster who has ever expressed outrage at how Nicole was treated by the police? Why do you ask that? Should they have?

Putting my son in the defendents chair is rather hard because I don't have a son. That really isn't what you meant. You were making the point that how we feel depends on whose bull is being gored, who is hurt or helped. But if it was someone I cared for personally, I would not be allowed to be the judge or on the jury. If it was someone I cared about, a friend or relative, I might think a bribe to the judge or a tunnel into the jail/prison was OK. On the other hand, if it was someone I resented, I would probably think it was OK to throw the book at them. So I think we should try to think of it in more abstract terms.

On the other hand if it were a NG I might not care. Sick humor maybe.

I haven't studied the situation on the search warrants, so I will let lawyers argue about it. I thought that there was a trail of blood there, and that when there is a trail of blood, the search warrant is always granted, even retroactively. I thought that Lange or someone tried to make himself look smart by saying he knew that Orenthal was a suspect all along, and created a controversy there. I could be wrong.

Evidence numbers changing doesn't mean much to me. I never saw any evidence that this means something crooked was going on. I doubt there has been a supreme court decison on evidence numbers changing. I suppose current or former employees could comment on that more than me.

It does seem odd that some of the evidence was processed quite some time after it was collected. I don't know enough say that this means it was rigged.
I don't think it was.

I doubt Marcia Clark or the other lawyers were as loyal to the prosecutors office as they were to their own careers. I can't imagine Marcia staying up nights with anger because the dept lost some case she wasn't on. This isn't a slam on Marcia Clark, I am just writing about the fact that people in large organization usually don't have a strong emotional loyalty to the organization.

[William Anthony]

I think many black people admire Cochran because he won a verbal duel with the LA prosecutors office, and therefore a symbolic victory over white americans.



The magnificent one was highly respected before the alleged Trial of the Century, although I will admit that I never heard of him prior to that.

[William Anthony]

In Petrocelli's book they staged some mock juries, and the juries were polorized by race. Petrocelli quoted one black woman, a college graduate, who after the mock jury decision stated:"I still don't know if Simpson was guilty or not, but when I heard the innocent verdict, I was happy, I thought this is one black man that they won't be sending to prison". I could understand and sympathisze with her for feeling this way, but I wouldn't want to deal with her; at least not where these emotions would come up.



She did not hear a verdict of innocence. If she does not know, if Simpson is guilty or not, then proof beyond a reasonable doubt had not been presented, IMHO. I can't speak for her but I do not need your sympathy, send money.

[William Anthony]

I think that many whites are reluctant to deal with blacks except at arms length distance because of things like that. Martin's hostility and scorn for Fred Goldman, and his sympathy for Orenthal Simpson is another example of the type of bias that most whites are reluctant to deal with. I am willing to write about these things, but it is hard to use a thread for both racial problems and the Simpson cases at the same time. The two subjects are two big, arouse too much emotion. It is better to keep race as a background subject here.

Let's just pretend that its not there and let's not discuss it, because Whites perceive Blacks as hostile and Whites don't want to deal with that and Whites should not have to so long as Blacks aren't allowed to bring it up, correct?

[martin II]

I think that supporters of the 1995 innocent verdict are often guilty of double standards and a lack of interest in justice. One example of this is William Anthony's (didn't use the initials there) calling Cochran the Magnificent one, and also harshly criticizing Petrocelli for coaching or leading a witness. Harsh is a matter of degree, Mr. Anthony's criticism of Petrocelli could very easily have been harsher.

Mr. Cochran broke the mutual discovery law 14 times on his opening speech for the criminal trial. He got an official rebuke from Ito for this. I am pretty sure he got an second official rebuke for a second violation of the discovery law, although I don't remember what for.

Mr. Petrocelli didn't recieve an official rebuke from the judge, although I think the judge upheld Mr. Baker's objection.

I think that Mr. Cochran's mistakes were worse because he got an official rebuke, and Petrocelli didn't, and Cochran repeated the mistake. Also breaking the discovery law as often as Cochran did involved conscious premeditaton. I think that leading or coaching a witness could be done as a spur of the moment thing, being carried away with emotion.

As far as racial bias, I think the experiments with mock juries and public opinion polls showed that race bias was a part of Americans thoughts on the subject. I think that race bias probably was part of the 1995 jury's decision.

I think many black people admire Cochran because he won a verbal duel with the LA prosecutors office, and therefore a symbolic victory over white americans.

In Petrocelli's book they staged some mock juries, and the juries were polorized by race. Petrocelli quoted one black woman, a college graduate, who after the mock jury decision stated:"I still don't know if Simpson was guilty or not, but when I heard the innocent verdict, I was happy, I thought this is one black man that they won't be sending to prison". I could understand and sympathisze with her for feeling this way, but I wouldn't want to deal with her; at least not where these emotions would come up.

