Random Discussions On The Case

[William Anthony]

:seeya::seeya::seeya::seeya::seeya: You might consider getting some help for your obsession with skin color.

I think that should apply to you also, as you were the one to mention the fact that you read Blacks jurors segregated themselves. :)

[tv]

Kayleighjo jumped on your soap box and you thanked her. I simply stated that is not how I interpreted GreenIce's post. I simply was not limiting what GreenIce said in her post to you but I saw it as another way of saying what I said, which is that Caucasians, to include you, do not have the right to negate the feelings of Blacks or tell Blacks how they should feel.

Okay, William. I really don't have the energy to take on the last hundred years today. You guys have a nice day complaining about your lot in life.

[tv]

I think that should apply to you also, as you were the one to mention the fact that you read Blacks jurors segregated themselves. :)

Yes, I did, because it's a part of the trial. Don't you understand the difference?

[William Anthony]

Yes, I did, because it's a part of the trial. Don't you understand the difference?

I understand that you brought the subject matter of the jurors skin color to the board in an effort to show that they were racially biased, because they segregated themselves. I tried to explain to you that was not the automatic inference to be drawn from that behavior and that the Caucasians should have protested the segregation, like the Blacks did, unless the Caucasians were comfortable with it. Do you understand that the concept of segregation, which you spoke of in context of the jurors, is harmful to both races and should not be condoned by either as to the point of jury deliberations?

[William Anthony]

Okay, William. I really don't have the energy to take on the last hundred years today. You guys have a nice day complaining about your lot in life.

Not complaining just keeping alive America's history so that those mistakes are not remade.

[weezer]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9194009]

Thank you as that is what I took that post to mean.

you must be really tired working as hard as you did to get her to post THAT. :tongue:

[William Anthony]

GreenIce has satisfied my sufficiency. :)

[tv]

[QUOTE=William Anthony;9194039]

you must be really tired working as hard as you did to get her to post THAT. :tongue:

I tell you, weezer, this is a full time job for these guys.

[William Anthony]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;9194103]

I tell you, weezer, this is a full time job for these guys.

Luckily, you ladies keep us employed. :)

[martin II]

Not complaining just keeping alive America's history so that those mistakes are not remade.

From where i sit my lot in life is quite good but that does not mean i have to be ignorant about american history as it relates to racism. imo you seem to be doing quite well also.

[tv]

From where i sit my lot in life is quite good but that does not mean i have to be ignorant about american history as it relates to racism. imo you seem to be doing quite well also.

For all you know I'm on a computer in the public library and live in a cardboard box on the street. We're not here to discuss american history. This is a forum about Ron and Nicole and the the trials of OJ Simpson.

[weezer]

[QUOTE=fbgweezer;9194103]

I tell you, weezer, this is a full time job for these guys.

I figured out a long time ago that if they can't b*tch, complain, and blame it on someone else, they'd have to 'man-up' AND we know that ain't happening.

newsflash to the whiners: most people are where and what they are in life because of their CHOICES and ACTIONS.

[weezer]

From where i sit my lot in life is quite good but that does not mean i have to be ignorant about american history as it relates to racism. imo you seem to be doing quite well also.

but you are ignorant about American hisotry -- read something besides jackson, sharpton, farakhan, and wright.

[William Anthony]

From where i sit my lot in life is quite good but that does not mean i have to be ignorant about american history as it relates to racism. imo you seem to be doing quite well also.

Yes. I am doing alright but do not have as much as I want but I learned that through studying American history and the idea of capitalism. :)

[William Anthony]

For all you know I'm on a computer in the public library and live in a cardboard box on the street. We're not here to discuss american history. This is a forum about Ron and Nicole and the the trials of OJ Simpson.

We are not here to discuss what it is about the jury that would make you say that they were racially biased or if their actions and statements could be seen in another way, because you have the authority to tell us what we are here to discuss, correct or should I say you think you have that authority?

[weezer]

We are not here to discuss what it is about the jury that would make you say that they were racially biased or if their actions and statements could be seen in another way, because you have the authority to tell us what we are here to discuss, correct or should I say you think you have that authority?

your personal attacks are beginning to get tiresome william.

[weezer]

Yes. I am doing alright but do not have as much as I want but I learned that through studying American history and the idea of capitalism. :)

I'm doing okay too but would be even better if not for what the government takes to give to those folks that believe they're entitled to more than what they're willing to work for. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

How about those, whose ancestors worked and were suffered the victimization of segregation and irreparable damage done from years of such victimization and the effects of which will carry on long into the future?

[William Anthony]

I think a poster has me confused, as I have not personally attacked any poster, even though there were posts made attacking Martin and me. I did ask questions of a poster in regard to the post made by that poster. To call it otherwise is disingenuous, IMHO.

[weezer]

How about those, whose ancestors worked and were suffered the victimization of segregation and irreparable damage done from years of such victimization and the effects of which will carry on long into the future?

oh Lord! would you please, please stop! or someone is going to have to call the WAAAmbulance for you!

[weezer]

I think a poster has me confused, as I have not personally attacked any poster, even though there were posts made attacking Martin and me. I did ask questions of a poster in regard to the post made by that poster. To call it otherwise is disingenuous, IMHO.

I'm not confused william --

[William Anthony]

but you are ignorant about American hisotry -- read something besides jackson, sharpton, farakhan, and wright.

I figured out a long time ago that if they can't b*tch, complain, and blame it on someone else, they'd have to 'man-up' AND we know that ain't happening.

You might consider getting some help for your obsession with skin color.

Sound like personal attacks to me. :)

[weezer]

Sound like personal attacks to me. :)

really? sounds like wake-up calls to me -- :seeya:

[fgump2]

The key word in your post to me is probable. It was just as probable that it was not a footprint. It was not the defense who planted the idea that the blood in the Bronco was planted by MF. It was MF, when he testified to seeing blood in the Bronco at a time he could not have seen blood in the Bronco, unless he was in the Bronco.
If it wasn't a footprint then what was it?
The main point I was making here was that the defense had two contradictory theories on how the blood got in the Bronco

TO me the quotes by Bailey and Cochran clearly indicate that Fuhrman put blood in the the Bronco early Mondy, June 13. And yet the defense also claimed that the bronco had no blood in it for weeks later.

I know I have brought this up before, and the defense side of this still makes no sense to me. I thought the LAPD announced there was blood in the Bronco less than a week after the killings. I could be wrong on this. I think the defense also claimed that the LAPD waited a few weeks and then smeared some blood in. Is this their claim? I would have thought if they planted blood in it weeks later it would have been by eye droppers.

Also another point about blood that makes no sense to me is the defense claim that the blood on the Rockingham glove looked like it was damp in the early morning of Monday, June 13, around 6:30 or so, and that this was evidence the glove was in a plastic bag for a while.

There would probably have been some dew present then. There is most mornings that early.

[fgump2]

Lie, "MF did not admit to evidence planting/fabricating/manipulating."

Mark Fuhrman also said on tape that he didn't plant the glove or other evidence in the Simpson case. So if we are to assume he told the truth when he said he planted evidence against interracial couples we should also assume he told the truth when he said he didn't plant the glove.

I disagree about using the N word. I think you give a word too much power if you say never used it. I agree that it should seldom be used, and probably never in ordinary social situations. I have no trouble with Blacks using it in a friendly kidding manner. I think sometimes in serious plays and other serious writings, it is OK, although I know some people take it the wrong way. I am pretty sure that Mark Twain used that word in Huckleberry Finn and other things he wrote, and yet I think anyone who reads much of Twain knows that he was strongly opposed to racism, and was once fired from a newspaper job for writing against racism.

I believe that people's feelings are important, and it is easy for a majority group person to not realize the feelins of insecurity and hurt feelings that minority group people have. I have made some mistakes in this area. Blacks aren't the only group who have felt stung about things like this.

[weezer]

Mark Fuhrman also said on tape that he didn't plant the glove or other evidence in the Simpson case. So if we are to assume he told the truth when he said he planted evidence against interracial couples we should also assume he told the truth when he said he didn't plant the glove.

I disagree about using the N word. I think you give a word too much power if you say never used it. I agree that it should seldom be used, and probably never in ordinary social situations. I have no trouble with Blacks using it in a friendly kidding manner. I think sometimes in serious plays and other serious writings, it is OK, although I know some people take it the wrong way. I am pretty sure that Mark Twain used that word in Huckleberry Finn and other things he wrote, and yet I think anyone who reads much of Twain knows that he was strongly opposed to racism, and was once fired from a newspaper job for writing against racism.

I believe that people's feelings are important, and it is easy for a majority group person to not realize the feelins of insecurity and hurt feelings that minority group people have. I have made some mistakes in this area. Blacks aren't the only group who have felt stung about things like this.

:beer::beer:

". . .I know there are blacks who say, "I can use the N-word because I mean it endearingly." I don't believe that. I believe it is vulgar and dangerous, given from any mouth to any ear. I know that if poison is in a vial which says P-O-I-S-O-N and has a skull and the cross bones, that it is poison. But if you pour the same thing into Bavarian crystal it is still poison. So I think racism is vulgar any way you cut it. . . ." Maya Angelou

[fgump2]

My inferences are drawn for all the testimonies and are not dependent on a bunch of ifs, could haves, maybe, entirely possibles and evidentlys. :)

This is true and this is what I told you, "Park’s telephone records only document the time phone calls were made and the time they ended." However, you want to now use them to document the time Kato left his room and when Kato heard the thumps, which can't be done. An argument can be made to that effect but to claim that the phone records document anything other than what I have told you they document is an incorrect claim, IMHO.

I must admit I havn't read most of the postings between Bob and William about Park and Kaelin, but I think that if we read and thing about Park's testimony, it supports the idea that Orenthal Simpson was guilty; regardless of discrepancies between Park and Kaelin.

First of all Park said he didn't see the Bronco when he was looking for the address, and also that another vehicle seems to have shown up by the time he left. Since Park was looking at the curb for the address, I give a fair amount of weight to his testimony. An important point here was how close was the Bronco to the address number on the curb. Would the positition of the Bronco made it more difficult for Park to see the address number?

Another point that supports a guilty verdict was that Park first saw a person outside who was probably Simpson, and then a few minutes later Simpson called on the phone and said he just got out of the shower. If he really got out of the shower, it would have made more sense to phone when he just got out, then go outside with luggage.

I think there were other things that indicated guilt, such as Simpson wanting to handle a certain piece of luggage.

[tv]

I understand that you brought the subject matter of the jurors skin color to the board in an effort to show that they were racially biased, because they segregated themselves. I tried to explain to you that was not the automatic inference to be drawn from that behavior and that the Caucasians should have protested the segregation, like the Blacks did, unless the Caucasians were comfortable with it. Do you understand that the concept of segregation, which you spoke of in context of the jurors, is harmful to both races and should not be condoned by either as to the point of jury deliberations?

My first comment on the subject was that it was well-known that they segregated themselves. I then realized it isn't a hard fact but is reportedly in the forewoman's book. I also said that I've ordered the book by the forewoman and I would find out if it's true or not. I did not say that they segregated themselves because they're racially biased. That was your inference. For all I know, if it's true, the other jurors had bad breath so the black jurors stayed away from them. I'll let you know.

[weezer]

My first comment on the subject was that it was well-known that they segregated themselves. I then realized it isn't a hard fact but is reportedly in the forewoman's book. I also said that I've ordered the book by the forewoman and I would find out if it's true or not. I did not say that they segregated themselves because they're racially biased. That was your inference. For all I know, if it's true, the other jurors had bad breath so the black jurors stayed away from them. I'll let you know.

LOL -- I'm waiting for you to be accused of being racist because you excluded the black jurors from having bad breath! :D

[tv]

LOL -- I'm waiting for you to be accused of being racist because you excluded the black jurors from having bad breath! :D

Nothing would surprise me at this point! LOL

[tv]

[QUOTE=tvdinner;9194105]

Luckily, you ladies keep us employed. :)

Ladies? Don't tell me you've had a change of heart. :eek:

[martin II]

My first comment on the subject was that it was well-known that they segregated themselves. I then realized it isn't a hard fact but is reportedly in the forewoman's book. I also said that I've ordered the book by the forewoman and I would find out if it's true or not. I did not say that they segregated themselves because they're racially biased. That was your inference. For all I know, if it's true, the other jurors had bad breath so the black jurors stayed away from them. I'll let you know.

i think it was the juror that was kicked off early on that made that comment to the media.janet something.

[William Anthony]

If those are examples of southern hospitality as to wake up calls, I will not be requesting one.

[martin II]

I must admit I havn't read most of the postings between Bob and William about Park and Kaelin, but I think that if we read and thing about Park's testimony, it supports the idea that Orenthal Simpson was guilty; regardless of discrepancies between Park and Kaelin.

First of all Park said he didn't see the Bronco when he was looking for the address, and also that another vehicle seems to have shown up by the time he left. Since Park was looking at the curb for the address, I give a fair amount of weight to his testimony. An important point here was how close was the Bronco to the address number on the curb. Would the positition of the Bronco made it more difficult for Park to see the address number?the rear of the bronco was about 3-4 feet in front of the address on the curb.see the picture

Another point that supports a guilty verdict was that Park first saw a person outside who was probably Simpson, and then a few minutes later Simpson called on the phone and said he just got out of the shower.simpson DID NOT CALL PARK ON ANY PHONE If he really got out of the shower, it would have made more sense to phone when he just got out, then go outside with luggage.

I think there were other things that indicated guilt, such as Simpson wanting to handle a certain piece of luggage.


The facts do not support what you think they are and therefore why you say points to guilty.check your facts first is a good idea.

[tv]

i think it was the juror that was kicked off early on that made that comment to the media.janet something.
Maybe so. I don't know -- I heard it was in Armanda Cooley's book. Since it seems to be taking the scenic route getting to me since I ordered it on Amazon I'll just have to be patient.

[tv]

If those are examples of southern hospitality as to wake up calls, I will not be requesting one.

You don't have to make a request, we southerners anticipate what you need before you even realize it yourself. :)

[William Anthony]

If it wasn't a footprint then what was it?
The main point I was making here was that the defense had two contradictory theories on how the blood got in the Bronco

TO me the quotes by Bailey and Cochran clearly indicate that Fuhrman put blood in the the Bronco early Mondy, June 13. And yet the defense also claimed that the bronco had no blood in it for weeks later.

I know I have brought this up before, and the defense side of this still makes no sense to me. I thought the LAPD announced there was blood in the Bronco less than a week after the killings. I could be wrong on this. I think the defense also claimed that the LAPD waited a few weeks and then smeared some blood in. Is this their claim? I would have thought if they planted blood in it weeks later it would have been by eye droppers.

Also another point about blood that makes no sense to me is the defense claim that the blood on the Rockingham glove looked like it was damp in the early morning of Monday, June 13, around 6:30 or so, and that this was evidence the glove was in a plastic bag for a while.

There would probably have been some dew present then. There is most mornings that early.

I think you should read the expert's testimony on the alleged shoe print. Also, the glove appearing moist on the glove makes no sense and there was no evidence of dew or any other moisture on the gloves. My understanding is that the defense was talking about different areas of the Bronco and when the blood could have been seen.

[William Anthony]

You don't have to make a request, we southerners anticipate what you need before you even realize it yourself. :)

That's what I meant by Caucasians telling Blacks how they should feel. :)

[tv]

That's what I meant by Caucasians telling Blacks how they should feel. :)
We're hospitable to all colors. Besides, in case you're not aware of this, some southerners are black. :)

[William Anthony]

Mark Fuhrman also said on tape that he didn't plant the glove or other evidence in the Simpson case. So if we are to assume he told the truth when he said he planted evidence against interracial couples we should also assume he told the truth when he said he didn't plant the glove. FIRSTLY, YOUR ASSUMPTION FORGETS THAT HE RELATED INCIDENTS IN WHICH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE CRIMES HE RELATED ON THE TAPES HAD EXPIRED, BUT FOR, THE GLOVE INCIDENT, WHICH HE WAS ASKED ABOUT AND ANOTHER INCIDENT WHICH HE TOLD MS. LHM NOT TO USE, BECAUSE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD NOT EXPIRED.

I disagree about using the N word. I think you give a word too much power if you say never used it. I agree that it should seldom be used, and probably never in ordinary social situations. I have no trouble with Blacks using it in a friendly kidding manner. I think sometimes in serious plays and other serious writings, it is OK, although I know some people take it the wrong way. I am pretty sure that Mark Twain used that word in Huckleberry Finn and other things he wrote, and yet I think anyone who reads much of Twain knows that he was strongly opposed to racism, and was once fired from a newspaper job for writing against racism. MARK TWAIN WROTE TO MAKE MONEY AND THAT LANGUAGE SOLD, JUST AS RAPP MUSIC SELLS.

I believe that people's feelings are important, and it is easy for a majority group person to not realize the feelins of insecurity and hurt feelings that minority group people have. I have made some mistakes in this area. Blacks aren't the only group who have felt stung about things like this. I FEEL THAT IT IS MORE DISRESPECT THAN INSECURITY.

I do think I understand what you were trying to say.

[William Anthony]

We're hospitable to all colors. Besides, in case you're not aware of this, some southerners are black. :)

I disapprove of anyone thinking for me or trying to tell me what to do and I guess it is part of my personal bias to be more insulted when those things come from Caucasians, be they northern or southern.:)

[tv]

I disapprove of anyone thinking for me or trying to tell me what to do and I guess it is part of my personal bias to be more insulted when those things come from Caucasians, be they northern or southern.:)

It was a joke. You're wound a little too tight today. Have you forgotten about lighthearted banter?

[William Anthony]

Ms. Angelou is certainly as entitled to her opinion as I am mine. I am interested in hearing the posters' feelings.:) I understand that some may think that, because a Black person is famous, they speak for all other Blacks. I wonder if they feel that a famous Black person speaks for Caucasians.

[martin II]

My first comment on the subject was that it was well-known that they segregated themselves. I then realized it isn't a hard fact but is reportedly in the forewoman's book. I also said that I've ordered the book by the forewoman and I would find out if it's true or not. I did not say that they segregated themselves because they're racially biased. That was your inference. For all I know, if it's true, the other jurors had bad breath so the black jurors stayed away from them. I'll let you know.

nice TRY but no ticket.

[tv]

nice TRY but no ticket.

martin, go back to our discussion on 5/24 and read it for yourself. I never said they did it out of racial bias. If you don't want to find out what really happened you shouldn't comment on it. Nice try yourself.

[William Anthony]

I must admit I havn't read most of the postings between Bob and William about Park and Kaelin, but I think that if we read and thing about Park's testimony, it supports the idea that Orenthal Simpson was guilty; regardless of discrepancies between Park and Kaelin.

First of all Park said he didn't see the Bronco when he was looking for the address, and also that another vehicle seems to have shown up by the time he left. Since Park was looking at the curb for the address, I give a fair amount of weight to his testimony. An important point here was how close was the Bronco to the address number on the curb. Would the positition of the Bronco made it more difficult for Park to see the address number?

Another point that supports a guilty verdict was that Park first saw a person outside who was probably Simpson, and then a few minutes later Simpson called on the phone and said he just got out of the shower. If he really got out of the shower, it would have made more sense to phone when he just got out, then go outside with luggage.

I think there were other things that indicated guilt, such as Simpson wanting to handle a certain piece of luggage.

There has never been any identification that the figure Park allegedly saw was Simpson. I think Simpson said it was him, IIRC. Simpson was not obligated to give Park a play by play of his activities and just was letting him know the he was apologizing for running late or causing Park to wait, IMHO. The fact that he did not let Kato pick up a bag means he's guilty? Park admitted he was not looking for a Bronco and a vehicle attracted his attention as he was backing out of the driveway and that he did not hear any car come up or a car door close while he was waiting. Therefore, a logical inference is that the Bronco was there all the time and missed by Park.

[tv]

Ms. Angelou is certainly as entitled to her opinion as I am mine. I am interested in hearing the posters' feelings.:) I understand that some may think that, because a Black person is famous, they speak for all other Blacks. I wonder if they feel that a famous Black person speaks for Caucasians.

I prefer to think of it as speaking for all human beings regardless of their color. Isn't she some relation to martin or something?

[William Anthony]

It was a joke. You're wound a little too tight today. Have you forgotten about lighthearted banter?

Did you not see my smiley icon? The truth is, depending on how it is stated, I find remarks of people telling me what to do or how to feel insulting, regardless of the race of the speaker.:) I just find that Blacks do not do it in such an offensive way.:)

[William Anthony]

I prefer to think of it as speaking for all human beings regardless of their color. Isn't she some relation to martin or something?

I think she is Martin's cousin. I think of it as voicing a personal opinion, which may or may not be adopted by all people.

[William Anthony]

martin, go back to our discussion on 5/24 and read it for yourself. I never said they did it out of racial bias. If you don't want to find out what really happened you shouldn't comment on it. Nice try yourself.


Originally Posted by tvdinner View Post
They never got to him in the jury room, remember? According to the jury he played no role at all and neither did the blood evidence. I have to agree with GreenIce about one thing -- it was all decided when they went in. They had two people that voted guilty to begin with and it's my opinion that they were probably intimidated into changing their vote. I don't mind if you want to defend GreenIce. I may have misunderstood her wording because I seldom read or pay attention to what she says and she doesn't express herself very well at times.

It's well known that the black jurors segregated themselves from the others during the trial. I'm sure that animosity was felt in the jury room.

This is what you said.

[fgump2]

I do think I understand what you were trying to say.

I think that the N word and other racial and ethnic insults should not be a regular part of anybody's vocabulary; but it is all right to sometimes use that in situations like plays, or perhaps some serious book or discussions. I don't think of myself as a good judge of exactly where it is appropriate, just not very often.

[William Anthony]

I think that the N word and other racial and ethnic insults should not be a regular part of anybody's vocabulary; but it is all right to sometimes use that in situations like plays, or perhaps some serious book or discussions. I don't think of myself as a good judge of exactly where it is appropriate, just not very often.