I think that many whites are reluctant to deal with blacks except at arms length distance because of things like that. Martin's hostility and scorn for Fred Goldman, and his sympathy for Orenthal Simpson is another example of the type of bias that most whites are reluctant to deal with. I am willing to write about these things, but it is hard to use a thread for both racial problems and the Simpson cases at the same time. The two subjects are two big, arouse too much emotion. It is better to keep race as a background subject here.


Are you totally unable to understand what most legal minds understood that
Cochran and his team were the superior legal minds with superior legal skills in the trial.Is it impossible for you to understand that some blacks respected him for his courtroom skills in winning the case that some had thought was a slam dunk for the prosecution?

Many Gs have been very critical of the way the prosecution handeled and presented their case.Many legal minds have blamed the failure on Clarke,Darden, Gil Garcetti LE and the many what you call MISTAKES by the lab.Others have blammed ITO, Furhman and even the CJS.

You on the other hand are willing to pass on what so many have identified as the reasons the prosecution lost the case and just say the jury was biased in their verdict.

I see biase against OJ Simpson and especially the jury all over your comment.
imo

[martin II]

Let's just pretend that its not there and let's not discuss it, because Whites perceive Blacks as hostile and Whites don't want to deal with that and Whites should not have to so long as Blacks aren't allowed to bring it up, correct?

The poster seems to be saying that if whites don't like a subject for some reason then blacks have no right to speak on it.God knows that whites must approve the subject matter before discussion is allowed.imo

[William Anthony]

The poster seems to be saying that if whites don't like a subject for some reason then blacks have no right to speak on it.God knows that whites must approve the subject matter before discussion is allowed.imo

I think we must allow the benefit of reasonable doubt as I am sure that is not what the poster meant or, at least, I hope it isn't.

[martin II]

Putting my son in the defendents chair is rather hard because I don't have a son. That really isn't what you meant. You were making the point that how we feel depends on whose bull is being gored, who is hurt or helped. But if it was someone I cared for personally, I would not be allowed to be the judge or on the jury. If it was someone I cared about, a friend or relative, I might think a bribe to the judge or a tunnel into the jail/prison was OK. On the other hand, if it was someone I resented, I would probably think it was OK to throw the book at them. So I think we should try to think of it in more abstract terms.

On the other hand if it were a NG I might not care. Sick humor maybe.

I haven't studied the situation on the search warrants, so I will let lawyers argue about it. I thought that there was a trail of blood there, and that when there is a trail of blood, the search warrant is always granted, even retroactively. I thought that Lange or someone tried to make himself look smart by saying he knew that Orenthal was a suspect all along, and created a controversy there. I could be wrong.

Evidence numbers changing doesn't mean much to me. I never saw any evidence that this means something crooked was going on. I doubt there has been a supreme court decison on evidence numbers changing. I suppose current or former employees could comment on that more than me.

It does seem odd that some of the evidence was processed quite some time after it was collected. I don't know enough say that this means it was rigged.
I don't think it was.

I doubt Marcia Clark or the other lawyers were as loyal to the prosecutors office as they were to their own careers. I can't imagine Marcia staying up nights with anger because the dept lost some case she wasn't on. This isn't a slam on Marcia Clark, I am just writing about the fact that people in large organization usually don't have a strong emotional loyalty to the organization.
Vanhatter lied about many things to the warrant judge one lie was that there was blood when no sample had been collectred or tested to be blood.
But with you it really makes no differance if he lied or not or that he tricked the judge into giving him the warrant that allowed him to illegally search ojs property because you believed oj was guilty. Yet you claim you are interested in justice and the defence was not.What a crock.imo

[martin II]

The magnificent one was highly respected before the alleged Trial of the Century, although I will admit that I never heard of him prior to that.

The Magnificent one was a well respected prosecutor, then defence lawyer before and after the oj trial.His most famous showing of skills and personal satisfaction was the G Pratt case.

[martin II]

I think we must allow the benefit of reasonable doubt as I am sure that is not what the poster meant or, at least, I hope it isn't.

It sounded like that to me but lets hope it was not.

[William Anthony]

The Magnificent one was a well respected prosecutor, then defence lawyer before and after the oj trial.His most famous showing of skills and personal satisfaction was the G Pratt case.

He was to be admired for his courtroom skills and his accomplishments in the profession, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

It sounded like that to me but lets hope it was not.

I believe in the presumption of innocence. :)

[martin II]

He was to be admired for his courtroom skills and his accomplishments in the profession, IMHO.

Based on his professional awards, the legal profession thought so.