I thought that was what you meant. I think that I would agree for the most part but I think that some type of control should be used when the word is used as we do not know how it will effect the audience and that should be taken into consideration. I think children should be informed about the word before allowing them to listen to creative works in which the word is used, and explained to that it is not proper to use that word to refer to any race of people, be they Black or Caucasian. I found the word, w****r to be especially offensive, because it implied that there had to be a separate word for Whites and meant that, despite their character, Blacks were still considered Ns.

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

It makes no sense that Matheson only tested the "big" blood stains and not the "little" blood stains. As you posted, he had no idea who's blood it was. Also, the blood drop that was Simpson's on the inside of the glove was not seen even after the lining was taken out. So now we have missed blood on the glove that goes with missed blood in the Bronco, the socks and the back gate. Sorry, this is another lame explaintion that is just impossible to believe, IMO.

Three people testified that they did not see blood where later it was "found" in the Bronco. The three people who testified to this would lie about not seeing blood because.......? The Bronco was never locked, at least one of the civilians looked at the inside of the Bronco twice and never saw blood. The Bronco was moved a few times, yet the DA's never called a witness from the towing companies or other civilians who looked into the Bronco and saw this blood?

Any testimony by the LAPD on this issue means nothing. There were more people who did not see the blood then these two officers. I don't remember posting that Lange testified about seeing blood in the Bronco, if I did post that, then I am sorry.

I thought it was Fung who was sent back to the Bronco? If it wasn't Fung, perhaps it was Michelle Kestler. However, the fact is, the Bronco was unlocked and no log was kept and many people did look inside the Bronco and did not see blood where it was later found.

GreenIce, it makes sense to me that larger blood stains can be tested quicker and easier than smaller blood stains. If I recall correctly PCR tests take longer then RFLP testing.

Your claim that three witnesses testified they didn’t see blood that was later found in the Bronco is incorrect. One witness only glanced into the Bronco before the blood was collected and the other two were inside the Bronco after it had been dusted for fingerprints, photographed, and the blood collected.

Detectives Vannatter and Fuhrman and Patrol Officers Thompson, Aston and Gonzalez all testified to seeing blood stains inside the Bronco on June 13 when the Bronco was still parked on Rockingham.

The tow truck driver who picked up the Bronco later in the afternoon on June 13 said he only glanced inside the Bronco, “a quick peek” and didn’t see anything inside except that the buttons were all down and the Bronco was locked. He delivered the Bronco to the print shed and a detective unlocked the steel doors so he could back the Bronco in and then left seeing the detective close and lock the steel doors.

The morning of June 14 the inside of the Bronco was fingerprinted, photographed and blood collected as well as a piece of the driver’s floor carpet was cut on that contained a partial bloody shoe print.

The tow truck driver who picked up the Bronco late morning on June 15 and delivered it the police garage testified that he didn’t see any blood or fingerprint dust in the Bronco but he did see part of the carpet missing. He also took some credit card receipts from the Bronco. He also lied about taking the receipts before returning them. He was shown the photographs taken on the June 14 of the blood and fingerprint dust he said he didn’t see.

The third witness had visited the garage on June 21 and testified he didn’t see any blood or fingerprint dust that the photographs show was there on June 14. This witness said that he was expecting to see big globs of blood.

You claim there were more people who did not see the blood then these two officers. Lange never said he didn’t see blood inside the Bronco; he was never asked that question.

Who is the officer that you are claiming said he didn’t see blood in the Bronco?

Who are these “many more people” who you are claiming said they didn’t see blood in the Bronco?

bobaugust

[martin II]

TV

It is well known by who? you and who else?intimadated by who?

It's well known that the black jurors segregated themselves from the others during the trial. I'm sure that animosity was felt in the jury room.

[William Anthony]

You claim there were more people who did not see the blood then these two officers. Lange never said he didn’t see blood inside the Bronco; he was never asked that question.

Why bobaugust, I see you are learning. :) After telling me that my claim was meaningless that Kato did not testify to going directly to the gate box, because Kato was never asked the question, you now say that Lang never said he didn't see blood inside the Bronco, because he was never asked the question.:)

I see you will change positions, depending on which position suits your conclusion, which, if you don't mind or even if you do, I will pat myself on the back for being correct about that also. :)

[GreenIce]

There is nothing to wriggle out of.

Originally Posted by tvdinner
I reposted it so you and she couldn't wiggle out of the comments you made and the denial that she made. Her irresponsible diatribes should be an embarrassment to her but I don't think either one of you get that.

William and Martin,

I have to say that I am flattered by TV and K's responses to my post. The lengths and the frenzy they went to totally misrepresent a post is truly an honor.

I feel no embarrassment at all. However, perhaps these two are embarrassed on how they defended MF and how they continue to do so.

During the trial, did any of you hear one police official give a press conference to say that racial and ethnics slurs are not used by members of the LAPD? Didn't Goldberg write in his book that as said as it is, that slurs are still used today? No one in law enforcement, to include the DA's were shocked by Fuhrman's words. They were shocked that for the first time in history they have a cop on tape doing what he swore he didn't do.

Please note that neither two of these characters had the character to answer the questions. Why would a person not allow to word to be used inside her home or by her children yet would defend a self admitted racist, evidence planting, lying SOB of a cop?

Please note, neither of these two answered the question, which is worse, the only good African-American is a dead one vs the only good n-word is a dead one.

Apparently because of their support of MF, they obviously don't think it is an important question, IMO.

[weezer]

let me make sure I'm understanding you guys: if a black uses the n-word, that's okay and if a white uses the n-word, that's bad.

once we make sure everyone understands this, can we get back to posting about orenthal, the butcher of brentwood?

[tv]

TV

It is well known by who? you and who else?intimadated by who?

It's well known that the black jurors segregated themselves from the others during the trial. I'm sure that animosity was felt in the jury room.

I already told you I was mistaken about it being well known and that I would wait until I read Armanda Cooley's book to make up my mind. I'm sure if they shunned or otherwise separated themselves from the other jurors it caused tension. Sorry if you have a problem with that.

[tv]

let me make sure I'm understanding you guys: if a black uses the n-word, that's okay and if a white uses the n-word, that's bad.

once we make sure everyone understands this, can we get back to posting about orenthal, the butcher of brentwood?

I don't think that's ever going to happen. This has turned into the blame game forum. If we don't publicly denounce Mark Fuhrman at least once a day then it starts. It's getting to the point of Ron who? Nicole who?

[tv]

O



This is what you said.

If you can point out where I said it was done due to racial bias please show me.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, it makes sense to me that larger blood stains can be tested quicker and easier than smaller blood stains. If I recall correctly PCR tests take longer then RFLP testing.

Your claim that three witnesses testified they didn’t see blood that was later found in the Bronco is incorrect. One witness only glanced into the Bronco before the blood was collected and the other two were inside the Bronco after it had been dusted for fingerprints, photographed, and the blood collected.

Detectives Vannatter and Fuhrman and Patrol Officers Thompson, Aston and Gonzalez all testified to seeing blood stains inside the Bronco on June 13 when the Bronco was still parked on Rockingham.

The tow truck driver who picked up the Bronco later in the afternoon on June 13 said he only glanced inside the Bronco, “a quick peek” and didn’t see anything inside except that the buttons were all down and the Bronco was locked. He delivered the Bronco to the print shed and a detective unlocked the steel doors so he could back the Bronco in and then left seeing the detective close and lock the steel doors.

The morning of June 14 the inside of the Bronco was fingerprinted, photographed and blood collected as well as a piece of the driver’s floor carpet was cut on that contained a partial bloody shoe print.

The tow truck driver who picked up the Bronco late morning on June 15 and delivered it the police garage testified that he didn’t see any blood or fingerprint dust in the Bronco but he did see part of the carpet missing. He also took some credit card receipts from the Bronco. He also lied about taking the receipts before returning them. He was shown the photographs taken on the June 14 of the blood and fingerprint dust he said he didn’t see.

The third witness had visited the garage on June 21 and testified he didn’t see any blood or fingerprint dust that the photographs show was there on June 14. This witness said that he was expecting to see big globs of blood.

You claim there were more people who did not see the blood then these two officers. Lange never said he didn’t see blood inside the Bronco; he was never asked that question.

Who is the officer that you are claiming said he didn’t see blood in the Bronco?

Who are these “many more people” who you are claiming said they didn’t see blood in the Bronco?

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Again, you refuse to see the obvious and are not answering the question. If that one blood drop, on the inside of the glove was there when it was collected for evidence, it would have been seen and it would have been impossible to miss.

It was a female detective Kelly---her last name starts with an M and it is an unusal last name.

The bottom line is that civilian witnesses carried the day on the blood in the Bronco. They had nothing to lose and nothing to gain. However, the same can't be said of those other police officers. IMO.

Blasini (sp) went with a group of 4 to look at the Bronco. I believe in the testimony it said how many times the Bronco was moved and no civilian witness from either of the two private impound locations was called to testify for the DA's. Bottom line, there were more civilians who didn't see the blood then the 3 cops who said they did see it.

Another important fact, how many times were techs inside the Bronco and collected these blood stains?

Again, how times in one case can the evidence age better then a fine wine?

[GreenIce]

William and Martin,

Was Park ever asked how long he was working for this company and how many times did he pick up passengers in Brentwood?

Also, did Park ever testify to who he got the directions from and what were those directions? Was he told what gate to go to for the pick up?

Wouldn't you think that Park would have been given directions to Simpson's home and told what gate to use?

I have a hard time believing that Park, or any other other person picking up an important client would have rely on finding the address the the home.
what would be easier to see, the big iron gates or the address written on the curb?

[GreenIce]

William and Martin,

I just noticed something that perhaps you two didn't. I was looking up information about the blood in the Bronco, the socks, etc. and I really was shocked by what I found in the DA's witness list.

Michelle Kestler was not on the DA's witness list, she was a witness for the defense. The head of the crime lab, Fung, Matheson and Mozzola's boss was not called by the DA's?

Lets see here, the DA's don't call the nurse, they don't call the ME who actually did the autopsies, they don't call Roger Martz, they don't call Brad Roberts, and they don't call Michelle Kestler.

Any idea as to why?

[William Anthony]

If you can point out where I said it was done due to racial bias please show me.

It's well known that the black jurors segregated themselves from the others during the trial. I'm sure that animosity was felt in the jury room.

What type of animosity are you sure of that was felt in the jury room, when the Black jurors segregated themselves and why did you refer to the segregation by race?

[William Anthony]

I guess some will not understand what we are saying about the use of the N word and try to negate the feelings of Blacks and others, who appreciate Blacks' feelings, by suggesting that the use of the N word was not a part of the trial and want posters to move on. :)

[William Anthony]

I don't think that's ever going to happen. This has turned into the blame game forum. If we don't publicly denounce Mark Fuhrman at least once a day then it starts. It's getting to the point of Ron who? Nicole who?

Was it or was it not you that brought up the use of the N word by MF in comparison to Reverend Wright's statements? Who is playing the blame game?:)

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

Was Park ever asked how long he was working for this company and how many times did he pick up passengers in Brentwood?

Also, did Park ever testify to who he got the directions from and what were those directions? Was he told what gate to go to for the pick up?

Wouldn't you think that Park would have been given directions to Simpson's home and told what gate to use?

I have a hard time believing that Park, or any other other person picking up an important client would have rely on finding the address the the home.
what would be easier to see, the big iron gates or the address written on the curb?

Simpson's estate was on the corner of Ashford and Rockingham-simple.:)

[William Anthony]

William and Martin,

I just noticed something that perhaps you two didn't. I was looking up information about the blood in the Bronco, the socks, etc. and I really was shocked by what I found in the DA's witness list.

Michelle Kestler was not on the DA's witness list, she was a witness for the defense. The head of the crime lab, Fung, Matheson and Mozzola's boss was not called by the DA's?

Lets see here, the DA's don't call the nurse, they don't call the ME who actually did the autopsies, they don't call Roger Martz, they don't call Brad Roberts, and they don't call Michelle Kestler.

Any idea as to why?

They all hurt their alleged mountain of evidence case.

[martin II]

William and Martin,

I just noticed something that perhaps you two didn't. I was looking up information about the blood in the Bronco, the socks, etc. and I really was shocked by what I found in the DA's witness list.

Michelle Kestler was not on the DA's witness list, she was a witness for the defense. The head of the crime lab, Fung, Matheson and Mozzola's boss was not called by the DA's?

Lets see here, the DA's don't call the nurse, they don't call the ME who actually did the autopsies, they don't call Roger Martz, they don't call Brad Roberts, and they don't call Michelle Kestler.

Any idea as to why?

on rockingham the address was painted on the curb about 3-4 feet behind the rear of the bronco in plain view. if park had looked at the curb where all addresses are, he would have seen it. or he saw the address and just testified that he did not see it.


i have no idea as to why the da would not call Michelle Kestler.

[martin II]

Was it or was it not you that brought up the use of the N word by MF in comparison to Reverend Wright's statements? Who is playing the blame game?:)

it was tv.

[martin II]

Aschenbach, in an ABC telephone interview last week, tearfully explained why she changed her original guilty vote.

Lead detective Philip Vannatter "made misstatements" on the witness stand, she said. Former detective Mark Fuhrman, discredited as a lying racist, cast too much doubt on the most prized evidence - a bloody glove found on Simpson's estate.

"I thought it was possible it was planted," Aschenbach said. "And most of the evidence was DNA evidence and that's what was so shaky."

[tv]

it was tv.

Stop making things up.

[tv]

it was tv.

Is this what you're calling a comparison? --

Originally Posted by martin II
i will ask a question of your friend that was asked of me.
What did Rev Wright say that was not true?

Why am I not surprised that you identify with that racist POS? HaHaHa -- don't preach to me about Mark Fuhrman if you agree with that thing! Too funny!

[martin II]

Is this what you're calling a comparison? --

Originally Posted by martin II
i will ask a question of your friend that was asked of me.
What did Rev Wright say that was not true?

Why am I not surprised that you identify with that racist POS? HaHaHa -- don't preach to me about Mark Fuhrman if you agree with that thing! Too funny!

what did wright say that was nit correct
was my question.

[weezer]

what did wright say that was nit correct
was my question.

Exodus 20:7
"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." - King James Version (KJV)

that HIV and crack cocaine were government plots aimed at African-Americans

the government sent illegal drugs to black neighborhoods to kill or imprison blacks

The government knew Pearl Harbor would be attacked before it happened.

The government infected black men with syphilis in the Tuskegee Experiment.

The president will use the military against people for religious reasons.

[tv]

Exodus 20:7
"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." - King James Version (KJV)

that HIV and crack cocaine were government plots aimed at African-Americans

the government sent illegal drugs to black neighborhoods to kill or imprison blacks

The government knew Pearl Harbor would be attacked before it happened.

The government infected black men with syphilis in the Tuskegee Experiment.

The president will use the military against people for religious reasons.

Thanks for summarizing for us -- of all the crackpot things Jeremiah Wright has said I'm still more disgusted and shocked by him using profanity in God's house than anything else. :no:

[martin II]

Stop making things up.

you have been saying things and when called on it you say you did not say it even though your post are in black and white.
William has posted several examples.
chill out.

[martin II]

Some people just post anything.

The government has admitted to the syphlis experiment on blacks at tuskeegee. that is a fact.

You remember the CIA airplane in florida full of cocain Briught from Noicarraga sp. Blacks do not grow, process and distribute cocain in america that ends up in their neighborhoods.


Now prove that the other issues listed by your bud are NOT TRUE.Then we can say Wright was wrong in his opinion.:cool:

[martin II]

Thanks for summarizing for us -- of all the crackpot things Jeremiah Wright has said I'm still more disgusted and shocked by him using profanity in God's house than anything else. :no:

Did you feel the same about the comments Jerry Fawell made about the government from his church.

Why is it when the discussion is about your hero MF you go digging to find some comment made by some black person and ask me how i feel about the black.Does MF know how much love you have for him.:)

[martin II]

Thanks for summarizing for us -- of all the crackpot things Jeremiah Wright has said I'm still more disgusted and shocked by him using profanity in God's house than anything else. :no:

This is not my best subject but what did Jesus say when he ran the money traders out of the temple?

[martin II]

Is this what you're calling a comparison? --

Originally Posted by martin II
i will ask a question of your friend that was asked of me.
What did Rev Wright say that was not true?

Why am I not surprised that you identify with that racist POS? HaHaHa -- don't preach to me about Mark Fuhrman if you agree with that thing! Too funny!

i have not approved any comments by Wright.
now prove that any claims made by him are not true. not your opinions.

[martin II]

some historians support the claim about pearl harbor. it involves Japaneese Ambassador calling at the White House just hours before the attack.read your history on that issue.

[martin II]

Thanks for summarizing for us -- of all the crackpot things Jeremiah Wright has said I'm still more disgusted and shocked by him using profanity in God's house than anything else. :no:

can you prove that your buds claims of what Write has said is true??
some copies of his speeches or something.

[William Anthony]

Aschenbach, in an ABC telephone interview last week, tearfully explained why she changed her original guilty vote.

Lead detective Philip Vannatter "made misstatements" on the witness stand, she said. Former detective Mark Fuhrman, discredited as a lying racist, cast too much doubt on the most prized evidence - a bloody glove found on Simpson's estate.

"I thought it was possible it was planted," Aschenbach said. "And most of the evidence was DNA evidence and that's what was so shaky."

Thank you, because this shows that some thought and understood there was evidence of planting.

[William Anthony]

Did you feel the same about the comments Jerry Fawell made about the government from his church.

Why is it when the discussion is about your hero MF you go digging to find some comment made by some black person and ask me how i feel about the black.Does MF know how much love you have for him.:)

The important difference to me is how people of the Caucasian and Black races view the comments of different speakers and decide, which is possibly credible or not, or important or not.

[GreenIce]

on rockingham the address was painted on the curb about 3-4 feet behind the rear of the bronco in plain view. if park had looked at the curb where all addresses are, he would have seen it. or he saw the address and just testified that he did not see it.


i have no idea as to why the da would not call Michelle Kestler.

Martin,

IMO, it makes no sense that Park would be looking for a street address on the curb---when the estate is on corner and the client is multi-millionaire.

Did you ever realize that Kestler was called by the DA's in the prelim but not in the murder trial? In reading some of the side bars, it appears to me that defense is suggesting that she is the source of the leak about the socks before the socks went out for testing---her husband is a member of the LAPD and work in the same department as Lange and Vanatter.

[bobaugust]

Why bobaugust, I see you are learning. :) After telling me that my claim was meaningless that Kato did not testify to going directly to the gate box, because Kato was never asked the question, you now say that Lang never said he didn't see blood inside the Bronco, because he was never asked the question.:)

I see you will change positions, depending on which position suits your conclusion, which, if you don't mind or even if you do, I will pat myself on the back for being correct about that also. :)

The difference William is that I never claimed that Lange saw blood inside the Bronco. Your claim that when Kaelin returned from behind the garage he went back to the Ashford path and stood there and that was when Park first saw Kaelin and then Simpson that night is a false claim. It’s just another fantasy that you and only you have imagined happened.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Again, you refuse to see the obvious and are not answering the question. If that one blood drop, on the inside of the glove was there when it was collected for evidence, it would have been seen and it would have been impossible to miss.

It was a female detective Kelly---her last name starts with an M and it is an unusal last name.

The bottom line is that civilian witnesses carried the day on the blood in the Bronco. They had nothing to lose and nothing to gain. However, the same can't be said of those other police officers. IMO.

Blasini (sp) went with a group of 4 to look at the Bronco. I believe in the testimony it said how many times the Bronco was moved and no civilian witness from either of the two private impound locations was called to testify for the DA's. Bottom line, there were more civilians who didn't see the blood then the 3 cops who said they did see it.

Another important fact, how many times were techs inside the Bronco and collected these blood stains?

Again, how times in one case can the evidence age better then a fine wine?

GreenIce, what I see is obvious that tests were first conducted on the large blood stains on the glove to be able to give the prosecutors the results as soon as possible.

The detective you are referring to was Kelly Muldorfer who was investigating the theft of the credit card receipts that Meraz took and returned. Muldorfer went into the Bronco on July 13, 1994 almost a month after the blood in the Bronco was photographed and collected. She testified she wasn’t looking for blood and didn’t notice any since she was only concerned with the side pocket panels on the doors.

What you still can’t seem to understand is that all of these witnesses who said they didn’t see any blood in the Bronco were in the Bronco AFTER the blood had been photographed and collected. Their testimony was meaningless regarding this issue and your claim that they didn’t see blood where blood was later found is incorrect.

As far as I know blood was collected two different times from the Bronco. On June 14 when photographs were taken, fingerprint dust was used, and Fung collected blood. And on August 26 when SID technicians removed the passenger seat and used the chemical Luminol to find additional blood stains that were then collected.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Thank you, because this shows that some thought and understood there was evidence of planting.

yep. the white lady.

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, it makes no sense that Park would be looking for a street address on the curb---when the estate is on corner and the client is multi-millionaire.

Did you ever realize that Kestler was called by the DA's in the prelim but not in the murder trial? In reading some of the side bars, it appears to me that defense is suggesting that she is the source of the leak about the socks before the socks went out for testing---her husband is a member of the LAPD and work in the same department as Lange and Vanatter.

the da didn't like her prelim testimony. or did not want the leak to come out.
she did it.

[William Anthony]

The difference William is that I never claimed that Lange saw blood inside the Bronco. Your claim that when Kaelin returned from behind the garage he went back to the Ashford path and stood there and that was when Park first saw Kaelin and then Simpson that night is a false claim. It’s just another fantasy that you and only you have imagined happened.

bobaugust

There is no difference as Kato did not say he did not go to the Ashford pathway and stand as Park said he saw him, because he was never asked, just as Lang never said he saw blood in the Bronco, because he was never asked. The only difference is what you create in your imagination. ;)

[William Anthony]

yep. the white lady.