[martin II]

QUOTE=fgump2;9192208]Putting my son in the defendents chair is rather hard because I don't have a son. That really isn't what you meant. You were making the point that how we feel depends on whose bull is being gored, who is hurt or helped. But if it was someone I cared for personally, I would not be allowed to be the judge or on the jury. If it was someone I cared about, a friend or relative, I might think a bribe to the judge or a tunnel into the jail/prison was OK. On the other hand, if it was someone I resented, I would probably think it was OK to throw the book at them. So I think we should try to think of it in more abstract terms.

On the other hand if it were a NG I might not care. Sick humor maybe.

I haven't studied the situation on the search warrants, so I will let lawyers argue about it. I thought that there was a trail of blood there, and that when there is a trail of blood, the search warrant is always granted, even retroactively. I thought that Lange or someone tried to make himself look smart by saying he knew that Orenthal was a suspect all along, and created a controversy there. I could be wrong.

Evidence numbers changing doesn't mean much to me. The purpose of the evidence sheet is to show what evidence was collected and in what sequence so that the evidence collection is done in a orderly manner.Changing the order of evidence collection can mean that it was not done in a orderly manner .I never saw any evidence that this means something crooked was going on. I doubt there has been a supreme court decison on evidence numbers changing. I suppose current or former employees could comment on that more than me.

It does seem odd that some of the evidence was processed quite some time after it was collected. I don't know enough say that this means it was rigged.
I don't think it was.

I doubt Marcia Clark or the other lawyers were as loyal to the prosecutors office as they were to their own careers. I can't imagine Marcia staying up nights with anger because the dept lost some case she wasn't on. This isn't a slam on Marcia Clark, I am just writing about the fact that people in large organization usually don't have a strong emotional loyalty to the organization.[/QUOTE]

[fgump2]

Fgump2

Are we to understand that your negative comments and untruths about OJ Simpson are the results of your honest and fair minded use of your LOGIC and my comments about Fred Goldman are the results of my unfair bias against him? Are opinions different from yours all based on bias and yours are based on logical progressions of facts and honesty? Your opinion that whites are reluctant to deal with blacks is based on some logical factual study conducted
by you or someone you trust?
The larger question is if it were true that whites are reluctant to deal with blacks,this means what? Exactly what differance does this make?

All of us have biases, including unfair biases. Most of us try to be fair. I believe blacks and other minorities have valid complaints. I don't believe that the great admiration that many blacks felt for Cochran was base primarily on an admiration for Cochran's legal skills, or those of the team he worked on (Bailey, etc). I think it was that he had battled with the largely white LA Prosecutor's office and won, not that justice had triumphed. There were large numbers of blacks who applauded the 1995 acquittal. Almost none of them expressed much interest in furthur study of the evidence to see if it was rigged, to study the EDTA evidence for example. Of course the pro prosecution people weren't asking for study of it either, but I think the pro defense people were coming up with a more illogical view points. They were saying: There is reason to think the evidence was tampered with, that Mr. SImpson was framed; however we have no desire for a commission or a group of experts to investigate it. I have to assume that a lot of people who were making the charges were afraid of being proved wrong. For example Mr. Scheck, in the trial directly accused D. Fung of evidence tampering because he was afraid of his boss. Mr. Scheck offered no evidence of this, nor did he ask anybody to investigate the situation afterwards. It seemed like, throw a lot of mud against a wall and hope some of it sticks. I found it depressing to see people applaud this sort of behavior, and I think that people who do the applauding should feel a little shame.

In spite of this I don't say that blacks are more racially prejudiced whites. I think probably in most situations where whites are reluctant to be around blacks it has more to do with their own biases than fear of black racism.

I know that I am stepping on toes here, and in spite of whatever disagreements I have with others, I don't think of myself as morally superior overall to the other posters.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9192208]Putting my son in the defendents chair is rather hard because I don't have a son. That really isn't what you meant. You were making the point that how we feel depends on whose bull is being gored, who is hurt or helped. But if it was someone I cared for personally, I would not be allowed to be the judge or on the jury. If it was someone I cared about, a friend or relative, I might think a bribe to the judge or a tunnel into the jail/prison was OK. On the other hand, if it was someone I resented, I would probably think it was OK to throw the book at them. So I think we should try to think of it in more abstract terms.

fgump2,

If your first thought is to bribe a judge or dig tunnel for escape, aren't you assuming your loved one is guilty even before a trial takes place? Before the evidence was presented by both sides?