I thought she was Caucasian. :)

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, it makes no sense that Park would be looking for a street address on the curb---when the estate is on corner and the client is multi-millionaire.

Did you ever realize that Kestler was called by the DA's in the prelim but not in the murder trial? In reading some of the side bars, it appears to me that defense is suggesting that she is the source of the leak about the socks before the socks went out for testing---her husband is a member of the LAPD and work in the same department as Lange and Vanatter.

i am not sure but Dale told him to go to the ashford gate. all of the addresses on rockford are painted on the curb.ojs address was in plain view on the rockford curb 3-4 feet from the back of the bronco.so i don't know how he missed it. but he did go to ashford ,parked across the street and smoked some kind of cigarette.This is when he saw two cars parked in the driveway when there was one and started rinning that buzzer every second as if his life depended on it. i have wondered if that was a columbian or canadian cigarette.

[martin II]

I thought she was Caucasian. :)

she believed the glove could have been planted.vanhatter lied and that DNA was bs.good reason to vote not guilty.no black biase there.
this lady did listen to the testimony and made her own decision.

[William Anthony]

she believed the glove could have been planted.vanhatter lied and that DNA was bs.good reason to vote not guilty.no black biase there.
this lady did listen to the testimony and made her own decision.

I definitely would not call her ignorant, uneducated or racially biased. :)

[martin II]

HHMMM
A white cop shot 8 bullets at a black cop one in the back and killed him.more white cops killing black cops in black communities.

[tv]

you have been saying things and when called on it you say you did not say it even though your post are in black and white.
William has posted several examples.
chill out.

Why don't you get off my back and talk about the case? Wiilliam hasn't posted one example of me comparing what Mark Fuhrman said to what Jeremiah Wright said -- who cares anyway? You and your friends have ruined this forum with your nonsense.

[tv]

can you prove that your buds claims of what Write has said is true??
some copies of his speeches or something.

I have no interest in further research on that bigot.

[GreenIce]

the da didn't like her prelim testimony. or did not want the leak to come out.
she did it.

Martin,

I am going to read her prelim hearing testimony to see if I can find it out why. It is obvious when you read Jill's grand jury testimony why she wasn't used.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, what I see is obvious that tests were first conducted on the large blood stains on the glove to be able to give the prosecutors the results as soon as possible.

The detective you are referring to was Kelly Muldorfer who was investigating the theft of the credit card receipts that Meraz took and returned. Muldorfer went into the Bronco on July 13, 1994 almost a month after the blood in the Bronco was photographed and collected. She testified she wasn’t looking for blood and didn’t notice any since she was only concerned with the side pocket panels on the doors.

What you still can’t seem to understand is that all of these witnesses who said they didn’t see any blood in the Bronco were in the Bronco AFTER the blood had been photographed and collected. Their testimony was meaningless regarding this issue and your claim that they didn’t see blood where blood was later found is incorrect.

As far as I know blood was collected two different times from the Bronco. On June 14 when photographs were taken, fingerprint dust was used, and Fung collected blood. And on August 26 when SID technicians removed the passenger seat and used the chemical Luminol to find additional blood stains that were then collected.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

I am reading the testimony on this subject.

However, IMO, there are just too many times when LAPD personnel said they did not see evidence because they were not looking for it. Sorry, a detective saying they didn't see something because they weren't looking for it, just doesn't ring true to me.

[GreenIce]

If it wasn't a footprint then what was it?
The main point I was making here was that the defense had two contradictory theories on how the blood got in the Bronco

TO me the quotes by Bailey and Cochran clearly indicate that Fuhrman put blood in the the Bronco early Mondy, June 13. And yet the defense also claimed that the bronco had no blood in it for weeks later.

I know I have brought this up before, and the defense side of this still makes no sense to me. I thought the LAPD announced there was blood in the Bronco less than a week after the killings. I could be wrong on this. I think the defense also claimed that the LAPD waited a few weeks and then smeared some blood in. Is this their claim? I would have thought if they planted blood in it weeks later it would have been by eye droppers.

Also another point about blood that makes no sense to me is the defense claim that the blood on the Rockingham glove looked like it was damp in the early morning of Monday, June 13, around 6:30 or so, and that this was evidence the glove was in a plastic bag for a while.

There would probably have been some dew present then. There is most mornings that early.

fgump2,

The defense made the case that MF wiped the glove inside the Bronco and then put it behind Kato's wall. I don't know exactly what they said about the footprint inside the Bronco only that it was possible that an LAPD member could have left it--not on purpose but when they checked the Bronco out to get it ready to be impounded.

[William Anthony]

Why don't you get off my back and talk about the case? Wiilliam hasn't posted one example of me comparing what Mark Fuhrman said to what Jeremiah Wright said -- who cares anyway? You and your friends have ruined this forum with your nonsense.

You started the nonsense, as evidenced by this post and your response,

Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
Are we still not discussing the N word and what are the effects upon different people and how MF used the word in context with the other evidence of his racial animus toward Blacks and how the use of the N word may be viewed differently by different people and how the difference relates to the verdict? Was that not your purpose in mentioning Reverend Wright and others and their statements?

That conversation was several days ago. You might be discussing it but I'm not.


You just want to make comments and not support them when asked to support or explain them, correct?

[William Anthony]

I have no interest in further research on that bigot.

Can I ask why you felt compelled to bring that alleged bigot to the board?

[bobaugust]

There is no difference as Kato did not say he did not go to the Ashford pathway and stand as Park said he saw him, because he was never asked, just as Lang never said he saw blood in the Bronco, because he was never asked. The only difference is what you create in your imagination. ;)

Of course there is a difference. What you seem to have missed is that my comment that Lange was never asked if he saw blood in the Bronco was in response to GreenIce’s claim that a detective SAID they didn’t see any blood in the Bronco.

Lange never said anything about seeing or not seeing blood in the Bronco and if GreenIce had claimed Lange did say that, which she didn’t, that would be the same as your false claim that Kaelin went back to the Ashford path and stood there after he came out from behind the garage.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

I am reading the testimony on this subject.

However, IMO, there are just too many times when LAPD personnel said they did not see evidence because they were not looking for it. Sorry, a detective saying they didn't see something because they weren't looking for it, just doesn't ring true to me.

GreenIce, Muldorfer had no reason to say she did or didn’t see blood in the Bronco because she was investigating a theft that had nothing to do with the murders.

Whether or not she said she saw blood or she didn’t see blood is meaningless since she was in the Bronco almost a month AFTER the blood had been photographed and collected. Her answer was just as meaningless as the other witnesses who said they didn’t see any blood when they were in the Bronco AFTER the blood had already been photographed and collected.

bobaugust

[weezer]

some historians support the claim about pearl harbor. it involves Japaneese Ambassador calling at the White House just hours before the attack.read your history on that issue.

"Hyperbole at best. Most historians say the military failed to connect the dots on some information but that commanders did not have warning."

[weezer]

Some people just post anything.

The government has admitted to the syphlis experiment on blacks at tuskeegee. that is a fact.

You remember the CIA airplane in florida full of cocain Briught from Noicarraga sp. Blacks do not grow, process and distribute cocain in america that ends up in their neighborhoods.


Now prove that the other issues listed by your bud are NOT TRUE.Then we can say Wright was wrong in his opinion.:cool:

"False. The black men left untreated for syphilis in the Tuskegee Experiment had been infected before going to government doctors."

[weezer]

Thanks for summarizing for us -- of all the crackpot things Jeremiah Wright has said I'm still more disgusted and shocked by him using profanity in God's house than anything else. :no:

I think that is the statement that shocked most Christians -- the rest of the stuff was hateful rhetoric spewed by a lunatic activist using the guise of 'minister'. Although I find his 'messages' disturbing and often blasphemous, it's when the camera pans to the pews full of 'followers' shouting 'Amen' and agreeing that I find most troubling. I think that says the most about where we are in America and the great racial divide that some want to blame only the whites for. sad. very sad.

[martin II]

The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
The U.S. government's 40-year experiment on black men with syphilis

by Borgna Brunner

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The United States government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens... clearly racist."

—President Clinton's apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997


For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,” their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all.

The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”


Using Human Beings as Laboratory Animals


Taliaferro Clark, Head of the U.S. Public Health Service at the outset of the experiment.
The true nature

Using Human Beings as Laboratory Animals


Taliaferro Clark, Head of the U.S. Public Health Service at the outset of the experiment.
The true nature of the experiment had to be kept from the subjects to ensure their cooperation. The sharecroppers' grossly disadvantaged lot in life made them easy to manipulate. Pleased at the prospect of free medical care—almost none of them had ever seen a doctor before—these unsophisticated and trusting men became the pawns in what James Jones, author of the excellent history on the subject, Bad Blood, identified as “the longest nontherapeutic experiment on human beings in medical history.”

The study was meant to discover how syphilis affected blacks as opposed to whites—the theory being that whites experienced more neurological complications from syphilis, whereas blacks were more susceptible to cardiovascular damage. How this knowledge would have changed clinical treatment of syphilis is uncertain.

Although the PHS touted the study as one of great scientific merit, from the outset its actual benefits were hazy. It took almost forty years before someone involved in the study took a hard and honest look at the end results, reporting that “nothing learned will prevent, find, or cure a single case of infectious syphilis or bring us closer to our basic mission of controlling venereal disease in the United States.”

When the experiment was brought to the attention of the media in 1972, news anchor Harry Reasoner described it as an experiment that “used human beings as laboratory animals in a long and inefficient study of how long it takes syphilis to kill someone.”


A Heavy Price in the Name of Bad Science

To ensure that the men would show up for a painful and potentially dangerous spinal tap, the PHS doctors misled them

[weezer]

The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
The U.S. government's 40-year experiment on black men with syphilis

by Borgna Brunner

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The United States government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens... clearly racist."

—President Clinton's apology for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the eight remaining survivors, May 16, 1997


For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,” their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all.

The data for the experiment was to be collected from autopsies of the men, and they were thus deliberately left to degenerate under the ravages of tertiary syphilis—which can include tumors, heart disease, paralysis, blindness, insanity, and death. “As I see it,” one of the doctors involved explained, “we have no further interest in these patients until they die.”


Using Human Beings as Laboratory Animals


Taliaferro Clark, Head of the U.S. Public Health Service at the outset of the experiment.
The true nature

martin, I'm not defending what the government did. I believe it was a horrible thing to do to any human -- no matter the color -- and denounce anyone that participated. My point was the statement that the government was responsible for the men having syphillis in the first place.

[weezer]

This board has gone from discussing/debating/examing orenthal and his trial(s) to 'it's all about race.' I'll see you guys. . . :seeya:

[martin II]

The Legacy of Tuskegee

Related Links:
Black History Month Features

U.S. Public Health Service

Tuskegee National Historic Site

Tuskegee University (formerly the Tuskegee Institute)

Internet Resources on the Tuskegee Study

Clinton's Apology for the Experiment

In 1990, a survey found that 10 percent of African Americans believed that the U.S. government created AIDS as a plot to exterminate blacks, and another 20 percent could not rule out the possibility that this might be true. As preposterous and paranoid as this may sound, at one time the Tuskegee experiment must have seemed equally farfetched.

Who could imagine the government, all the way up to the Surgeon General of the United States, deliberately allowing a group of its citizens to die from a terrible disease for the sake of an ill-conceived experiment? In light of this and many other shameful episodes in our history, African Americans' widespread mistrust of the government and white society in general should not be a surprise to anyone.

[William Anthony]

Of course there is a difference. What you seem to have missed is that my comment that Lange was never asked if he saw blood in the Bronco was in response to GreenIce’s claim that a detective SAID they didn’t see any blood in the Bronco.

Lange never said anything about seeing or not seeing blood in the Bronco and if GreenIce had claimed Lange did say that, which she didn’t, that would be the same as your false claim that Kaelin went back to the Ashford path and stood there after he came out from behind the garage.

bobaugust

The one thing that is false is that you said I claim something. I draw reasonable inferences from all the testimonies, not a portion of them. :)

I have missed nothing, but you seem to have. There was someone, who said or, if you will, made the claim that Kato was "standing and still standing in the position he was for another minute before he came to open the gate. You see I made no claim but a witness did, just as GreenIce said a detective said, which Lang, like Kato, was not asked specific questions concerning the issues in respective controversies. Therefore, it is only in your imagination that your statement as to the witness being asked a specific question is not the same as mine.:)

[William Anthony]

I think it is ironic that posters start discussions and then complain about them but do not enter into the other discussions of which they feel are appropriate for the forum, when, if they had followed the moderator's instructions, there would have been no need to make posts, speaking of what they feel the forum has become. This is one instance when not to participate would alleviate, IMHO.

[martin II]

a poster posted info about the tuskegee experiment that it was said was made by Rev Wright. A link to the posters claim was not given when requested.
I posted a article presenting facts of what the poster origionally claimed.

I see nothing wrong with posting facts in response to a poster that made the origional claim without a link to prove the claim.imo

[martin II]

Poster should not make post about race as posted below if that poster does not want to talk about race.imo

.

#9327 Yesterday, 04:56 PM
fbgweezer
Criime Library Supreme Member Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,931


Quote:
Originally Posted by martin II
what did wright say that was nit correct
was my question.

Exodus 20:7
"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." - King James Version (KJV)

that HIV and crack cocaine were government plots aimed at African-Americans

the government sent illegal drugs to black neighborhoods to kill or imprison blacks

The government knew Pearl Harbor would be attacked before it happened.

The government infected black men with syphilis in the Tuskegee Experiment.

The president will use the military against people for religious reasons.
__________________
It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues. - Abraham Lincoln

[tv]

You started the nonsense, as evidenced by this post and your response,





You just want to make comments and not support them when asked to support or explain them, correct?

You need to find someone else to talk to on here. People that paint themselves as perpetual vicitms don't interest me.

[William Anthony]

You need to find someone else to talk to on here. People that paint themselves as perpetual vicitms don't interest me.

People that don't see how they come across and blame others interest me. :)

[tv]

Did you feel the same about the comments Jerry Fawell made about the government from his church.

Why is it when the discussion is about your hero MF you go digging to find some comment made by some black person and ask me how i feel about the black.Does MF know how much love you have for him.:)

Why do you keep mentioning Jerry Falwell to me?

[tv]

People that don't see how they come across and blame others interest me. :)

Your little smileys aren't working for me anymore.

[William Anthony]

Your little smileys aren't working for me anymore.

What made you think that my little smileys were meant only for you?

[tv]

This board has gone from discussing/debating/examing orenthal and his trial(s) to 'it's all about race.' I'll see you guys. . . :seeya:

Hey, I finally figured them out -- it's all about Mark Fuhrman. They can't stand it because we won't say that he meant or did the things he said on the tapes. Just saying we don't condone the things he said doesn't cut it for them -- they want us to stand up and denounce him. It finally dawned on me when martin made this statement: " Does MF know how much love you have for him?"

I've been called an insensitve b/i/t/c/h , been accused of being part of the kkk, accused of worshiping the prosecution on my knees, being of Mark Fuhrman's 'ilk' and hating all blacks. I've probably forgotten half of the nasty things that have been said to me on this forum.

All of this nastiness just because I wanted to discuss a murder case that interests me.

[tv]

What made you think that my little smileys were meant only for you?

I don't think they're meant for me at all. I think they're meant to make other people think you don't mean the things you say in a nasty way.

[William Anthony]

Hey, I finally figured them out -- it's all about Mark Fuhrman. They can't stand it because we won't say that he meant or did the things he said on the tapes. Just saying we don't condone the things he said doesn't cut it for them -- they want us to stand up and denounce him. It finally dawned on me when martin made this statement: " Does MF know how much love you have for him?"

I've been called an insensitve b/i/t/c/h , been accused of being part of the kkk, accused of worshiping the prosecution on my knees, being of Mark Fuhrman's 'ilk' and hating all blacks. I've probably forgotten half of the nasty things that have been said to me on this forum.

All of this nastiness just because I wanted to discuss a murder case that interests me.

I know of no one that has called you an insensitive b**** or a KKK member. However, I do know that you shortchange your activity in regard to defending the racial comments made by MF and a couple of posters. :)

[William Anthony]

I don't think they're meant for me at all. I think they're meant to make other people think you don't mean the things you say in a nasty way.

What? Have you forgotten lighthearted banter, lighthearted banter?:)

[tv]

I know of no one that has called you an insensitive b**** or a KKK member. However, I do know that you shortchange your activity in regard to defending the racial comments made by MF and a couple of posters. :)

You're not man enough to say what you really mean but you did say I wear a hood and a sheet, you also called me an insensitve b/i/t/c/h but again you weren't man enough to admit it so you claimed you were talking about Joseph Bell or some unknown person. It's not my job in life to make you feel good so find someone else to commiserate about Mark Fuhrman with you. I've never defended his comments but I'm not going to jump up and start denounching him every time you or martin or the icky one start demanding that I do it.

[tv]

What? Have you forgotten lighthearted banter, lighthearted banter?:)

You've gone too far this time. Lighthearted banter is over between us.

[William Anthony]

You've gone too far this time. Lighthearted banter is over between us.

Did it end when you made this statement to me, "You need to find someone else to talk to on here. People that paint themselves as perpetual vicitms don't interest me"?

[William Anthony]

You're not man enough to say what you really mean but you did say I wear a hood and a sheet, you also called me an insensitve b/i/t/c/h but again you weren't man enough to admit it so you claimed you were talking about Joseph Bell or some unknown person. It's not my job in life to make you feel good so find someone else to commiserate about Mark Fuhrman with you. I've never defended his comments but I'm not going to jump up and start denounching him every time you or martin or the icky one start demanding that I do it.

I have never said that you wore a hood and sheet nor have I called you the other name. I have never said that I called JB any thing or made the comments about him. Perhaps, you do not see that, saying that he made the remarks in the context of a screen play is defending MF, but others may see that it is. I am not asking you to denounce anyone that you do not desire to denounce. I understand that you failed to denounce the comments of some posters while defending them.:)

[tv]

Did it end when you made this statement to me, "You need to find someone else to talk to on here. People that paint themselves as perpetual vicitms don't interest me"?

It ended a while back when I realized you're a black man first and a human being second. I tried to be friendly with you when I first came to this forum and I helped pull your sorry butt out of the fire over on Sycamore after you got banned. Your self-victimization doesn't interest me anymore but I decided to tell what I think. No smileys involved.

[tv]

I have never said that you wore a hood and sheet nor have I called you the other name. I have never said that I called JB any thing or made the comments about him. Perhaps, you do not see that, saying that he made the remarks in the context of a screen play is defending MF, but others may see that it is. I am not asking you to denounce anyone that you do not desire to denounce. I understand that you failed to denounce the comments of some posters while defending them.:)

Lie all you want. :shrug:

[William Anthony]

It ended a while back when I realized you're a black man first and a human being second. I tried to be friendly with you when I first came to this forum and I helped pull your sorry butt out of the fire over on Sycamore after you got banned. Your self-victimization doesn't interest me anymore but I decided to tell what I think. No smileys involved.

I was born a human being Black child and became a Black man in America. If that offends you, then so be it. You tried to be friendly with me is the problem as I see it. There is no need to try when one is friendly. :) I have no idea as to what you are talking about on the other site as I was banned and we need not discuss the other goings on on that site, which brought your sorry behind and the other posters who were not of your persuasion and those that were back to this one.:) I appreciate your honesty. Although in regard to what you think of me, it matters less to me than a box of rocks.

[William Anthony]

Lie all you want. :shrug:

No need for a lie, when the truth suffices.:)

[tv]

I was born a human being Black child and became a Black man in America. If that offends you, then so be it. You tried to be friendly with me is the problem as I see it. There is no need to try when one is friendly. :) I have no idea as to what you are talking about on the other site as I was banned and we need not discuss the other goings on on that site, which brought you and the others back to this one.:) I appreciate your honesty. Although in regard to what you think of me, it matters less to me than a box of rocks.

When I was new here and feeling my way around you seemed like a nice guy so I attempted to be friendly with you. If you want to parse words about that so be it. That's very characteristic of you.

I'm sure you don't want to discuss the 'goings on' at the other site. Truly speaking, it was probably a very embarrassing chapter of your life. Don't act like you 'son't know' what I'm talking about.

What you think of me means less than nothing to me. You're a bitter man and even if I stood on a rooftop and denounced Mark Fuhrman it wouldn't be enough for you. Bottom line for me is that OJ Simpson is a double-murder who slaughtered the mother of his children while they slept close by. Nothing you say will ever change that fact.

[fgump2]

One interesting fact about Orenthal Simpson’s defense team is that although they worked very hard to get him acquitted, once he was acquitted, very few of them had anything nice to say about him.
The only book written about the defense team, An American Tragedy by Schiller was unflattering to Mr. Simpson. The book also said that the lead attorney, Johnnie Cochran repeatedly expressed doubts about Mr. Simpson’s innocence. As far as I know, none of the members of the defense team has said the book was inaccurate. After the trial Johnnie Cochran implied that Mr. Simpson was guilty, and never said anything nice about Mr. Simpson’s moral character, or that Mr. Simpson was innocent.
Another member of Mr.; Simpson’s defense team who said he thought that Mr. Simpson might be guilty was Robert Kardashian.
I don’t remember exactly how Kardashian expressed his opinion that Simpson might be guilty, but I thought he wasn’t being honest about it.
Kardashian said that he believed in Simpson’s innocence during the trial, but afterwards he started thinking Mr. Simpson might be guilty because of the DNA evidence. This is odd to me, because during the trial Kardashian had access to criminologists and chemists of various backgrounds, including at least two people with PHDs in biochemistry, and at least two people who were full time criminologists. The logical time for Kardashian to form an opinion about the evidence was during the trial when he was a part of the defense team.
I think that Kardashian decided to break off his friendship with Simpson because Simpson had become a social outcast among most white Americans. Kardashian expressed surprise after the trial that so many people were critical of him for defending Simpson.
Regardless of the reason for Kardashian expressing doubts about Simpson’s innocence, the fact of the matter is that Orenthal Simpson seems to be a man who made superficial friendships quite easily, but didn’t generate much long term loyalty.
He spent about 10 M on the dream team, and very few of them said anything nice about him afterwards. Mr. Simpson had a lot of fair weather friends. At least that is the way it looks to me. I think it is unusual for a man to be acquitted of a major crime, and then have two of his lawyers come close to saying he was guilty.
I wish that some of the defenders of Orenthal Simpson would stop and think about why it is that Mr. Simpson gave so much money to his lawyers and got so little loyalty in return.

[William Anthony]

When I was new here and feeling my way around you seemed like a nice guy so I attempted to be friendly with you. If you want to parse words about that so be it. That's very characteristic of you.

I'm sure you don't want to discuss the 'goings on' at the other site. Truly speaking, it was probably a very embarrassing chapter of your life. Don't act like you 'son't know' what I'm talking about.

What you think of me means less than nothing to me. You're a bitter man and even if I stood on a rooftop and denounced Mark Fuhrman it wouldn't be enough for you. Bottom line for me is that OJ Simpson is a double-murder who slaughtered the mother of his children while they slept close by. Nothing you say will ever change that fact.

I think of myself as a nice guy and I don't have to attempt or try to be friendly with people. In fact, I don't like being friendly with unfriendly people. Yes, it's characteristic of me to try and get people to say what they actually mean. :)

There was nothing that was embarrassing to me about the other site as it showed favoritism to some posters for some reasons. :) I have reason to believe that many, many more were guilty of the same offense I was but they were in higher places or friendly with those in higher places, who ultimately corrupted that authority. :)

I think that you are bitter about America's history and therefore resent those who speak of it and question how those in power could let those atrocities occur.

[William Anthony]

One interesting fact about Orenthal Simpson’s defense team is that although they worked very hard to get him acquitted, once he was acquitted, very few of them had anything nice to say about him.
The only book written about the defense team, An American Tragedy by Schiller was unflattering to Mr. Simpson. The book also said that the lead attorney, Johnnie Cochran repeatedly expressed doubts about Mr. Simpson’s innocence. As far as I know, none of the members of the defense team has said the book was inaccurate. After the trial Johnnie Cochran implied that Mr. Simpson was guilty, and never said anything nice about Mr. Simpson’s moral character, or that Mr. Simpson was innocent.
Another member of Mr.; Simpson’s defense team who said he thought that Mr. Simpson might be guilty was Robert Kardashian.
I don’t remember exactly how Kardashian expressed his opinion that Simpson might be guilty, but I thought he wasn’t being honest about it.
Kardashian said that he believed in Simpson’s innocence during the trial, but afterwards he started thinking Mr. Simpson might be guilty because of the DNA evidence. This is odd to me, because during the trial Kardashian had access to criminologists and chemists of various backgrounds, including at least two people with PHDs in biochemistry, and at least two people who were full time criminologists. The logical time for Kardashian to form an opinion about the evidence was during the trial when he was a part of the defense team.
I think that Kardashian decided to break off his friendship with Simpson because Simpson had become a social outcast among most white Americans. Kardashian expressed surprise after the trial that so many people were critical of him for defending Simpson.
Regardless of the reason for Kardashian expressing doubts about Simpson’s innocence, the fact of the matter is that Orenthal Simpson seems to be a man who made superficial friendships quite easily, but didn’t generate much long term loyalty.
He spent about 10 M on the dream team, and very few of them said anything nice about him afterwards. Mr. Simpson had a lot of fair weather friends. At least that is the way it looks to me. I think it is unusual for a man to be acquitted of a major crime, and then have two of his lawyers come close to saying he was guilty.
I wish that some of the defenders of Orenthal Simpson would stop and think about why it is that Mr. Simpson gave so much money to his lawyers and got so little loyalty in return.

There is nothing that says that a defense lawyer is to be friends with his clients. The money that defense lawyers are given is for the client's defense. I would say that, in this case, the money was well spent.

[William Anthony]

One interesting fact about Orenthal Simpson’s defense team is that although they worked very hard to get him acquitted, once he was acquitted, very few of them had anything nice to say about him.
The only book written about the defense team, An American Tragedy by Schiller was unflattering to Mr. Simpson. The book also said that the lead attorney, Johnnie Cochran repeatedly expressed doubts about Mr. Simpson’s innocence. As far as I know, none of the members of the defense team has said the book was inaccurate. After the trial Johnnie Cochran implied that Mr. Simpson was guilty, and never said anything nice about Mr. Simpson’s moral character, or that Mr. Simpson was innocent.
Another member of Mr.; Simpson’s defense team who said he thought that Mr. Simpson might be guilty was Robert Kardashian.
I don’t remember exactly how Kardashian expressed his opinion that Simpson might be guilty, but I thought he wasn’t being honest about it.
Kardashian said that he believed in Simpson’s innocence during the trial, but afterwards he started thinking Mr. Simpson might be guilty because of the DNA evidence. This is odd to me, because during the trial Kardashian had access to criminologists and chemists of various backgrounds, including at least two people with PHDs in biochemistry, and at least two people who were full time criminologists. The logical time for Kardashian to form an opinion about the evidence was during the trial when he was a part of the defense team.
I think that Kardashian decided to break off his friendship with Simpson because Simpson had become a social outcast among most white Americans. Kardashian expressed surprise after the trial that so many people were critical of him for defending Simpson.
Regardless of the reason for Kardashian expressing doubts about Simpson’s innocence, the fact of the matter is that Orenthal Simpson seems to be a man who made superficial friendships quite easily, but didn’t generate much long term loyalty.
He spent about 10 M on the dream team, and very few of them said anything nice about him afterwards. Mr. Simpson had a lot of fair weather friends. At least that is the way it looks to me. I think it is unusual for a man to be acquitted of a major crime, and then have two of his lawyers come close to saying he was guilty.
I wish that some of the defenders of Orenthal Simpson would stop and think about why it is that Mr. Simpson gave so much money to his lawyers and got so little loyalty in return.

The only lawyers that proclaim their client's innocence repeatedly are the one that lost the case. IMHO, if the defense team had continued to proclaim Simpson's innocence after winning his acquittal, would make it appear that Simpson was guilty.

[martin II]

One interesting fact about Orenthal Simpson’s defense team is that although they worked very hard to get him acquitted, once he was acquitted, very few of them had anything nice to say about him.
The only book written about the defense team, An American Tragedy by Schiller was unflattering to Mr. Simpson. The book also said that the lead attorney, Johnnie Cochran repeatedly expressed doubts about Mr. Simpson’s innocence. As far as I know, none of the members of the defense team has said the book was inaccurate. After the trial Johnnie Cochran implied that Mr. Simpson was guilty, and never said anything nice about Mr. Simpson’s moral character, or that Mr. Simpson was innocent.
Another member of Mr.; Simpson’s defense team who said he thought that Mr. Simpson might be guilty was Robert Kardashian.
I don’t remember exactly how Kardashian expressed his opinion that Simpson might be guilty, but I thought he wasn’t being honest about it.
Kardashian said that he believed in Simpson’s innocence during the trial, but afterwards he started thinking Mr. Simpson might be guilty because of the DNA evidence. This is odd to me, because during the trial Kardashian had access to criminologists and chemists of various backgrounds, including at least two people with PHDs in biochemistry, and at least two people who were full time criminologists. The logical time for Kardashian to form an opinion about the evidence was during the trial when he was a part of the defense team.
I think that Kardashian decided to break off his friendship with Simpson because Simpson had become a social outcast among most white Americans. Kardashian expressed surprise after the trial that so many people were critical of him for defending Simpson.
Regardless of the reason for Kardashian expressing doubts about Simpson’s innocence, the fact of the matter is that Orenthal Simpson seems to be a man who made superficial friendships quite easily, but didn’t generate much long term loyalty.
He spent about 10 M on the dream team, and very few of them said anything nice about him afterwards. Mr. Simpson had a lot of fair weather friends. At least that is the way it looks to me. I think it is unusual for a man to be acquitted of a major crime, and then have two of his lawyers come close to saying he was guilty.
I wish that some of the defenders of Orenthal Simpson would stop and think about why it is that Mr. Simpson gave so much money to his lawyers and got so little loyalty in return.

You have been making those same FALSE claime against Cochran with never any link or proof to back up what you preach. you need to give that a break.

[martin II]

It ended a while back when I realized you're a black man first and a human being second. I tried to be friendly with you when I first came to this forum and I helped pull your sorry butt out of the fire over on Sycamore after you got banned. Your self-victimization doesn't interest me anymore but I decided to tell what I think. No smileys involved.

So when blacks complain about injustices in the system it is self-victimization?

How did you everr come to that conclusion.
That sounds like a attack on them for complaining.imo

[fgump2]

There is nothing that says that a defense lawyer is to be friends with his clients. The money that defense lawyers are given is for the client's defense. I would say that, in this case, the money was well spent.

You are right. If I were arrested for murder I would be more concered with a verdict of innocence than having lawyers say nice thins about me.
It is still unusual that two of Simpson's lawyers expressed doubts about his innocence, and none of them (as far as I know) said anything nice about his moral character. Simpson became a social outcast after the 1995 verdict among white americans.
Can you show me an instance of a person beating the murder rap and then having even one member of his defense team publiclly sugest he might be guilty?
There were two from the Simpson defense team.

One of the reasons I first dicided that Mr. Simpson was probably guilty was that very few of his former team mates or coaches had much to say on his behalf. They didn't show much loyalty. I don't give a lot of weight to this, because I don't think any writer systimatically checked this out. I reject the idea that he had supporters from his football days who were afraid to speak out. I don't think that there would have been retaliation if some of his friends from his football playing years had said:" he may be guilty, but I didn't think he was that kind of guy". Many black pro athletes have spoken out quite abrasively about various aspects of racism, for example the fact that black athletes have a harder time getting coaching jobs. Kellen Winslow spoke out very abrasively in favor of affirmative action

So we have two groups of people who spent time around Simpson who might be expected to speak out in favor of his moral character, and yet they chose not to.

[fgump2]

You have been making those same FALSE claime against Cochran with never any link or proof to back up what you preach. you need to give that a break.

I am depending on my memory. My memory is that when Simpson lost the civil trial in 96 that Cochran said 'He should accept it and move on with his life' I took this to mean that Cochran thought that Simpson with guilty. Also the book ' An American tragedy' by Schiller said that Cochran repeatedly expressed doubts about Simpson's innocence. I never read the book, but I think it was published about 6 years before Cochran died (1999 to 2005) and neither Cocrhan nor anyone else on the defense team disputed this.

Also when Latrell Sprewell got into trouble for choking his coach, he hired Cochran. There was a press conference in which Cochran sat next to Sprewell and read a statement that said "I am not another OJ Simpson, I didn't kill two people". Cochran never explained or refuted this.

I may go to a library sometime and see if I can document this.

[fgump2]

I think that most of the NG people here, WA, Martin, and Greenice, are overly focused on Mark Fuhrman. He is much less important than the NGs claim. Fuhrman couldn’t have framed Simpson on his own, so he regardless of how bad he was, his faults don’t mean as much as the NGs claim.

For example Martin posted the following:
Why is it when the discussion is about your hero MF you go digging to find some comment made by some black person and ask me how I feel about the black person? Does MF know how much love you have for him?

I don’t recall ever reading a posting on this board expressing either love of Fuhrman, or that he was a hero. The most I have read is a belief that some people were putting too much emphasis on Fuhrman.

I admit that some of his statements are quite racist and arrogant.

Fuhrman’s critics should remember that every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future. To judge Fuhrman’s character by his worst statements isn’t fair to him or to the truth. There are other stories about him that give a different picture.

There is one story in which felt a young black man had been incorrectly arrested for murder, and he put in some work to free the man. I think he may have put in some unpaid overtime to free the man.

Bugliosi’s book quotes three black LAPD officers and one Hispanic officer who went out of their way to defend Fuhrman. One of them Paul Partridge said this about him: “Being African-American when you come into contact with someone, you listen to them and pick up on things. There have been times when I have worked with people and wondered about them… I never wondered abut about him at all. I never noticed racism at all. If he were that way, and as much as a racist as the tapes indicated, then it would have come out somewhere, and somebody would have spoken up. That code of silence is nonsense you get to that point, somebody would have spoken up”.

Fuhrman worked with two blacks as partners. One black man, one black woman. He also worked with a Hispanic man as a partner. All three defended him.

I am aware of the fact that many people compartmentalize their personalities. Ted Bundy and the accused Craigslist Killer are not the only people to have Jekyll-Hyde splits in their lives.

We should remember that police work sometimes brings out fear and anger in people; it would be hard to conceal racism under these circumstances.

I started a thread on the blue wall of silence on this board. It is under the heading of “Issues in Criminal Justice”, and within that under the heading of “theories of Crime”. So far nobody else has posted on it. I argued that the blue wall of silence exists but isn’t very reliable.

[William Anthony]

You are right. If I were arrested for murder I would be more concered with a verdict of innocence than having lawyers say nice thins about me.
It is still unusual that two of Simpson's lawyers expressed doubts about his innocence, and none of them (as far as I know) said anything nice about his moral character. Simpson became a social outcast after the 1995 verdict among white americans.
Can you show me an instance of a person beating the murder rap and then having even one member of his defense team publiclly sugest he might be guilty?
There were two from the Simpson defense team.

One of the reasons I first dicided that Mr. Simpson was probably guilty was that very few of his former team mates or coaches had much to say on his behalf. They didn't show much loyalty. I don't give a lot of weight to this, because I don't think any writer systimatically checked this out. I reject the idea that he had supporters from his football days who were afraid to speak out. I don't think that there would have been retaliation if some of his friends from his football playing years had said:" he may be guilty, but I didn't think he was that kind of guy". Many black pro athletes have spoken out quite abrasively about various aspects of racism, for example the fact that black athletes have a harder time getting coaching jobs. Kellen Winslow spoke out very abrasively in favor of affirmative action

So we have two groups of people who spent time around Simpson who might be expected to speak out in favor of his moral character, and yet they chose not to.

I don't know of any defense lawyer on the dream team, who said Simpson was probably guilty. Do you have a link for those alleged statements. To speak out against racism, which I noticed you called abrasive, is not the same as rendering an opinion on someone's guilt or innocence, IMHO. Simpson's moral character was not on trial, although some posters would like for it to be.

[fgump2]

I don't know of any defense lawyer on the dream team, who said Simpson was probably guilty. Do you have a link for those alleged statements. To speak out against racism, which I noticed you called abrasive, is not the same as rendering an opinion on someone's guilt or innocence, IMHO. Simpson's moral character was not on trial, although some posters would like for it to be.

I didn't mean that speaking out against racism is abrasive. I meant that some black athletes had spoken bluntly and abrasively about some aspects of racism. THis is probably often justified. SInce Simpson was a famous person who enjoyed the limelight his moral character was on trial in a way it would not be for most people.

[William Anthony]

I think that most of the NG people here, WA, Martin, and Greenice, are overly focused on Mark Fuhrman. He is much less important than the NGs claim. Fuhrman couldn’t have framed Simpson on his own, so he regardless of how bad he was, his faults don’t mean as much as the NGs claim.

For example Martin posted the following:
Why is it when the discussion is about your hero MF you go digging to find some comment made by some black person and ask me how I feel about the black person? Does MF know how much love you have for him?

I don’t recall ever reading a posting on this board expressing either love of Fuhrman, or that he was a hero. The most I have read is a belief that some people were putting too much emphasis on Fuhrman.

I admit that some of his statements are quite racist and arrogant.

Fuhrman’s critics should remember that every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future. To judge Fuhrman’s character by his worst statements isn’t fair to him or to the truth. There are other stories about him that give a different picture.

There is one story in which felt a young black man had been incorrectly arrested for murder, and he put in some work to free the man. I think he may have put in some unpaid overtime to free the man.

Bugliosi’s book quotes three black LAPD officers and one Hispanic officer who went out of their way to defend Fuhrman. One of them Paul Partridge said this about him: “Being African-American when you come into contact with someone, you listen to them and pick up on things. There have been times when I have worked with people and wondered about them… I never wondered abut about him at all. I never noticed racism at all. If he were that way, and as much as a racist as the tapes indicated, then it would have come out somewhere, and somebody would have spoken up. That code of silence is nonsense you get to that point, somebody would have spoken up”.

Fuhrman worked with two blacks as partners. One black man, one black woman. He also worked with a Hispanic man as a partner. All three defended him.

I am aware of the fact that many people compartmentalize their personalities. Ted Bundy and the accused Craigslist Killer are not the only people to have Jekyll-Hyde splits in their lives.

We should remember that police work sometimes brings out fear and anger in people; it would be hard to conceal racism under these circumstances.

I started a thread on the blue wall of silence on this board. It is under the heading of “Issues in Criminal Justice”, and within that under the heading of “theories of Crime”. So far nobody else has posted on it. I argued that the blue wall of silence exists but isn’t very reliable.

All of us should be NGs, since that is what the verdict is. I don't think that I have said that MF framed Simpson on his own, only that the evidence is that a reasonable inference can be drawn he planted the Rockingham glove on his own.

An officer did speak up and kept a diary on MF, which he threatened to burn, if the defense pursued him and it.

Are you aware of the fact that there are members of a race who are racists against their race?

It is hard to conceal racism and, therefore, IMHO, a racist, which the prosecution admitted MF was, would welcome an opportunity to speak his views so long as he thought he could get away with speaking them.

Just as some here want to relate Simpson's past domestic violence to the murder charges, it is equal to relate MF's statements as evidence of motive, means and opportunity to have planted the glove.

I think that, if someone wants to post on your thread, they will.

[William Anthony]

I didn't mean that speaking out against racism is abrasive. I meant that some black athletes had spoken bluntly and abrasively about some aspects of racism. THis is probably often justified. SInce Simpson was a famous person who enjoyed the limelight his moral character was on trial in a way it would not be for most people.

Please, expound on how one speaks abrasively about something that is itself abrasive. There were attempts to put Simpson's moral character on trial but, since he did not take the stand to say that he was a person of good moral character, it was not an issue.

[William Anthony]

I am depending on my memory. My memory is that when Simpson lost the civil trial in 96 that Cochran said 'He should accept it and move on with his life' I took this to mean that Cochran thought that Simpson with guilty. Also the book ' An American tragedy' by Schiller said that Cochran repeatedly expressed doubts about Simpson's innocence. I never read the book, but I think it was published about 6 years before Cochran died (1999 to 2005) and neither Cocrhan nor anyone else on the defense team disputed this.

Also when Latrell Sprewell got into trouble for choking his coach, he hired Cochran. There was a press conference in which Cochran sat next to Sprewell and read a statement that said "I am not another OJ Simpson, I didn't kill two people". Cochran never explained or refuted this.

I may go to a library sometime and see if I can document this.

"Also when Latrell Sprewell got into trouble for choking his coach, he hired Cochran. There was a press conference in which Cochran sat next to Sprewell and read a statement that said "I am not another OJ Simpson, I didn't kill two people". Cochran never explained or refuted this."

I would guess that the I was Mr. Sprewell talking, wouldn't you?

[bobaugust]

The one thing that is false is that you said I claim something. I draw reasonable inferences from all the testimonies, not a portion of them. :)

I have missed nothing, but you seem to have. There was someone, who said or, if you will, made the claim that Kato was "standing and still standing in the position he was for another minute before he came to open the gate. You see I made no claim but a witness did, just as GreenIce said a detective said, which Lang, like Kato, was not asked specific questions concerning the issues in respective controversies. Therefore, it is only in your imagination that your statement as to the witness being asked a specific question is not the same as mine.:)

Your inference William that Kaelin went back to the Ashford path and stood there before he opened the gate is based on evidence that you have imagined and your inference is wrong. Your claim William that Park was mistaken when he said he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight is a false claim. Park was not mistaken you are.

The fact is that in the criminal trial when Park was asked if he remembered where Kaelin was after Simpson entered his house Park said from what he remembered he was still standing on the sidewalk. Still standing where Park said Kaelin stopped after coming down the Ashford path from behind the house.

The fact is that in the criminal trial Park never said Kaelin stood on the sidewalk for a minute to two minutes before opening the gate. The fact is that Kaelin consistently testified that when he came out from behind the garage he saw the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. Kaelin never said he went back to the Ashford path and stood there.

There was no controversy as to what Lange said or didn’t say regarding blood in the Bronco. GreenIce wasn’t referring to Detective Lange she was referring to Detective Muldorfer.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Your inference William that Kaelin went back to the Ashford path and stood there before he opened the gate is based on evidence that you have imagined and your inference is wrong. MY INFERENCES ARE BASED ON ALL THE EVIDENCE, :)Your claim William that Park was mistaken when he said he first saw Kaelin come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight is a false claim. Park was not mistaken you are. AGAIN, MY INFERENCES BASED ON ALL THE TESTIMONY, WHICH IS THAT PARK SAW KATO STANDING AND STILL STANDING FOR ANOTHER MINUTE IN THE SAME POSITION AS HE WAS BEFORE KATO PROCEEDED TO OPEN THE GATE AND THAT PARK SAW KATO WAVE AT HIM AT THAT TIME, WHICH KATO SAID HE WAVED AFTER COMPLETING HIS FIRST SEARCH.:)

The fact is that in the criminal trial when Park was asked if he remembered where Kaelin was after Simpson entered his house Park said from what he remembered he was still standing on the sidewalk. Still standing where Park said Kaelin stopped after coming down the Ashford path from behind the house. YES, BUT KATO TESTIFIED HE DID NOT STOP BUT RAN DOWN THE PATHWAY AND DID NOT WALK UNTIL HE REACHED THE SOUTH PATHWAY WHEN HE EXITED HIS QUARTERS.:)

The fact is that in the criminal trial Park never said Kaelin stood on the sidewalk for a minute to two minutes before opening the gate. The fact is that Kaelin consistently testified that when he came out from behind the garage he saw the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. Kaelin never said he went back to the Ashford path and stood there.