[William Anthony]

All of us have biases, including unfair biases. Most of us try to be fair. I believe blacks and other minorities have valid complaints. I don't believe that the great admiration that many blacks felt for Cochran was base primarily on an admiration for Cochran's legal skills, or those of the team he worked on (Bailey, etc). I think it was that he had battled with the largely white LA Prosecutor's office and won, not that justice had triumphed. There were large numbers of blacks who applauded the 1995 acquittal. Almost none of them expressed much interest in furthur study of the evidence to see if it was rigged, to study the EDTA evidence for example. Of course the pro prosecution people weren't asking for study of it either, but I think the pro defense people were coming up with a more illogical view points. They were saying: There is reason to think the evidence was tampered with, that Mr. SImpson was framed; however we have no desire for a commission or a group of experts to investigate it. I have to assume that a lot of people who were making the charges were afraid of being proved wrong. For example Mr. Scheck, in the trial directly accused D. Fung of evidence tampering because he was afraid of his boss. Mr. Scheck offered no evidence of this, nor did he ask anybody to investigate the situation afterwards. It seemed like, throw a lot of mud against a wall and hope some of it sticks. I found it depressing to see people applaud this sort of behavior, and I think that people who do the applauding should feel a little shame.

In spite of this I don't say that blacks are more racially prejudiced whites. I think probably in most situations where whites are reluctant to be around blacks it has more to do with their own biases than fear of black racism.

I know that I am stepping on toes here, and in spite of whatever disagreements I have with others, I don't think of myself as morally superior overall to the other posters.

Do you see something wrong with someone admiring a person, who fought against a corrupt system and won? Why do you think people had the power to study the evidence to see if it was rigged? I provided an article that studied the EDTA amounts in human blood that had not been preserved, which showed that by the results of that study, the EDTA Martz claimed to have found would have been planted. I think that people, who cannot see the evidence of planting and who defend LE to the highest but have not asked for an investigation to see whether or not the evidence was rigged, should feel more than ashamed.

Could it be that Caucasians are reluctant to be around Blacks due to the fact of Caucasian racial bias?

[martin II]

All of us have biases, including unfair biases. Most of us try to be fair. I believe blacks and other minorities have valid complaints. I don't believe that the great admiration that many blacks felt for Cochran was base primarily on an admiration for Cochran's legal skills, or those of the team he worked on (Bailey, etc). I think it was that he had battled with the largely white LA Prosecutor's office and won, not that justice had triumphed. There were large numbers of blacks who applauded the 1995 acquittal. Almost none of them expressed much interest in furthur study of the evidence to see if it was rigged, to study the EDTA evidence for example. Of course the pro prosecution people weren't asking for study of it either, but I think the pro defense people were coming up with a more illogical view points. They were saying: There is reason to think the evidence was tampered with, that Mr. SImpson was framed; however we have no desire for a commission or a group of experts to investigate it. I have to assume that a lot of people who were making the charges were afraid of being proved wrong. For example Mr. Scheck, in the trial directly accused D. Fung of evidence tampering because he was afraid of his boss. Mr. Scheck offered no evidence of this, nor did he ask anybody to investigate the situation afterwards. It seemed like, throw a lot of mud against a wall and hope some of it sticks. I found it depressing to see people applaud this sort of behavior, and I think that people who do the applauding should feel a little shame.

In spite of this I don't say that blacks are more racially prejudiced whites. I think probably in most situations where whites are reluctant to be around blacks it has more to do with their own biases than fear of black racism.

I know that I am stepping on toes here, and in spite of whatever disagreements I have with others, I don't think of myself as morally superior overall to the other posters.

You have based your argument on a invalid issue.I personally do not know of any defence where the client was judged to be Not Guilty has demanded a special commission to study and prove their claims that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.If you know of one please make it known to us.If not then i believe you are attempting to require the oj defence to do something that that no other defence is required to do.

You still seem to want to ignore the law that states that the defence is not required to prove anything EVER When the defence attacks any prosecution claim to the proint that reasonable doubt has been created, their job is complete on that issue.

On EDTA. Martz did a great job in showing the jury that his study was a disaster and that his claims could not be believed so there was nothing that the defence would be required to do as reasonable doubt had been established by him.Have you asked yourself why the prosecution, after asking Martz to study the situation to prove their point did not even respect it enough to call him as THEIR witness.

If blacks thought the verdict was fair, why do you think they should have demamded a investigation of a case that had been decided by a legal CJS jury.Again it seems you are requiring some blacks to do something that whites are not required to do.Did whites demand a special investigation into Vanhatters lies to the warrant judge.Did whites demand a special investigation into why Clarke said the murders took place at 10:15?Did whites demand a special investigation into why the lapd lab did not find blood on the sock until several weeks later.Did whites demand a special investigation into
why the sweats were examined and no blood was found and then the sweats dissapeared after last being in the posession of le?

Exactly how and why would special investigations be set up to prove or dissprove defence claims against prosecution claims? Has this ever been done before?

I don't know of any statement by Schack that Fung was afraid of his boss.Do you have a link to this statement by him?

I think the issue of whether whites are reluctant to be around blacks is a non issue because it means nothing but that some whites have racist issues as you seem to have stated which we all know has a ring of truth to it.

I am pleased to see you have cleared up the tone of some of your comments by your last statement.Thanks for that.
imo