There was no controversy as to what Lange said or didn’t say regarding blood in the Bronco. GreenIce wasn’t referring to Detective Lange she was referring to Detective Muldorfer.

bobaugust

I don't care who GreenIce was referring to. I was referring to your statement and all the testimony/evidence in what you have called this search for truth and which you have said that we should consider. :)

[GreenIce]

One interesting fact about Orenthal Simpson’s defense team is that although they worked very hard to get him acquitted, once he was acquitted, very few of them had anything nice to say about him.
The only book written about the defense team, An American Tragedy by Schiller was unflattering to Mr. Simpson. The book also said that the lead attorney, Johnnie Cochran repeatedly expressed doubts about Mr. Simpson’s innocence. As far as I know, none of the members of the defense team has said the book was inaccurate. After the trial Johnnie Cochran implied that Mr. Simpson was guilty, and never said anything nice about Mr. Simpson’s moral character, or that Mr. Simpson was innocent.
Another member of Mr.; Simpson’s defense team who said he thought that Mr. Simpson might be guilty was Robert Kardashian.
I don’t remember exactly how Kardashian expressed his opinion that Simpson might be guilty, but I thought he wasn’t being honest about it.
Kardashian said that he believed in Simpson’s innocence during the trial, but afterwards he started thinking Mr. Simpson might be guilty because of the DNA evidence. This is odd to me, because during the trial Kardashian had access to criminologists and chemists of various backgrounds, including at least two people with PHDs in biochemistry, and at least two people who were full time criminologists. The logical time for Kardashian to form an opinion about the evidence was during the trial when he was a part of the defense team.
I think that Kardashian decided to break off his friendship with Simpson because Simpson had become a social outcast among most white Americans. Kardashian expressed surprise after the trial that so many people were critical of him for defending Simpson.
Regardless of the reason for Kardashian expressing doubts about Simpson’s innocence, the fact of the matter is that Orenthal Simpson seems to be a man who made superficial friendships quite easily, but didn’t generate much long term loyalty.
He spent about 10 M on the dream team, and very few of them said anything nice about him afterwards. Mr. Simpson had a lot of fair weather friends. At least that is the way it looks to me. I think it is unusual for a man to be acquitted of a major crime, and then have two of his lawyers come close to saying he was guilty.
I wish that some of the defenders of Orenthal Simpson would stop and think about why it is that Mr. Simpson gave so much money to his lawyers and got so little loyalty in return.

fgump2,

Please post some of the quotes that his lawyers said about him after the trial? Robert Kardashian did give an interview while the American Tragedy authors were doing their book tour. I saw the interview and he did he say he had some problems with the blood evidence---but he did not say that he felt Simpson was guilty.

His daughters and ex-wife have a reality TV show. I have seen a few of the shows where the Simpsons have come up, especially when Kardashian got sick and died about 3 months later. When his daughters got in trouble, the first lawyer they called was Robert Shapiro and then Shawn Chapman--she was on the Simpson defense team.

BTW, in Clark's book, she says that Nicole wrote in her journal in April 1994"we've officially split and they were going back to every other weekend" in regards to the children. This fully supports that the split was mutal and it was later events where things got a tad out of hand. Apparently, neither one of them tired of pushing the other's buttons.

Also, MF was dumped by his own lawyer and that agency that has been set up to help cops who are in legal trouble refused his pleas for help. That must have really sucked for him since he probably paid a lot of money in dues.
Where were all his friends?

[rovaan]

Park did not indicate that the figure who went into the house stopped to open or unlock the door. He then says that the lights came on. Later after he has driven the limo in through the Ashford gate, he talks about seeing OJ come down the stairs carrying his bag. The only way he could have seen that is if the door had been left open. So if scared Kato had not already gone down the path by the garage, he would have walked by an open front door, with the light on. Why wouldn't he have gone to the front door and called out to OJ, asking him to check out the noise with him. Kato says it was dark when he went by the front of the house the first time. One more thing, Park said he was looking down the driveway. If OJ had come from behind the garage, Park would have seen him first before he saw Kato.

[martin II]

I am depending on my memory. My memory is that when Simpson lost the civil trial in 96 that Cochran said 'He should accept it and move on with his life' I took this to mean that Cochran thought that Simpson with guilty. Also the book ' An American tragedy' by Schiller said that Cochran repeatedly expressed doubts about Simpson's innocence. I never read the book, but I think it was published about 6 years before Cochran died (1999 to 2005) and neither Cocrhan nor anyone else on the defense team disputed this.

Also when Latrell Sprewell got into trouble for choking his coach, he hired Cochran. There was a press conference in which Cochran sat next to Sprewell and read a statement that said "I am not another OJ Simpson, I didn't kill two people". Cochran never explained or refuted this.

I may go to a library sometime and see if I can document this.


i attented two speeches by Cochran where he repeated that ok did not kill nicole and ron and the proof was the time line did not fit.

if cochran read a statement it was obviously by his client.

[martin II]

Park did not indicate that the figure who went into the house stopped to open or unlock the door. He then says that the lights came on. Later after he has driven the limo in through the Ashford gate, he talks about seeing OJ come down the stairs carrying his bag. The only way he could have seen that is if the door had been left open. So if scared Kato had not already gone down the path by the garage, he would have walked by an open front door, with the light on. Why wouldn't he have gone to the front door and called out to OJ, asking him to check out the noise with him. Kato says it was dark when he went by the front of the house the first time. One more thing, Park said he was looking down the driveway. If OJ had come from behind the garage, Park would have seen him first before he saw Kato.

Kato walked pass the front door and the coach lights were not on. oj came downstairs and placed two duffle bags on the porch.walked over to the golf bag and placed it on the bench at the front porch.oj walked back into the house and park saw him.he then turned on the coach lights on the sides of the door.kate walked back pass the front door comming from the garage and the coach lights that oj had just turned was seen by kate.
So oj was in the house in the shower when park was ringing the buzzer and could not have been in the s walkway or at bundy and dorothy.imo

[martin II]

fgump2,

Please post some of the quotes that his lawyers said about him after the trial? Robert Kardashian did give an interview while the American Tragedy authors were doing their book tour. I saw the interview and he did he say he had some problems with the blood evidence---but he did not say that he felt Simpson was guilty.

His daughters and ex-wife have a reality TV show. I have seen a few of the shows where the Simpsons have come up, especially when Kardashian got sick and died about 3 months later. When his daughters got in trouble, the first lawyer they called was Robert Shapiro and then Shawn Chapman--she was on the Simpson defense team.

BTW, in Clark's book, she says that Nicole wrote in her journal in April 1994"we've officially split and they were going back to every other weekend" in regards to the children. This fully supports that the split was mutal and it was later events where things got a tad out of hand. Apparently, neither one of them tired of pushing the other's buttons.

Also, MF was dumped by his own lawyer and that agency that has been set up to help cops who are in legal trouble refused his pleas for help. That must have really sucked for him since he probably paid a lot of money in dues.
Where were all his friends?

do you know all or any of ojs friends that wouls allow you to know if he had support from some of his friends or not.unsupported claims and accusations without posted facts makes you look as if you are just making up stuff and or very biase.imo

[GreenIce]

do you know all or any of ojs friends that wouls allow you to know if he had support from some of his friends or not.unsupported claims and accusations without posted facts makes you look as if you are just making up stuff and or very biase.imo

Martin,

I am not sure what you are asking me. You are responding to me post, correct?

[GreenIce]

Martin,

If Simpson is the killer and he did it under two minutes and if Nicole was struck on the head and knocked her out and then he took on Goldman and killed from behind and then went back over to Nicole and was standing behind her, lifted her head and slit her throat, then how did her blood get on the socks?

Ron but up a hell of a fight, doesn't it only seem obvious that Ron's blood should have been the socks?

And if Simpson was cut, then how come his blood was never found on either victim?

[William Anthony]

Park did not indicate that the figure who went into the house stopped to open or unlock the door. He then says that the lights came on. Later after he has driven the limo in through the Ashford gate, he talks about seeing OJ come down the stairs carrying his bag. The only way he could have seen that is if the door had been left open. So if scared Kato had not already gone down the path by the garage, he would have walked by an open front door, with the light on. Why wouldn't he have gone to the front door and called out to OJ, asking him to check out the noise with him. Kato says it was dark when he went by the front of the house the first time. One more thing, Park said he was looking down the driveway. If OJ had come from behind the garage, Park would have seen him first before he saw Kato.

There are so many discrepancies in Park's testimony and the fact that he changed it to fit the scenario of the lawyer asking the question against Simpson that I tend to disagree with the magnificent one, who said Park was nice but mistaken. I agree with him that Park was mistaken.

[GreenIce]

There are so many discrepancies in Park's testimony and the fact that he changed it to fit the scenario of the lawyer asking the question against Simpson that I tend to disagree with the magnificent one, who said Park was nice but mistaken. I agree with him that Park was mistaken.

William,

I agree with you that there are just too many discepancies in Park's testimony, as with Kato's for anyone to concluded that their testimony is absent of human error.

Also, IMO, Clark did a great job on doing what lawyers do best, on both sides. If you keep asking the same question using different words, eventually you will get to an answer she or he can use. IMO.

[martin II]

Martin,

I am not sure what you are asking me. You are responding to me post, correct?

gi

no it was meant for fogump2
i am talking about some unsupported claims made in his/her post.

[martin II]

Martin,

If Simpson is the killer and he did it under two minutes and if Nicole was struck on the head and knocked her out and then he took on Goldman and killed from behind and then went back over to Nicole and was standing behind her, lifted her head and slit her throat, then how did her blood get on the socks?

Ron but up a hell of a fight, doesn't it only seem obvious that Ron's blood should have been the socks?

And if Simpson was cut, then how come his blood was never found on either victim?

Simple

someone put some blood in places before collection and someone manipulated blood in that lab.imo

it all makes no sense.

Based on the wounds i believe there were two killers. I believe one killer nicole while another killed ron. imo

if this was a straight forward killing by Simpson,there would not be so many problems with blood found, testimony, lab work and where Simpson was. imo

[martin II]

Park did not indicate that the figure who went into the house stopped to open or unlock the door. He then says that the lights came on. Later after he has driven the limo in through the Ashford gate, he talks about seeing OJ come down the stairs carrying his bag. The only way he could have seen that is if the door had been left open. So if scared Kato had not already gone down the path by the garage, he would have walked by an open front door, with the light on. Why wouldn't he have gone to the front door and called out to OJ, asking him to check out the noise with him. Kato says it was dark when he went by the front of the house the first time. One more thing, Park said he was looking down the driveway. If OJ had come from behind the garage, Park would have seen him first before he saw Kato.

rovaan

thanks for your insight about the front door.
the door was already open because oj had just come out to place the two duffle bags when park saw him. which means that oj was in the shower when park was rinning that buzzer every two seconds.

[martin II]

gi

Actually i believe that DA prompting caused Park to testify to the number of times he had rung that buzzer. it makes no since that a limo driver would be parked at the clients house and then be laying on that buzzer as he claimes he did.i think the da was trying to put the question in the juries mind where was oj. obviously they had ignored the evoidence that when oj came out and placed those two duffle bags on the porch it proved that he was in the house.imo

[martin II]

I don't think they're meant for me at all. I think they're meant to make other people think you don't mean the things you say in a nasty way.

tv
i was kinda surprised when you addressed william and myself as TWO FOOLS.
DO YOU REMEMBER THAT COMMENT?

[Kate Sachel]

fgump2,

Please post some of the quotes that his lawyers said about him after the trial? Robert Kardashian did give an interview while the American Tragedy authors were doing their book tour. I saw the interview and he did he say he had some problems with the blood evidence---but he did not say that he felt Simpson was guilty.

His daughters and ex-wife have a reality TV show. I have seen a few of the shows where the Simpsons have come up, especially when Kardashian got sick and died about 3 months later. When his daughters got in trouble, the first lawyer they called was Robert Shapiro and then Shawn Chapman--she was on the Simpson defense team.

BTW, in Clark's book, she says that Nicole wrote in her journal in April 1994"we've officially split and they were going back to every other weekend" in regards to the children. This fully supports that the split was mutal and it was later events where things got a tad out of hand. Apparently, neither one of them tired of pushing the other's buttons.

Also, MF was dumped by his own lawyer and that agency that has been set up to help cops who are in legal trouble refused his pleas for help. That must have really sucked for him since he probably paid a lot of money in dues.
Where were all his friends?

That's why they're noted as fair weather friends. After the criminal trial, when it became apparent that OJ was not going to walk back out into an adoring public with his reputation intact, all of those friends that claimed they had nothing to say almost trampled one another in an effort to remove themselves from any association with him.

It's the same with Mark Fuhrman. When something such as that is brought to light into the public eye and the backlash is what it is, people no longer wish that association.

Kate

[martin II]

Martin,

If Simpson is the killer and he did it under two minutes and if Nicole was struck on the head and knocked her out and then he took on Goldman and killed from behind and then went back over to Nicole and was standing behind her, lifted her head and slit her throat, then how did her blood get on the socks?

Ron but up a hell of a fight, doesn't it only seem obvious that Ron's blood should have been the socks?

And if Simpson was cut, then how come his blood was never found on either victim?

GI

I agree that it does not seem possible that nicoles blood was deposited on any socks at bundy.
i agree with a investigator that claimed the following:

Killer A positioned himself inside the yard near the front door. Killer B positioned himself outside the front gate in the mail box nook as a lookout or backup killer.

That killer a managed to get nicole to answer her door.
when she did she was manhandeled to the bottom of her steps and attacked.

This is when ron appeared at the gate, saw this and yelled at killer A. Hey hay hey.KILLER B then came out from his position behind ron at that mail box and grabbed ron from behind in a headlock and cut his left neck jugular.

Nicole and ron were being attacked at the same time by the two different killers.I also believe it took more than 2 minutes to kill both based on all the wounds to both.

The motive for these two killers being sent to do this act is also reasonable.
imo

[fgump2]

fgump2,

Please post some of the quotes that his lawyers said about him after the trial? Robert Kardashian did give an interview while the American Tragedy authors were doing their book tour. I saw the interview and he did he say he had some problems with the blood evidence---but he did not say that he felt Simpson was guilty.

His daughters and ex-wife have a reality TV show. I have seen a few of the shows where the Simpsons have come up, especially when Kardashian got sick and died about 3 months later. When his daughters got in trouble, the first lawyer they called was Robert Shapiro and then Shawn Chapman--she was on the Simpson defense team.

BTW, in Clark's book, she says that Nicole wrote in her journal in April 1994"we've officially split and they were going back to every other weekend" in regards to the children. This fully supports that the split was mutal and it was later events where things got a tad out of hand. Apparently, neither one of them tired of pushing the other's buttons.

Also, MF was dumped by his own lawyer and that agency that has been set up to help cops who are in legal trouble refused his pleas for help. That must have really sucked for him since he probably paid a lot of money in dues.
Where were all his friends?

I don't have quotes from Kardashian. I thought he at least implied that he thought Mr. SImpson was guilty. In the Wiki encyclopedia it said he said enough for the California Bar assoc to investigate. SInce he was no longer an active lawyer there wasn't much to investigate

There was enough evidence that Nicole dumed Orenthal in May; so an April entry doesn't mean much. Allan Austin told Petrocelli that. I think others did also. She also wrote out her will at about the same time she told people that she dumped him. She was telling friends at this time that Orenthal would probalby kill her. Coincidence.

I don't think MF is worth the effort to write about. If someone investigated racism in the LAPD he would be a small part of it. I read where a white cop accidently killed an off duty black cop in NY a week or two ago. That sort of thing has happened before. In other words when an out of uniform cop is killed because cops mistakingly thought he was a criminal, the cop is usually black. I don't have great insights about this, but I bet over the last 10 - 15 years there has been a lot more written about MF misdeeds and faults than about the fact that when innocent people are hit by police bullets, the innocent people are disproporionately likely to have dark skins.

I read somewhere that MF was collecting Nazi things like cuff links. I don't care to investigate. I feel sorry for someone who gets dumped on by the press as much as he was; but that is about the limit of my support.

[William Anthony]

I don't think MF is worth the effort to write about. If someone investigated racism in the LAPD he would be a small part of it.

I read somewhere that MF was collecting Nazi things like cuff links. I don't care to investigate. I feel sorry for someone who gets dumped on by the press as much as he was; but that is about the limit of my support.

How do we know what part he played without an investigation and I do not feel in the least bit sorry for MF or anyone who thinks and speaks like him.

[fgump2]

Martin,

If Simpson is the killer and he did it under two minutes and if Nicole was struck on the head and knocked her out and then he took on Goldman and killed from behind and then went back over to Nicole and was standing behind her, lifted her head and slit her throat, then how did her blood get on the socks?

Ron but up a hell of a fight, doesn't it only seem obvious that Ron's blood should have been the socks?

And if Simpson was cut, then how come his blood was never found on either victim?

There are several possible explanations for how the blood got on the socks. I thought the most likely was that Simpson stepped in the puddle of blood with one foot, and then brushed that shoe against the sock on the opposite foot. The prosecution came up with some other possibilities, but didn't mention that one.

Ron's bleeding was mostly internal, there was no puddle of Ron's blood of blood to step in.
To say that Ron put up a struggle, therefor there should be blood on one of the socks, that is weak logic. I thought the medical office originally said he put up a hell of a fight (or equivalent words), and then downgraded that a bit. Maybe just said there was a struggle.

I thought I read somewhere that there were microscopic drops of blood, like a spray on one of Simpson's socks. If so, that might shed some light on how it got there.

I think you would have to have a video to find out why there was no Orenthal blood on the victim. The cops thought the cut was dripping, but not dripping heavily. I thought that the defense criticized the cops for not processing all the blood at the crime scene.

There was at least one drop of blood near Ron that was a mixture of the two victims, probably from the weapon/knife.

[martin II]

I don't have quotes from Kardashian. I thought he at least implied that he thought Mr. SImpson was guilty. In the Wiki encyclopedia it said he said enough for the California Bar assoc to investigate. SInce he was no longer an active lawyer there wasn't much to investigate

There was enough evidence that Nicole dumed Orenthal in May; so an April entry doesn't mean much. Allan Austin told Petrocelli that. I think others did also. She also wrote out her will at about the same time she told people that she dumped him. She was telling friends at this time that Orenthal would probalby kill her. Coincidence.

I don't think MF is worth the effort to write about. If someone investigated racism in the LAPD he would be a small part of it. I read where a white cop accidently killed an off duty black cop in NY a week or two ago. That sort of thing has happened before. In other words when an out of uniform cop is killed because cops mistakingly thought he was a criminal, the cop is usually black. I don't have great insights about this, but I bet over the last 10 - 15 years there has been a lot more written about MF misdeeds and faults than about the fact that when innocent people are hit by police bullets, the innocent people are disproporionately likely to have dark skins.

I read somewhere that MF was collecting Nazi things like cuff links. I don't care to investigate. I feel sorry for someone who gets dumped on by the press as much as he was; but that is about the limit of my support.

If you have no quotes from RK , How is it that you know he implied that oj was guilty?

In about April OJ made it known to his and nicoles friends that he and PB were now again a couple. Nicole realized this on her many visits to ojs house.
She also realized this on christmas when PB and oj had a scheduled christmas party at oj NY condo for themselves and the kids which nicole promply crashed the day before christmas.
if there was ever a clear signal to nicole that he was finished it was the letter that oj had his lawyer write to nicole on her IRS request.

I think that by MAY it was clear that both had gone their seperate ways as far as a relationship was concerned.

Nicole telling people that oj was going to kill her means nothing.
imo

[martin II]

There are several possible explanations for how the blood got on the socks. I thought the most likely was that Simpson stepped in the puddle of blood with one foot, and then brushed that shoe against the sock on the opposite foot. The prosecution came up with some other possibilities, but didn't mention that one.

Ron's bleeding was mostly internal, there was no puddle of Ron's blood of blood to step in.
To say that Ron put up a struggle, therefor there should be blood on one of the socks, that is weak logic. I thought the medical office originally said he put up a hell of a fight (or equivalent words), and then downgraded that a bit. Maybe just said there was a struggle.

I thought I read somewhere that there were microscopic drops of blood, like a spray on one of Simpson's socks. If so, that might shed some light on how it got there.

I think you would have to have a video to find out why there was no Orenthal blood on the victim. The cops thought the cut was dripping, but not dripping heavily. I thought that the defense criticized the cops for not processing all the blood at the crime scene.

There was at least one drop of blood near Ron that was a mixture of the two victims, probably from the weapon/knife.

There was no blood splatter on the sock. you may have to try something else.

[William Anthony]

There are several possible explanations for how the blood got on the socks. I thought the most likely was that Simpson stepped in the puddle of blood with one foot, and then brushed that shoe against the sock on the opposite foot. The prosecution came up with some other possibilities, but didn't mention that one.



Another possibility is that the blood was planted on the sock, which accounts for the high level of EDTA found in the stain on the sock.

[martin II]

Another possibility is that the blood was planted on the sock, which accounts for the high level of EDTA found in the stain on the sock.

That is the most reasonable possibility. i support that over unreasonable false claims.

[William Anthony]

That is the most reasonable possibility. i support that over unreasonable false claims.

This is the testimony of the expert they called to rehabilitate Martz in the socio political production.

Q. As a scientist, Dr. Lee, what is the most likely explanation for
this very small trace that is shown in the evidence sample here in
this one test that Agent Martz did?
A. These results are consistent with a carryover from -- in the
instruments. In other words, if you first analyze on the instrument
samples which contain a large quantity of EDTA and then you
subsequently come in with the samples that don't have any, it's not
uncommon to pick up trace levels from various parts of the
instruments that have been contaminated with the EDTA and then
subsequently alluded off when you did the other analyses.
Q. And is that a common problem with the LCESMSMS instruments?
A. It's a common problem with those instruments, yes.
Q. Is it something that you yourself have experienced?
A. Many times.
Q. And is it something that other people that do mass spectrometry
have experienced as well?
A. Yes.
Q. And if people are very experienced in doing mass spectrometry, is
it something that they are aware of is a problem with the
instruments?
A. Yes.


Q. It would be important for you to know exactly what Rodger Martz
was attempting to do in arriving at your opinions and conclusions,
since you didn't do any test to determine EDTA in any sample,
correct?
A. Would you state that again? I'm not sure I followed it.
Q. Okay. Sure be happy to. You did absolutely no testing yourself,
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you don't have -- never designed a test to determine the
presence or absence of EDTA; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you knew from your reading of material, that Rodger Martz had
never designed a test to determine the presence or absence of EDTA
in any material; correct?
A. Prior to the work that he did, that's correct.

The obvious question concerns would be to clean the machine, if you are doing a test to determine the amount of EDTA and, if a test wasn't designed for that purpose how would one know that carryover would in fact occur.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, let me ask you this: You certainly became
aware, from reading the testimony of Rodger Martz in the criminal
trial, that he was to refute the possibility that the stain on the
socks would -- could have come from Nicole's reference sample,
sample number 59; correct?
A. It was his purpose to determine if that was a possibility, yes.
Q. And he was also to refute the possibility that item number 117
could have come from Mr. Simpson's reference sample; right?
A. He was asked to determine if that was a possibility, yes.
Q. And he was asked to make those determinations and not to quantify
at all. And, in fact, he didn't quantify; true?
A. He did not accurately quantify the level of EDTA in those
samples; that's correct.
Q. He didn't even attempt to quantify at all in designing his test,
did he, sir?
A. Well, that depends upon what you mean by "quantify." Any
occasion, in order to draw a conclusion, you have to have some idea
about the quantity involved; otherwise, you can't draw a conclusion
based upon whether or not it's even there.
Q. Let me read to you what you read of Mr. Martz's testimony in the
criminal trial at 38641, lines 1 through 5.
Q. By the way, is the method that you used, any of the methods that
you used, quantitative methods?
A. I did not specifically use these methods to quantitate the amount
of EDT
A. That's what his testimony was, was it not, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Now, you in coming and arriving at your opinions, are not
saying that wasn't EDTA; you're saying that the amount -- the
quantity is too little; and hence, you don't believe it came from a
purple-top test tube, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So you are using quantities, where Mr. Martz, in his tests,
determined -- or attempted not to quantify anything; correct?
A. The --
Q. Well, can you answer that?
A. It's a matter of semantics.
Q. Can you answer that question, sir?
A. Yes. Could you ask it again?
Q. You are attempting to use quantity to -- in arriving at your
opinion that -- that this EDTA that was found in the samples from
both the back gate and the socks, was not EDTA from a purple-top
test tube; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And you are fully aware that Rodger Martz does not use
quantity to make any determination relative to EDTA, nor was he
asked to; correct?
A. By the strict definition of quantitative analysis, he was not
doing that.
Q. Can you answer my question, sir? He was not using --
A. I can answer. I can tell you, as an expert, that I could draw no
conclusions whatsoever unless he had some measure of the amount of
material present.

[bobaugust]

I don't care who GreenIce was referring to. I was referring to your statement and all the testimony/evidence in what you have called this search for truth and which you have said that we should consider. :)

Your inferences regarding this issue William are based only on some minor differences in recollection that you have distorted and blown way out of proportion as well as a fantasy that you and only you have imagined all resulting in some illogical false claims that you and only you have made.

The fact is that Detective Lange never testified to seeing or not seeing blood in the Bronco and any inference based on that fact to claim that Lange saw or didn’t see blood in the Bronco is a dishonest misleading inference and false claim. Hmmm that sure sounds like what you’ve done William with your false claim that when Kaelin came out from behind the garage he went to the Ashford path and stood there for a minute to two minutes and that’s when Park first saw him that night.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Another possibility is that the blood was planted on the sock, which accounts for the high level of EDTA found in the stain on the sock.

You may think the levels of EDTA were high but the evidence is that they were 1000 times smaller than the amount of EDTA in Nicole’s reference sample. The evidence is that the small trace amounts of EDTA found only in the third test results was the result of contamination of the blood samples during that third test.

The fact is that the defense sock blood planting theory was later proven false when degradation comparisons conclusively proved that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock could not have come from her blood reference sample.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

Your inferences regarding this issue William are based only on some minor differences in recollection that you have distorted and blown way out of proportion as well as a fantasy that you and only you have imagined all resulting in some illogical false claims that you and only you have made.

The fact is that Detective Lange never testified to seeing or not seeing blood in the Bronco and any inference based on that fact to claim that Lange saw or didn’t see blood in the Bronco is a dishonest misleading inference and false claim. Hmmm that sure sounds like what you’ve done William with your false claim that when Kaelin came out from behind the garage he went to the Ashford path and stood there for a minute to two minutes and that’s when Park first saw him that night.

bobaugust

Well, kato never said whether or not he stopped on the Ashford pathway on his return from his first cursory search, as he was never asked. You say, "Lange never testified to seeing or not seeing blood in the Bronco and any inference based on that fact to claim that Lange saw or didn’t see blood in the Bronco is a dishonest misleading inference and false claim." However, let's look at your original statement, "You claim there were more people who did not see the blood then these two officers. Lange never said he didn’t see blood inside the Bronco; he was never asked that question." You are inferring that Lang blood was in there, because someone else said there was blood in there, just as Park testified that he saw Kato standing and still standing for another minute when Kato waved at him. To say that any inference that Park was wrong based on that fact to claim Park never saw Kato standing and still standing is a dishonest misleading inference and false claim, is what you have said about Lang.

[William Anthony]

You may think the levels of EDTA were high but the evidence is that they were 1000 times smaller than the amount of EDTA in Nicole’s reference sample. The evidence is that the small trace amounts of EDTA found only in the third test results was the result of contamination of the blood samples during that third test.

The fact is that the defense sock blood planting theory was later proven false when degradation comparisons conclusively proved that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock could not have come from her blood reference sample.

bobaugust

Nothing was conclusively proven and I see now that in order to say that something was conclusively proven you want to consider testimony from the socio political production.:) However, the level of EDTA found in the sock stain was a thousand times larger than what should have been in unpreserved human blood. If you start with nothing and add nothing, you will get nothing. However, if you start with something and subtract something but not all of what you have, you will have a remainder. :)

Is this your definition of conclusive?

"Q. Now, the Autorad we looked at had one lane for Nicole Brown Simpson and one
lane for the sock, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the lane for Nicole Brown Simpson was from reference blood?

A. Yes.

Q. You indicated that a reference sample for -- might not necessarily be always
clean, right?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: I think that does. You may rephrase it.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) When you were talking about Ms. Brown Simpson's blood
before, you said that you wouldn't always necessarily expect to have a
completely clean sample, right?

A. I don't remember if I said that. What do you mean by clean?

Q. Well, the lane that's on there is from her reference sample which is the
same reference sample that we already talked about, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. That's the B allele, whatever it's caused by shows-up?

A. Yes.

Q. And the lane that's on there for the sock, that can be -- you have no way of
knowing the source of the blood on -- or how that blood got on that sock, do
you?

A. Of course, not.

Q. Okay.

And blood can be taken from a reference file and put on a piece of cloth and
wiped on a sock and you can get a test result, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Misstates the evidence.
Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled. Hypothetical.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Correct?

A. So are you asking me, could someone take some blood and wipe it on a sock
and then you would get a type?

Q. Yes.

A. Sure.

Q. Or you could take some blood and wipe it on a cotton swatch and then wipe it
on a sock, couldn't you?

A. That would be harder, but, yes, you could.

Q. There are all sort of ways you could do that; aren't there?

A. Sure.

Q. You can't tell from the intensity of the lanes on that Autorad where that
blood came from, can you?

Whether it came from a reference tube or a wound, can you?

A. No, I do think you can make some conclusions about whether it came from the
reference tube, from the patterns, from the degradation in the two patterns in
that film.

Q. You said there wasn't much degradation, didn't you?

A. I said there's virtually little to no degradation.

Q. Thank you.

A. That had been made from sock.

Q. It's very clean?

A. It's very clean.

Q. Reference samples are very clean, usually, aren't they?

A. This one is not in terms of degradation."

[martin II]

Another possibility is that the blood was planted on the sock, which accounts for the high level of EDTA found in the stain on the sock.

obviously the planter thought the EDTA would just go away.

[William Anthony]

Well, kato never said whether or not he stopped on the Ashford pathway on his return from his first cursory search, as he was never asked. You say, "Lange never testified to seeing or not seeing blood in the Bronco and any inference based on that fact to claim that Lange saw or didn’t see blood in the Bronco is a dishonest misleading inference and false claim." However, let's look at your original statement, "You claim there were more people who did not see the blood then these two officers. Lange never said he didn’t see blood inside the Bronco; he was never asked that question." You are inferring that Lang blood was in there, because someone else said there was blood in there, just as Park testified that he saw Kato standing and still standing for another minute when Kato waved at him. To say that any inference that Park was wrong based on that fact to claim Park never saw Kato standing and still standing is a dishonest misleading inference and false claim, is what you have said about Lang.

Correction-You are inferring that blood was int there, because someone else said they saw blood in there, just as Park testified that he saw Kato standing and still standing for another minute when Kato waved at him.

[William Anthony]

obviously the planter thought the EDTA would just go away.

I think the planter underestimated Martz's desire for fame.

[weezer]

If you have no quotes from RK , How is it that you know he implied that oj was guilty?

In about April OJ made it known to his and nicoles friends that he and PB were now again a couple. Nicole realized this on her many visits to ojs house.
She also realized this on christmas when PB and oj had a scheduled christmas party at oj NY condo for themselves and the kids which nicole promply crashed the day before christmas.
if there was ever a clear signal to nicole that he was finished it was the letter that oj had his lawyer write to nicole on her IRS request.

I think that by MAY it was clear that both had gone their seperate ways as far as a relationship was concerned.

Nicole telling people that oj was going to kill her means nothing.
imo

O.J.'s friend says he doubts Simpson's innocence
October 10, 1996
Web posted at: 9:10 p.m. EDT
From Correspondent Art Harris

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- O.J. Simpson intimate Robert Kardashian says he now has doubts that Simpson is innocent of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and will say so if called to testify in the upcoming civil trial.

The statements were made in an interview with Barbara Walters to air on "ABC's 20-20" Friday evening. The interview was to promote the latest book on the Simpson case, "American Tragedy: The Uncensored Story of The Simpson Defense."

---------------------------------------------------------------

A week before her death, Nicole tells friend Cici Shahian: "He's going to kill me and get away with it and charm the world because he's OJ Simpson".

Pals Faye Resnick and Robin Greir say Nicole told them OJ was going to kill her.

Nicole confides in therapist Susan Forward she feared OJ would murder her.

In 1982, OJ throws Nicole against a wall: In 1987, he shoves her to the ground; and in 1989, he slaps her and pushes her from a moving car.

Nicole makes out her will five weeks before she was murdered.

Police respond to a 911 call on New Year's Day 1989 to find a bruised and bleeding Nicole hiding in the bushes, wearing only a bra and sweatpants, crying: "He's going to kill me! He's going to kill me!"

Nicole has her sister Denise Brown take pictures of her bruised body, locks them in a safe-deposit box, and tell Denise: "I need proof that OJ beat me. Without proof no one will ever believe me. The public thinks he's a hero who can do no wrong.

A nightmarish 911 police recording in 1993 has Nicole shouting: "When he gets this crazed, I get scared...He gets a very animalistic look in him...His eyes are black, just black, I mean cold, like an animal."

Nicole tells Faye Resnick, "I look at (OJ's) arms and think 'God, are these going to be the arms that kill me someday?"

OJ admits to Resnick he was seeing a therapist over his volatile feelings for Nicole.

Nicole tells Kato she thought OJ would kill her with scissors.

[martin II]

There are several possible explanations for how the blood got on the socks. I thought the most likely was that Simpson stepped in the puddle of blood with one foot, and then brushed that shoe against the sock on the opposite foot. The prosecution came up with some other possibilities, but didn't mention that one.

Ron's bleeding was mostly internal, there was no puddle of Ron's blood of blood to step in. 1. there is a large pool of blood 2-3 feet south from where he was found. 2 If rons bleeding was internal,why was his jeans and shirt soacked in blood. see pictures of bundy walkway.
To say that Ron put up a struggle, therefor there should be blood on one of the socks, that is weak logic. I thought the medical office originally said he put up a hell of a fight (or equivalent words), and then downgraded that a bit. Maybe just said there was a struggle.

I thought I read somewhere that there were microscopic drops of blood, like a spray on one of Simpson's socks. If so, that might shed some light on how it got there.

I think you would have to have a video to find out why there was no Orenthal blood on the victim. The cops thought the cut was dripping, but not dripping heavily. I thought that the defense criticized the cops for not processing all the blood at the crime scene.

There was at least one drop of blood near Ron that was a mixture of the two victims, probably from the weapon/knife.

see bundy pictures

[martin II]

Nicole wrote oj a letter taking blame for their problems.

Some time before her death oj made it clear that he had another woman PB.
oj was found not guilty.fini

[martin II]

I think the planter underestimated Martz's desire for fame.

Like Rubin.

[GreenIce]

I don't have quotes from Kardashian. I thought he at least implied that he thought Mr. SImpson was guilty. In the Wiki encyclopedia it said he said enough for the California Bar assoc to investigate. SInce he was no longer an active lawyer there wasn't much to investigate

There was enough evidence that Nicole dumed Orenthal in May; so an April entry doesn't mean much. Allan Austin told Petrocelli that. I think others did also. She also wrote out her will at about the same time she told people that she dumped him. She was telling friends at this time that Orenthal would probalby kill her. Coincidence.

I don't think MF is worth the effort to write about. If someone investigated racism in the LAPD he would be a small part of it. I read where a white cop accidently killed an off duty black cop in NY a week or two ago. That sort of thing has happened before. In other words when an out of uniform cop is killed because cops mistakingly thought he was a criminal, the cop is usually black. I don't have great insights about this, but I bet over the last 10 - 15 years there has been a lot more written about MF misdeeds and faults than about the fact that when innocent people are hit by police bullets, the innocent people are disproporionately likely to have dark skins.

I read somewhere that MF was collecting Nazi things like cuff links. I don't care to investigate. I feel sorry for someone who gets dumped on by the press as much as he was; but that is about the limit of my support.

fgump2,

When they got back together in April 93, they were going to give it 1 year but keep separate houses. If they made it a year they were going to re-marry. They didn't make it. Since neither you or I were in the room when they were discussing their future as a couple, we will never know.

It was only Faye Resnick who kept writing in her book that OJ would kill Nicole if he caught her with another before he left for the East Coast in August. Why Faye insisted that after August he would not kill her if he saw her with another man makes no sense but there are those who bought this, like the DA's. First, Simpson did see Nicole in a very intimate situation and only rang the bell and walked away. If I a man doesn't go bonkers seeing his wife in this situation, I seriously doubt he would say he would only killer her before August.

Nicole was in no position to "dump" Simpson and she knew that they had a bond---the children. As any divorced single parent woman knows, the men hold the power in the situation. Sad, but true that even today women still do not have the earning power of a man.

The blood evidence in this case still haunts me and I believe Mr. Simpson is innocent of the crime. It took a very long time and re-reading transcripts and listening to the testimony to realize that blood was planted, the much of the blood evidence was unreliable. All the DNA testimony in this trial was like watching a Grade C horror flick of ignorance, incompetence plus professional pissing contests that are still going on today.

In some ways you are right about MF and some ways you are wrong about MF and the LAPD. Remember, MF was allowed to flourish and be promoted after his horrendous conduct toward his superiors. MF told the City of LA what he was, they called him a liar and told him to get back to work.

It is the "small parts" that make up the whole part, right?

[GreenIce]

Simple

someone put some blood in places before collection and someone manipulated blood in that lab.imo

it all makes no sense.

Based on the wounds i believe there were two killers. I believe one killer nicole while another killed ron. imo

if this was a straight forward killing by Simpson,there would not be so many problems with blood found, testimony, lab work and where Simpson was. imo

Martin,

I believe there was at least four of them at the Condo that night. IMO, the door to the condo being left open was for someone inside the condo to listen for the kids. Also, I believe there was at least one at the front gate and the back gate.

That area was pretty busy, there is no way one person would attempt to two kill two adults, with a large dog and two sleeping kids upstairs.

What I am having a harder time with now are the DA's dog witnesses. After about 10 minutes of barking, aren't you looking out a window or going outside to find out who's dog this is and why the hell is it barking like that? That no one called the police about a barking dog?

IMO, I think the other killers left the way they came in, through the garage door. Who ever left that bloody fingerprint on the gate, if there was one, got very lucky, IMO. I do believe there was blood taken from that print and it was not Ron's, Nicole's or Simpson's so like other lost bloody fingerprints in this case, it got lost.

I also believe that Ron and Nicole were killed closer to 11:00 or even a little later and/or the killers were still in the area, which is why the dog was chasing then stopping and barking at the houses. I know alot of people dismiss this but IMO, if you think a dog can wail for its dead owner, then you got to say he could also still smell the danger and did not lead anyone to the bodies until it was safe. IMO.

[GreenIce]

obviously the planter thought the EDTA would just go away.

Martin,

What is one argument that has never, ever, never, ever made regarding planting of the blood by a cop or a detective? "Why would they plant blood knowing about EDTA"? Ever notice that? Wouldn't you think that would be an argument made?

I have never heard the talking heads talk about this. Have you?

[GreenIce]

i attented two speeches by Cochran where he repeated that ok did not kill nicole and ron and the proof was the time line did not fit.

if cochran read a statement it was obviously by his client.

Martin,

Cochran has always said there was more then enough reasonable doubt and he would talk about the evidence. However, it appeared to me that many of the talking heads didn't want to talk about both sides of the evidence, only the DA's side.

When he passed away, his daughter did a telephone interview and she said her father said to his dying day that Simpson was innocent. He wrote another book after the one he wrote about the Simpson case. In this book, he said that Simpson never lied to him. He, like every great lawyer is not going to accept the word of their client's because they are being paid to make the DA's prove their case, not that their client is telling the truth. They constantly give their clients little tests, they have to. I think it would be a lawyer's worst nightmare to realize their client had just turned into Sybil on the stand. The can't put their client on the stand if they know he is lying.

In all the books written by defense members and the interviews, I don't remember any of them ever saying that Simpson lied to them.

I believe the timeline and the fact that the shoes, clothes and murder weapon were never found is another key factor. IMO, I think when these items weren't found within the first few weeks, the DA's and the LAPD went into a panic. I do believe the DA's dragged their case out as long as possible to try to buy some more time. IMO.

[Kate Sachel]

Defense witness Herbert MacDonnell, expert witness in blood spatter interpretation testified under cross examination that he did originally refer to the blood pattern on the sock as a "swipe" rather than a "compression".

He then claimed that to be irrelevant.

Marcia Clark asks "if someone wearing the socks that you saw were to step near to the body of the victim Nicole Brown Simpson, near enough for the ankle bone to come in contact with her bloody hand could that cause a compression transfer?"

Herbert MacDonnell responds "certainly".

Marcia Clark asks "could it also cause a swipe?"

Herbert MacDonnell responds "yes".

As we clearly see from the defense's own expert witness, there is certainly a plausible explanation for how the blood of Nicole Brown Simpson could have been on the sock of OJ Simpson.

Kate

[GreenIce]

gi

Actually i believe that DA prompting caused Park to testify to the number of times he had rung that buzzer. it makes no since that a limo driver would be parked at the clients house and then be laying on that buzzer as he claimes he did.i think the da was trying to put the question in the juries mind where was oj. obviously they had ignored the evoidence that when oj came out and placed those two duffle bags on the porch it proved that he was in the house.imo

Martin,

Clark writes something very odd about Park and the addresses in her book. She says that after Park was burned by the defense lawyer, he would not never have another interview without his mother present and the mother was a criminal defense lawyer. I have no problem with Park having a lawyer with him, even if it is his mom, but I do have a problem with mom feeding him his lines.

Clark asked Park how he was looking for Simpson's house. He said that he was looking at addresses--then his mom said something like, "you were looking for addresses on the curb". Why would Clark write that in her book unless she was saying that she never planted that idea into his head but his mom did so she just ran with it? Apparently Clark didn't mind a shady defense lawyer as long as it helped her case. IMO.

I never thought of that, the amount of time he spent on the buzzer. Also, didn't Dale St. John say that he was always late and just to wait until a certain time then leave?

[GreenIce]

Nicole wrote oj a letter taking blame for their problems.

Some time before her death oj made it clear that he had another woman PB.
oj was found not guilty.fini

Martin,

IMO, I think that OJ believed he could have Nicole back any time he wanted and I think Nicole thought she could have OJ back any time she wanted. I believe these were two people who loved each other dearly but just couldn't live together.

I do believe that OJ knew that Nicole could never fully trust him and he knew he deserved that. No one can blame Nicole for that. However, I also think that Nicole was enjoying her independence and that she really wanted to be able to make it on her own. Yes, she would need help but I do believe Simpson would have supported every effort she made to set herself up in a business.

Both Nicole and OJ were not above being petty with each other or psychological warfare either, however, people tend to forget the acts of kindness they showed each other after they split. I think people tend to forget that Nicole knew as well as OJ knew if they ever needed to talk to one another about a problem they were having, they could turn to each other.

I just don't see a motive for Simpson to kill Nicole and I don't remember anyone saying that Simpson said he hated Nicole and/or wished her dead. I also think the age difference was something that was harder and harder for them to overcome. Again, IMO.

[fgump2]

Martin,

IMO, I think that OJ believed he could have Nicole back any time he wanted and I think Nicole thought she could have OJ back any time she wanted. I believe these were two people who loved each other dearly but just couldn't live together.

I do believe that OJ knew that Nicole could never fully trust him and he knew he deserved that. No one can blame Nicole for that. However, I also think that Nicole was enjoying her independence and that she really wanted to be able to make it on her own. Yes, she would need help but I do believe Simpson would have supported every effort she made to set herself up in a business.

Both Nicole and OJ were not above being petty with each other or psychological warfare either, however, people tend to forget the acts of kindness they showed each other after they split. I think people tend to forget that Nicole knew as well as OJ knew if they ever needed to talk to one another about a problem they were having, they could turn to each other.

I just don't see a motive for Simpson to kill Nicole and I don't remember anyone saying that Simpson said he hated Nicole and/or wished her dead. I also think the age difference was something that was harder and harder for them to overcome. Again, IMO.

I notice you ignore the fact that Nicole told various people including her therapist that she thought that her ex would kill her. Not just that he would kill her but that he would stab her to death.
Anytime someone predicts that someone will murder them in a certain way, if the person making the prediction is murdered in that manner, then we should take a good hard look at the person the deceased pointed a finger at. To write about the fact (maybe true) that some of Nicole's friends were concerned about her drug consumption, and then ignore the main tension in her life, her fear that Simpson would kill her, is illogical.

There is evidence that Orenthal told at least one person, Faye Resnick, that if he caught her with another man before Agust he would kill her. Many people say that Faye Resnick was unreliable, but she repeatead this remark to two other people before the murders. Also in Nicole's diary a few days before the murder, she wrote that Orenthal said over the phone:" you hung up on me, you b***h, you'll pay for that". I don't think that Nicole's talk about her fear of Orenthal killing her was a psychological game. Where is the payoff in that game?
To me the fact that NGs ignore Nicole's predicton that he would murder her in a certain manner, and then also try to read things into the fact that MF said 'them' when it might have been more appropriate to say 'it', or to analyze what some detective said is dishonest. Another example of double standards.

[GreenIce]

There are several possible explanations for how the blood got on the socks. I thought the most likely was that Simpson stepped in the puddle of blood with one foot, and then brushed that shoe against the sock on the opposite foot. The prosecution came up with some other possibilities, but didn't mention that one.

Ron's bleeding was mostly internal, there was no puddle of Ron's blood of blood to step in.
To say that Ron put up a struggle, therefor there should be blood on one of the socks, that is weak logic. I thought the medical office originally said he put up a hell of a fight (or equivalent words), and then downgraded that a bit. Maybe just said there was a struggle.

I thought I read somewhere that there were microscopic drops of blood, like a spray on one of Simpson's socks. If so, that might shed some light on how it got there.

I think you would have to have a video to find out why there was no Orenthal blood on the victim. The cops thought the cut was dripping, but not dripping heavily. I thought that the defense criticized the cops for not processing all the blood at the crime scene.

There was at least one drop of blood near Ron that was a mixture of the two victims, probably from the weapon/knife.

fgump2,

First, there was no way the DA's could ever overcome that fact that at least 4 of their lab people looked the socks and saw no blood and not one of them ever thought to perform any tests on these dark socks. The socks were without a doubt, the most important evidence at Rockingham.

The defense proved, which the DA's agreed with that the blood was pressed on the socks. The DA's said that it was Nicole reaching up and grabbing Simpson's leg. How she was able to do with while knocked out, I have no clue.

According the DA's theory, there was not enough time for either Ron or Nicole's blood to pool. So stepping in one was impossible. Which leads me to question how long the killers stayed at the scene. According to the DA's theory, Simpson never could have left the footprints.

I think the Defense did the "spray experiment" with Dr. Lee. Which showed the difference between between a spray of blood vs blood being pressed into the sock.

[GreenIce]

I notice you ignore the fact that Nicole told various people including her therapist that she thought that her ex would kill her. Not just that he would kill her but that he would stab her to death.
Anytime someone predicts that someone will murder them in a certain way, if the person making the prediction is murdered in that manner, then we should take a good hard look at the person the deceased pointed a finger at. To write about the fact (maybe true) that some of Nicole's friends were concerned about her drug consumption, and then ignore the main tension in her life, her fear that Simpson would kill her, is illogical.

There is evidence that Orenthal told at least one person, Faye Resnick, that if he caught her with another man before Agust he would kill her. Many people say that Faye Resnick was unreliable, but she repeatead this remark to two other people before the murders. Also in Nicole's diary a few days before the murder, she wrote that Orenthal said over the phone:" you hung up on me, you b***h, you'll pay for that". I don't think that Nicole's talk about her fear of Orenthal killing her was a psychological game. Where is the payoff in that game?
To me the fact that NGs ignore Nicole's predicton that he would murder her in a certain manner, and then also try to read things into the fact that MF said 'them' when it might have been more appropriate to say 'it', or to analyze what some detective said is dishonest. Another example of double standards.

fgump2,

Why would Simpson kill Nicole if he saw her with another man before August and would not kill her if he saw her with another in Sept? Does that make any sense that a threat would be based on the month?

It was not Nicole's fear that Simpson was going to kill her, it was Faye's fear and she begged Nicole to leave the children so they could leave the country. The fact that she tacked on Simpson's name makes no sense. Why would Simpson want to kill Faye?

The problem with Nicole's prediction, are the people who said it was her prediction. What was in it for them?

[William Anthony]

To me the fact that NGs ignore Nicole's predicton that he would murder her in a certain manner, and then also try to read things into the fact that MF said 'them' when it might have been more appropriate to say 'it', or to analyze what some detective said is dishonest. Another example of double standards.

I can understand why you would feel that there is a double standard being applied or you consider it dishonest to analyze what a detective said. This type of reasoning, IMHO, comes from a predisposition to ignore the presumption of innocence.

[William Anthony]

Defense witness Herbert MacDonnell, expert witness in blood spatter interpretation testified under cross examination that he did originally refer to the blood pattern on the sock as a "swipe" rather than a "compression".

He then claimed that to be irrelevant.

Marcia Clark asks "if someone wearing the socks that you saw were to step near to the body of the victim Nicole Brown Simpson, near enough for the ankle bone to come in contact with her bloody hand could that cause a compression transfer?"

Herbert MacDonnell responds "certainly".

Marcia Clark asks "could it also cause a swipe?"

Herbert MacDonnell responds "yes".

As we clearly see from the defense's own expert witness, there is certainly a plausible explanation for how the blood of Nicole Brown Simpson could have been on the sock of OJ Simpson.

Kate

I do not read that into the expert's testimony. What I read is that is one way a compression transfer could occur. Dr. Cotton also tells us other ways that a compression transfer could occur, which I posted. However, the more important evidence about how that compression transfer might have occurred, IMHO, is the testimony about the stain being on both sides of the socks, meaning an ankle was not present in the sock at that time.

[William Anthony]

Martin,

What is one argument that has never, ever, never, ever made regarding planting of the blood by a cop or a detective? "Why would they plant blood knowing about EDTA"? Ever notice that? Wouldn't you think that would be an argument made?

I have never heard the talking heads talk about this. Have you?

GreenIce,

There was no test that had been devised to determine the amount of EDTA in blood and probably felt safe that, if they planted blood, it would go undetected.

[William Anthony]

Of course there is a difference. What you seem to have missed is that my comment that Lange was never asked if he saw blood in the Bronco was in response to GreenIce’s claim that a detective SAID they didn’t see any blood in the Bronco.

Lange never said anything about seeing or not seeing blood in the Bronco and if GreenIce had claimed Lange did say that, which she didn’t, that would be the same as your false claim that Kaelin went back to the Ashford path and stood there after he came out from behind the garage.

bobaugust

Testimony of Lang on cross by the magnificent one on the date of March 9th.

"Q: DID YOU LOOK INSIDE THAT BRONCO EITHER WITH A NAKED EYE OR A FLASHLIGHT, LOOK INSIDE TO SEE IF YOU SAW ANY BLOOD INSIDE THERE AT THAT POINT ON JUNE 13TH?

A: I PEERED IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE AND OBSERVED SOME ITEMS IN THE REAR. I DID NOT PEER INTO THE FRONT.

Q: I COULDN'T HEAR YOUR -- YOU DROPPED YOUR VOICE.

A: I DID NOT PEER INTO THE FRONT. I PEERED INTO THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE AND OBSERVED SOME ITEMS IN THE REAR. "

Contrary, to your claim Lang was asked if he saw blood in the Bronco. To say that he was never asked is a misleading dishonest false statement that misstates the evidence, IMHO.

[GreenIce]

Testimony of Lang on cross by the magnificent one on the date of March 9th.

"Q: DID YOU LOOK INSIDE THAT BRONCO EITHER WITH A NAKED EYE OR A FLASHLIGHT, LOOK INSIDE TO SEE IF YOU SAW ANY BLOOD INSIDE THERE AT THAT POINT ON JUNE 13TH?

A: I PEERED IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE AND OBSERVED SOME ITEMS IN THE REAR. I DID NOT PEER INTO THE FRONT.

Q: I COULDN'T HEAR YOUR -- YOU DROPPED YOUR VOICE.

A: I DID NOT PEER INTO THE FRONT. I PEERED INTO THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE AND OBSERVED SOME ITEMS IN THE REAR. "

Contrary, to your claim Lang was asked if he saw blood in the Bronco. To say that he was never asked is a misleading dishonest false statement that misstates the evidence, IMHO.

William,

Let me guess why Lange never looked in the front of the Bronco:

1. Was not his crime scene, therefore not obligated to look at Bronco at all, let alone look for blood in the front.

2. He and Vanatter split the Bronco--Lange got the rear and VA had the front.

3. He wasn't looking for evidence at all period, just wanted to give his personal ranking on how bad the Bronco was parked.

In Clark's book she says point blank that Dennis Fung did not collect all the blood on the console in the Bronco, that for only "reasons" known by Fung, he only took a "representative" sample. (Kind of reminds me of VA's "potential suspect" excuse)

Pictures mean nothing because they could have swiped blood in another like SUV and claim it was the Bronco's.

All those people could not have missed this blood on the console.

If you read Kestler testimony in the criminal trial, I am surprised she still had a job, IMO.

[GreenIce]

I notice you ignore the fact that Nicole told various people including her therapist that she thought that her ex would kill her. Not just that he would kill her but that he would stab her to death.
Anytime someone predicts that someone will murder them in a certain way, if the person making the prediction is murdered in that manner, then we should take a good hard look at the person the deceased pointed a finger at. To write about the fact (maybe true) that some of Nicole's friends were concerned about her drug consumption, and then ignore the main tension in her life, her fear that Simpson would kill her, is illogical.

There is evidence that Orenthal told at least one person, Faye Resnick, that if he caught her with another man before Agust he would kill her. Many people say that Faye Resnick was unreliable, but she repeatead this remark to two other people before the murders. Also in Nicole's diary a few days before the murder, she wrote that Orenthal said over the phone:" you hung up on me, you b***h, you'll pay for that". I don't think that Nicole's talk about her fear of Orenthal killing her was a psychological game. Where is the payoff in that game?
To me the fact that NGs ignore Nicole's predicton that he would murder her in a certain manner, and then also try to read things into the fact that MF said 'them' when it might have been more appropriate to say 'it', or to analyze what some detective said is dishonest. Another example of double standards.

fgump2,

Nicole's "regular" shrink was not called to testify. Susan Forward was one that was recommended to her by her divorce attorney. Since Susan Forward was heavily sanactioned and I think her license was suspended rules out any credibility on her statements.

I there were also two other shrink types that Nicole saw, none of these ever came forward to say they warned Nicole that she was in danger. I think it is a law that if a thearpist believes the patient is in danager, they have to by law, put this in writing and give it to their client. No letter has ever been discovered.

Faye was paranoid the last few weeks of Nicole's life and it wasn't about OJ Simpson. Of course Faye is going to say whatever she has to say to take the heat off of her. But you didn't answer my question, why killer before August and not after August? That makes no sense.

It was alleged that Nicole called the Sojourn Shelter, in Clark's book she says that Nicole called the cops 8 times during that time frame and the police did nothing. Funny, we didn't hear about those phone calls Marcia, were you waiting for the civil trial?

Kato's later statemetns and testimony about this case, IMO is suspect. He was creamed in the press and was labeled a Simpson groupie. It would not help his career if he allowed this tag to stand. IMO.

Nicole had no problem calling the cops when damage was done to her property and to herself---why didn't call the police that night if she was so scared?

[martin II]

I do not read that into the expert's testimony. What I read is that is one way a compression transfer could occur. Dr. Cotton also tells us other ways that a compression transfer could occur, which I posted. However, the more important evidence about how that compression transfer might have occurred, IMHO, is the testimony about the stain being on both sides of the socks, meaning an ankle was not present in the sock at that time.

In order for blood to get on the sock at bundy it would have to penetrate the barrier of the bottom of pant leg and the top of the ht shoe. very unlikely.

Clarks question was based on Nicole having a bloody hand and able to reach up and grab the killers ankle. highly unlikely but good trick question. There is no proof of a bloody hand. imo

[bobaugust]

Well, kato never said whether or not he stopped on the Ashford pathway on his return from his first cursory search, as he was never asked. You say, "Lange never testified to seeing or not seeing blood in the Bronco and any inference based on that fact to claim that Lange saw or didn’t see blood in the Bronco is a dishonest misleading inference and false claim." However, let's look at your original statement, "You claim there were more people who did not see the blood then these two officers. Lange never said he didn’t see blood inside the Bronco; he was never asked that question." You are inferring that Lang blood was in there, because someone else said there was blood in there, just as Park testified that he saw Kato standing and still standing for another minute when Kato waved at him. To say that any inference that Park was wrong based on that fact to claim Park never saw Kato standing and still standing is a dishonest misleading inference and false claim, is what you have said about Lang.

You say Kaelin never said whether or not he stopped on the Ashford pathway on his return from his first cursory search. What you fail to comprehend is that every time Kaelin was asked what he did after his first cursory search he consistently testified that when he came out from behind the garage he saw that the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. Kaelin never said he went to the Ashford pathway and stand there because he never did that.

I never inferred as you say “that Lange blood was in there, because someone else said there was blood in there,” what ever that means. GreenIce claimed that one of the witnesses who testified to not seeing blood in the Bronco was a detective. I assumed she was referring to Lange. That’s why I said that Lange was never asked that question. When I then asked GreenIce what detective she was referring to she said Detective Muldorfer.

Park was wrong in his pre criminal trial testimony when he thought that Kaelin remained on the Ashford path after he saw him come from behind the house until Kaelin opened the gate for Park. Park never said in the criminal trial that he saw Kaelin still standing “for another minute.” Kaelin never said he waved at Park from the Ashford pathway. Kaelin said that after he opened the gate he waved Park in.

Park made it clear in his civil trial testimony that after he saw Simpson enter his house he finished his phone conversation and wasn’t paying any attention to what Kaelin was doing. Park said he didn’t see Kaelin again until he saw him come up the driveway (from the garage area) and go to the gate control box. Park never said he saw Kaelin came up the driveway (from the garage area) and go to the Ashford pathway. You’re the only one who ever made that ridiculous false claim.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Nothing was conclusively proven and I see now that in order to say that something was conclusively proven you want to consider testimony from the socio political production.:) However, the level of EDTA found in the sock stain was a thousand times larger than what should have been in unpreserved human blood. If you start with nothing and add nothing, you will get nothing. However, if you start with something and subtract something but not all of what you have, you will have a remainder. :)

Is this your definition of conclusive?


Q. You can't tell from the intensity of the lanes on that Autorad where that
blood came from, can you?

Whether it came from a reference tube or a wound, can you?

A. No, I do think you can make some conclusions about whether it came from the
reference tube, from the patterns, from the degradation in the two patterns in
that film.

Q. You said there wasn't much degradation, didn't you?

A. I said there's virtually little to no degradation.

Q. Thank you.

A. That had been made from sock.

Q. It's very clean?

A. It's very clean.

Q. Reference samples are very clean, usually, aren't they?

A. This one is not in terms of degradation."

Evidently you still can’t seem to understand that Dr. Cotton said “I do think you can make some conclusions about whether it came from the reference tube, from the patterns, from the degradation in the two patterns in that film.”

She then went on to explain that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock had virtually little to no degradation and that Nicole’s blood reference sample was not clean.

JANUARY 27, 1997 MR. LAMBERT

Remember Robin Cotton comes -- and she testified a long time ago. I hope you all remember. She -- she told that you she did DNA tests on this same blood from the back spot – the very same spot that Dr. Rieders was doing his testimony about EDTA. And what did she tell you?

This is her Autorad -- remember, she talked to you about auto radiographs, about when she did the RFLP tests. This one right here, item 13, that's the socks -- that's the Autorad for the socks.

This one right here, right here, is Nicole. And what she told you is that's the blood from Nicole's reference vial. And she also told you that this blood right here that's in the socks, this DNA in the socks that's not degraded; it's in really good shape. And she told you why.

She said if that blood was splashed onto those socks while Mr. Simpson was committing the murders, and about 30 minutes or so later, he took off the socks and left them on that rug in his bedroom, where they air-dried overnight, that is a perfect condition for preserving the DNA in those socks.

That's just as if a criminalist had taken a swatch right after Nicole had been slashed and put it to air-dry. That's exactly the circumstances that she described to us.

And as a consequence, that DNA in the socks, it's not degraded. Then she said, let's take a look at the DNA out of the reference vial. See that dark shadow? She said that's degradation. See this? This is all degradation.

So she said the blood out of the reference vial is pretty degraded. And she told us why. That reference vial was taken 24 hours after Nicole was murdered. It had been sitting in her dead body until the autopsy was done. And she explained that blood degrades under those conditions, not separately.

So here you have degraded blood in the reference vial, no degraded blood in the socks. That's what tells Robin Cotton, says therefore, the blood on the socks couldn't have come out of the reference vial.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You say Kaelin never said whether or not he stopped on the Ashford pathway on his return from his first cursory search. What you fail to comprehend is that every time Kaelin was asked what he did after his first cursory search he consistently testified that when he came out from behind the garage he saw that the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. Kaelin never said he went to the Ashford pathway and stand there because he never did that.

I never inferred as you say “that Lange blood was in there, because someone else said there was blood in there,” what ever that means. GreenIce claimed that one of the witnesses who testified to not seeing blood in the Bronco was a detective. I assumed she was referring to Lange. That’s why I said that Lange was never asked that question. When I then asked GreenIce what detective she was referring to she said Detective Muldorfer.

Park was wrong in his pre criminal trial testimony when he thought that Kaelin remained on the Ashford path after he saw him come from behind the house until Kaelin opened the gate for Park. Park never said in the criminal trial that he saw Kaelin still standing “for another minute.” Kaelin never said he waved at Park from the Ashford pathway. Kaelin said that after he opened the gate he waved Park in.

Park made it clear in his civil trial testimony that after he saw Simpson enter his house he finished his phone conversation and wasn’t paying any attention to what Kaelin was doing. Park said he didn’t see Kaelin again until he saw him come up the driveway (from the garage area) and go to the gate control box. Park never said he saw Kaelin came up the driveway (from the garage area) and go to the Ashford pathway. You’re the only one who ever made that ridiculous false claim.

bobaugust

I first brought it to your attention that Kato was not asked did he stop at the Ashford walkway on his return from the first cursory search. You then made the statement, saying that Lang was never asked if he saw blood in the Bronco, which I have now proven that statement of your wrong, also. However, even though Lang was asked, let's stick to your statement that he was not asked and, therefore, there was no evidence whether or not he saw blood in the Bronco, which was my statement that we could not say Kato did not stop and stand after his first cursory search. However, because Park testified to seeing Kato standing and still standing, there is testimony that he did return to near the Ashford walkway after completing his first cursory search, as his testimony was that he did not stop prior to doing that search.:)

The only thing that is ridiculously false, IMHO, is your attempts to backtrack from your statements and failure to consider all the evidence as other posters are now doing and what the changes in Park's testimonies signify.:)

[William Anthony]

Evidently you still can’t seem to understand that Dr. Cotton said “I do think you can make some conclusions about whether it came from the reference tube, from the patterns, from the degradation in the two patterns in that film.”

She then went on to explain that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock had virtually little to no degradation and that Nicole’s blood reference sample was not clean.

JANUARY 27, 1997 MR. LAMBERT

Remember Robin Cotton comes -- and she testified a long time ago. I hope you all remember. She -- she told that you she did DNA tests on this same blood from the back spot – the very same spot that Dr. Rieders was doing his testimony about EDTA. And what did she tell you?

This is her Autorad -- remember, she talked to you about auto radiographs, about when she did the RFLP tests. This one right here, item 13, that's the socks -- that's the Autorad for the socks.

This one right here, right here, is Nicole. And what she told you is that's the blood from Nicole's reference vial. And she also told you that this blood right here that's in the socks, this DNA in the socks that's not degraded; it's in really good shape. And she told you why.

She said if that blood was splashed onto those socks while Mr. Simpson was committing the murders, and about 30 minutes or so later, he took off the socks and left them on that rug in his bedroom, where they air-dried overnight, that is a perfect condition for preserving the DNA in those socks.

That's just as if a criminalist had taken a swatch right after Nicole had been slashed and put it to air-dry. That's exactly the circumstances that she described to us.

And as a consequence, that DNA in the socks, it's not degraded. Then she said, let's take a look at the DNA out of the reference vial. See that dark shadow? She said that's degradation. See this? This is all degradation.

So she said the blood out of the reference vial is pretty degraded. And she told us why. That reference vial was taken 24 hours after Nicole was murdered. It had been sitting in her dead body until the autopsy was done. And she explained that blood degrades under those conditions, not separately.

So here you have degraded blood in the reference vial, no degraded blood in the socks. That's what tells Robin Cotton, says therefore, the blood on the socks couldn't have come out of the reference vial.

bobaugust

I have posted the testimony, which refutes your claim, that something was conclusively established. I see the plaintiffs' lawyer carried their burden of persuasion when it came to you but, must I remind you, what the lawyers say is not evidence.:)

[William Anthony]

You say Kaelin never said whether or not he stopped on the Ashford pathway on his return from his first cursory search. What you fail to comprehend is that every time Kaelin was asked what he did after his first cursory search he consistently testified that when he came out from behind the garage he saw that the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. Kaelin never said he went to the Ashford pathway and stand there because he never did that.

I never inferred as you say “that Lange blood was in there, because someone else said there was blood in there,” what ever that means. GreenIce claimed that one of the witnesses who testified to not seeing blood in the Bronco was a detective. I assumed she was referring to Lange. That’s why I said that Lange was never asked that question. When I then asked GreenIce what detective she was referring to she said Detective Muldorfer.

Park was wrong in his pre criminal trial testimony when he thought that Kaelin remained on the Ashford path after he saw him come from behind the house until Kaelin opened the gate for Park. Park never said in the criminal trial that he saw Kaelin still standing “for another minute.” Kaelin never said he waved at Park from the Ashford pathway. Kaelin said that after he opened the gate he waved Park in.

Park made it clear in his civil trial testimony that after he saw Simpson enter his house he finished his phone conversation and wasn’t paying any attention to what Kaelin was doing. Park said he didn’t see Kaelin again until he saw him come up the driveway (from the garage area) and go to the gate control box. Park never said he saw Kaelin came up the driveway (from the garage area) and go to the Ashford pathway. You’re the only one who ever made that ridiculous false claim.

bobaugust

Your original post,

GreenIce, it makes sense to me that larger blood stains can be tested quicker and easier than smaller blood stains. If I recall correctly PCR tests take longer then RFLP testing.

Your claim that three witnesses testified they didn’t see blood that was later found in the Bronco is incorrect. One witness only glanced into the Bronco before the blood was collected and the other two were inside the Bronco after it had been dusted for fingerprints, photographed, and the blood collected.

Detectives Vannatter and Fuhrman and Patrol Officers Thompson, Aston and Gonzalez all testified to seeing blood stains inside the Bronco on June 13 when the Bronco was still parked on Rockingham.

The tow truck driver who picked up the Bronco later in the afternoon on June 13 said he only glanced inside the Bronco, “a quick peek” and didn’t see anything inside except that the buttons were all down and the Bronco was locked. He delivered the Bronco to the print shed and a detective unlocked the steel doors so he could back the Bronco in and then left seeing the detective close and lock the steel doors.

The morning of June 14 the inside of the Bronco was fingerprinted, photographed and blood collected as well as a piece of the driver’s floor carpet was cut on that contained a partial bloody shoe print.

The tow truck driver who picked up the Bronco late morning on June 15 and delivered it the police garage testified that he didn’t see any blood or fingerprint dust in the Bronco but he did see part of the carpet missing. He also took some credit card receipts from the Bronco. He also lied about taking the receipts before returning them. He was shown the photographs taken on the June 14 of the blood and fingerprint dust he said he didn’t see.

The third witness had visited the garage on June 21 and testified he didn’t see any blood or fingerprint dust that the photographs show was there on June 14. This witness said that he was expecting to see big globs of blood.

You claim there were more people who did not see the blood then these two officers. Lange never said he didn’t see blood inside the Bronco; he was never asked that question.

Who is the officer that you are claiming said he didn’t see blood in the Bronco?

Who are these “many more people” who you are claiming said they didn’t see blood in the Bronco?

bobaugust



You see you were asking a question and relying on the fact that other officers had seen blood in the Bronco to conclude that there was blood in the Bronco (which is what that means), even though Lang (which you incorrectly claimed was never asked) did not testify to seeing blood in the vehicle. This is exactly my point when it comes to relying on the testimony of Park (someone other than the witness who made an observation), who testified to seeing kato standing and still standing, and concluding that Kato was standing and still standing after completing his first cursory search (giving credence to Kato's testimony that he did not stop while going to do his first cursory search) even though kato was not specifically asked did he go back to the Ashford pathway after completing his first cursory search. :)

[William Anthony]

In order for blood to get on the sock at bundy it would have to penetrate the barrier of the bottom of pant leg and the top of the ht shoe. very unlikely.

Clarks question was based on Nicole having a bloody hand and able to reach up and grab the killers ankle. highly unlikely but good trick question. There is no proof of a bloody hand. imo

Let's not forget the testimony of how Ms. NBS's hands were found with the palms up.

[William Anthony]

William,

Let me guess why Lange never looked in the front of the Bronco:

1. Was not his crime scene, therefore not obligated to look at Bronco at all, let alone look for blood in the front.

2. He and Vanatter split the Bronco--Lange got the rear and VA had the front.

3. He wasn't looking for evidence at all period, just wanted to give his personal ranking on how bad the Bronco was parked.

In Clark's book she says point blank that Dennis Fung did not collect all the blood on the console in the Bronco, that for only "reasons" known by Fung, he only took a "representative" sample. (Kind of reminds me of VA's "potential suspect" excuse)

Pictures mean nothing because they could have swiped blood in another like SUV and claim it was the Bronco's.

All those people could not have missed this blood on the console.

If you read Kestler testimony in the criminal trial, I am surprised she still had a job, IMO.

GreenIce,

I concur completely with this post and Kestler acted like her behind weighed a ton, IMHO.

[martin II]

Martin,

Clark writes something very odd about Park and the addresses in her book. She says that after Park was burned by the defense lawyer, he would not never have another interview without his mother present and the mother was a criminal defense lawyer. I have no problem with Park having a lawyer with him, even if it is his mom, but I do have a problem with mom feeding him his lines.

Clark asked Park how he was looking for Simpson's house. He said that he was looking at addresses--then his mom said something like, "you were looking for addresses on the curb". Why would Clark write that in her book unless she was saying that she never planted that idea into his head but his mom did so she just ran with it? Apparently Clark didn't mind a shady defense lawyer as long as it helped her case. IMO.

I never thought of that, the amount of time he spent on the buzzer. Also, didn't Dale St. John say that he was always late and just to wait until a certain time then leave?

GI
Thanks for that info about Parks mother.

Some time ago i read a piece on Parks mother prompting and giving him lines to use. Between Parks mother and Clarks prompting it is clear as to why Park could never get his testiminy to be the same from week to week.

The jury was paying attention and something in his testimony triggered some distrust of his testimony which is why they called for the readback of him.They then realized that he could not have seen the things he testified to so i think they tossed his testimony as they realized that he had been telling them a pack of lies fed to him by someone. I guess his mother.
His mother sat at the prosecution table whenever he testified looking him straight in the eye.

[martin II]

gi
Between 6/12 and the day he testified Park was told to say he saw Kato first.
He did this and got caught up in telling that lie, became confused and made conflicting testimony. He was lying and confused when he made the mistake of saying he saw two cars oin the driveway. He was lying about not seeing the Bronco which is why he changed his story about that." I DIDN;T SEE THE BRONCO' ' i was not looking for the bronco" " i was looking for the address"
He was trying to stick to the story that the bronco was not there so strong, that he said he did not see it when it was right in front of him.
That is what happens when people lie on the stand.They get mixed up as he
often did.

[martin II]

Let's not forget the testimony of how Ms. NBS's hands were found with the palms up.

Based on the type of question clarks asked i guess it COULD be possible that Nicole rolled up ojs pant leg, put her hand inside the boot top and grabbed the sock.First on one side of the ankle and then on the other side. One reporter said clarke claimed Nicole reached up from the dead and grabbed ojs sock.

[martin II]

fgump2,

First, there was no way the DA's could ever overcome that fact that at least 4 of their lab people looked the socks and saw no blood and not one of them ever thought to perform any tests on these dark socks. The socks were without a doubt, the most important evidence at Rockingham.

The defense proved, which the DA's agreed with that the blood was pressed on the socks. The DA's said that it was Nicole reaching up and grabbing Simpson's leg. How she was able to do with while knocked out, I have no clue.

According the DA's theory, there was not enough time for either Ron or Nicole's blood to pool. So stepping in one was impossible. Which leads me to question how long the killers stayed at the scene. According to the DA's theory, Simpson never could have left the footprints.

I think the Defense did the "spray experiment" with Dr. Lee. Which showed the difference between between a spray of blood vs blood being pressed into the sock.


Wagners blood pooling experiment proved that it would take 10-20 minutes for nicoles blood to make a pool thick enough for a foot print to be made.
In one minute the blood would be too thin and liquid(viscosity) to hold a footprint.

[William Anthony]

GI
Thanks for that info about Parks mother.

Some time ago i read a piece on Parks mother prompting and giving him lines to use. Between Parks mother and Clarks prompting it is clear as to why Park could never get his testiminy to be the same from week to week.

The jury was paying attention and something in his testimony triggered some distrust of his testimony which is why they called for the readback of him.They then realized that he could not have seen the things he testified to so i think they tossed his testimony as they realized that he had been telling them a pack of lies fed to him by someone. I guess his mother.
His mother sat at the prosecution table whenever he testified looking him straight in the eye.

IMHO, Park's testimony became the testimony of the questioner, depending on what they told him the answer was. :)

[William Anthony]

Based on the type of question clarks asked i guess it COULD be possible that Nicole rolled up ojs pant leg, put her hand inside the boot top and grabbed the sock.First on one side of the ankle and then on the other side. One reporter said clarke claimed Nicole reached up from the dead and grabbed ojs sock.

Thanks. I wasn't sure but had started to ask if the BM shoe covered the ankle. Those darn pesky magical dress socks were sure to cause a commotion when they decided to go out with that sweat suit.:)

[martin II]

Martin,

Clark writes something very odd about Park and the addresses in her book. She says that after Park was burned by the defense lawyer, he would not never have another interview without his mother present and the mother was a criminal defense lawyer. I have no problem with Park having a lawyer with him, even if it is his mom, but I do have a problem with mom feeding him his lines.

Clark asked Park how he was looking for Simpson's house. He said that he was looking at addresses--then his mom said something like, "you were looking for addresses on the curb". Why would Clark write that in her book unless she was saying that she never planted that idea into his head but his mom did so she just ran with it? Apparently Clark didn't mind a shady defense lawyer as long as it helped her case. IMO.

I never thought of that, the amount of time he spent on the buzzer. Also, didn't Dale St. John say that he was always late and just to wait until a certain time then leave?


The prosecution needed to try to give the jury the impression that oj was not in the house when park was at the Ashford gate.They tried to do this by getting park to testify that he rang the buzzer more than he actually did.
From his testimony he was ringing the buzzer every few minutes. jumping in and out of the limo.How does a limo driver go to a celebrities house and just
lay on the buzzer as to say ANSWER THE DAMM BUZZER NOW.

If oj was in the shower and if he could have heard the buzzer, what should he have done, get out of the shower to answer the buzzer.I think not.If it were me i would know the driver had arrived, I would finish my shower knowing he would not dare leave.I would then bring my two bags down to the front door in plain view so he would know i was there.When i returened into the house i would turn on the coach lights so there would be light when i returned.nothing unusual ablout that at all.
I think Park was coached by someone to SAY he rang the buzzer more than he actually did.Maby he rang the buzzer two times and someone said "You mean you rang it 7 times" and he just said ok 7 times.

[martin II]

Thanks. I wasn't sure but had started to ask if the BM shoe covered the ankle. Those darn pesky magical dress socks were sure to cause a commotion when they decided to go out with that sweat suit.:)

Nicold did not reach and touch nothing because when her neck was cut she had little strength to do anything.Another small issue is if oj had a hand full of her hair when he was supposed to have pulled her head back,why is it that the glove did not have lots of her hair on it.or why was there no patch of her hair missing from her head?imo

[martin II]

IMHO, Park's testimony became the testimony of the questioner, depending on what they told him the answer was. :)

Mazzola, Fung, Martz,Park, Rubin and a few others seem to have been convienced by the DA that they had some kind of responsibility to assist the DA in proving their case.IMO

[martin II]

Martin,

IMO, I think that OJ believed he could have Nicole back any time he wanted and I think Nicole thought she could have OJ back any time she wanted. I believe these were two people who loved each other dearly but just couldn't live together.

I do believe that OJ knew that Nicole could never fully trust him and he knew he deserved that. No one can blame Nicole for that. However, I also think that Nicole was enjoying her independence and that she really wanted to be able to make it on her own. Yes, she would need help but I do believe Simpson would have supported every effort she made to set herself up in a business.

Both Nicole and OJ were not above being petty with each other or psychological warfare either, however, people tend to forget the acts of kindness they showed each other after they split. I think people tend to forget that Nicole knew as well as OJ knew if they ever needed to talk to one another about a problem they were having, they could turn to each other.

I just don't see a motive for Simpson to kill Nicole and I don't remember anyone saying that Simpson said he hated Nicole and/or wished her dead. I also think the age difference was something that was harder and harder for them to overcome. Again, IMO.

gi
what you say is true. when nicole had some problem with one of her boyfriends she told oj about it and asked his opinion. when she was being stalked by that guy she asked oj to watch out for her.even when he and paula were togeather he allowed nicole to visit him at rockingham.

[serpentsfall]

gi
what you say is true. when nicole had some problem with one of her boyfriends she told oj about it and asked his opinion. when she was being stalked by that guy she asked oj to watch out for her.even when he and paula were togeather he allowed nicole to visit him at rockingham.

Circumstances and feelings change in volatile relationships change all the time. That they were on good terms at some earlier point isn't necessarily indicative of what terms they were on that night. Nicole was reportedly furious about OJ's letter intimating possible IRS problems that might be in her future. Something in their relationship had apparently changed and led him to write that kind of letter.

[martin II]

Circumstances and feelings change in volatile relationships change all the time. That they were on good terms at some earlier point isn't necessarily indicative of what terms they were on that night. Nicole was reportedly furious about OJ's letter intimating possible IRS problems that might be in her future. Something in their relationship had apparently changed and led him to write that kind of letter.

From his book, it seems that the on and off of the relationship and the more serious developments of the relationship with Paula caused him to close the door on his relationship with nicole. Nicole was facing some serious capital gains issue as it related to various properties she owned and wanted to sell without accepting the IRS tax issues. He felt no further responsibility to rescue her on this issue and his lawyer advised him not to become involved.
His refusal was a shock to Nicole as she may have realized that he had pulled away.The lawyer composed and sent the letter.imo

[serpentsfall]

From his book, it seems that the on and off of the relationship and the more serious developments of the relationship with Paula caused him to close the door on his relationship with nicole. Nicole was facing some serious capital gains issue as it related to various properties she owned and wanted to sell without accepting the IRS tax issues. He felt no further responsibility to rescue her on this issue and his lawyer advised him not to become involved.
His refusal was a shock to Nicole as she may have realized that he had pulled away.The lawyer composed and sent the letter.imo

Whose book? OJ's? Don't tell me you're going to try to pick and choose what parts of THAT book are "fact" or "fiction".

[weezer]

Nicole: “ O. J., that IRS letter you sent me proved, like nothing else could, that you have no interest in your children...*uck off!. Get away from us! Get out of my life!
You’re not welcome in the family anymore....I never ever want to see you again...Get the *uck away from me. And don’t ever call me again. You are one sick individual.”

[serpentsfall]

From his book, it seems that the on and off of the relationship and the more serious developments of the relationship with Paula caused him to close the door on his relationship with nicole. Nicole was facing some serious capital gains issue as it related to various properties she owned and wanted to sell without accepting the IRS tax issues. He felt no further responsibility to rescue her on this issue and his lawyer advised him not to become involved.
His refusal was a shock to Nicole as she may have realized that he had pulled away.The lawyer composed and sent the letter.imo

And what part of there was a problem with OJ's relationship with Paula that night do you not compehend? You throw out Paula's testimony that she left OJ a message breaking up with him that day and the phone records showing the number of calls OJ attempted to make to Paula that night because they were together before and after that night?

[weezer]

The Other Woman: My Years with O. J. Simpson-A Story of Love, Trust, and Betrayal by Paula Barbieri:

“He killed them didn’t he!!” I burst out to Tom. Now my conflict was an open wound.

Then [O. J.] asked me a question, “What happened to the messages I left you last night?”. “I erased them” I said. “Good”, he said, “I don’t need them to start picking
on that too...”

Had I done something to set off this terrible chain of events?

O.J.’s rage had scared me once or twice...I’d seen him go berserk in a hotel room...

I picked up the Bronco’s cell phone and started to dial a car service. O. J. grabbed the phone and knocked it out of my hand, hurting me.

When the letter talked about Nicole, it really hurt me to hear the obvious- that O. J. still loved her, and that he’d hoped they’d have a future.

It was as if, O. J. said, he’d kept trying to buy his wife’s love and approval. Not just with gifts and vacations, but by supporting her entire family. He’d bought and bought until their romance had turned into a transaction. Until their marriage was a commodity. An empty shell.

What was my first impression? With his big head and long fingers and skinny body, O. J. Simpson reminded me of ET, the extraterrestrial. I’m not saying he wasn’t
handsome; he would have been one of the more attractive aliens on a Star Wars set....But mostly, I felt sorry for him. Beneath O. J.’s bravado, I sensed a person in pain...As far as I was concerned, O. J. Simpson was just a lonely friend of Marcus Allen..."

[serpentsfall]

The Other Woman: My Years with O. J. Simpson-A Story of Love, Trust, and Betrayal by Paula Barbieri:

“He killed them didn’t he!!” I burst out to Tom. Now my conflict was an open wound.

Then [O. J.] asked me a question, “What happened to the messages I left you last night?”. “I erased them” I said. “Good”, he said, “I don’t need them to start picking
on that too...”

Had I done something to set off this terrible chain of events?

O.J.’s rage had scared me once or twice...I’d seen him go berserk in a hotel room...

I picked up the Bronco’s cell phone and started to dial a car service. O. J. grabbed the phone and knocked it out of my hand, hurting me.

When the letter talked about Nicole, it really hurt me to hear the obvious- that O. J. still loved her, and that he’d hoped they’d have a future.

It was as if, O. J. said, he’d kept trying to buy his wife’s love and approval. Not just with gifts and vacations, but by supporting her entire family. He’d bought and bought until their romance had turned into a transaction. Until their marriage was a commodity. An empty shell.

What was my first impression? With his big head and long fingers and skinny body, O. J. Simpson reminded me of ET, the extraterrestrial. I’m not saying he wasn’t
handsome; he would have been one of the more attractive aliens on a Star Wars set....But mostly, I felt sorry for him. Beneath O. J.’s bravado, I sensed a person in pain...As far as I was concerned, O. J. Simpson was just a lonely friend of Marcus Allen..."

Ouch!

[martin II]

And what part of there was a problem with OJ's relationship with Paula that night do you not compehend? You throw out Paula's testimony that she left OJ a message breaking up with him that day and the phone records showing the number of calls OJ attempted to make to Paula that night because they were together before and after that night?

Paula after spending a night at a charity event on ojs arm became upset that
he would not takt her to his daughters reception the next day.it had something to do with his and nicoles agreement not to bring lovers in front of their kids. she became upset and left him that message.
When she was informed he had been arrested she caught the first plane to la and visited him in jail daily with cookies during the trial. guess she got over her momentary hissy fit in a day or two.my comprehension is ok.imo

[martin II]

And what part of there was a problem with OJ's relationship with Paula that night do you not compehend? You throw out Paula's testimony that she left OJ a message breaking up with him that day and the phone records showing the number of calls OJ attempted to make to Paula that night because they were together before and after that night?

i have not thrown out anything about paulas testiminy that she left oj a message. where did you see that in any post i made?

[serpentsfall]

Paula after spending a night at a charity event on ojs arm became upset that
he would not takt her to his daughters reception the next day.it had something to do with his and nicoles agreement not to bring lovers in front of their kids. she became upset and left him that message.
When she was informed he had been arrested she caught the first plane to la and visited him in jail daily with cookies during the trial. guess she got over her momentary hissy fit in a day or two.my comprehension is ok.imo

You don't really know WHAT prompted her Dr. OJ breakup call. Or what prompted her to come back when he called. I thought the following article was interesting (as it relates to Paula - the Marv Albert trial was pretty icky) and gave some insight as to why Paula returned - and left OJ again soon after the trial once he was "free".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/albert/fiancee.htm

[martin II]

You don't really know WHAT prompted her Dr. OJ breakup call. Or what prompted her to come back when he called. I thought the following article was interesting (as it relates to Paula - the Marv Albert trial was pretty icky) and gave some insight as to why Paula returned - and left OJ again soon after the trial once he was "free".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/albert/fiancee.htm

It seem that paula gave you the scoop on her reasons for her actions. good for you.:cool:

[serpentsfall]

i have not thrown out anything about paulas testiminy that she left oj a message. where did you see that in any post i made?

In your posting that OJ's sudden motivation for writing the letter to Nicole about the IRS was because of the increasing seriousness of his relationship with Paula, based on something you read in OJ's book.

Daniel Petrocelli, the lawyer for Ronald Goldman's father, asked Simpson about the apparent two-timing of Barbieri. ""Well,'' he said, stumbling, ""Paula and I was trying to get back together. I don't -- I didn't consider Paula and I an attachment or unattachment.''"

[serpentsfall]

It seem that paula gave you the scoop on her reasons for her actions. good for you.:cool:

She didn't give them to me, she gave them to the person who interviewed her.

[GreenIce]

You don't really know WHAT prompted her Dr. OJ breakup call. Or what prompted her to come back when he called. I thought the following article was interesting (as it relates to Paula - the Marv Albert trial was pretty icky) and gave some insight as to why Paula returned - and left OJ again soon after the trial once he was "free".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/albert/fiancee.htm

Serpentsfall,

Paula's reasons for breaking up with Simpson were because of the kids, Nicole and golf. She knew that she could never be number 1 in OJ's life. IMO, she could not handle that any more then she could handle another break up with Simpson to get back with Nicole. IMO, Paula knew they were not "over" no matter what either of them said at the time.

IMO, once you become parent, you can never be wife or a husband first, the role of parent should always be at the top of the priority list, again, IMO.

OJ did talk about Paula to Kato saying how she might not be the one. IMO, Simpson knew that any relationship with Paula would always have the same issues and he thought that maybe that would be the for the best.

If Paula was hurt by Simpson's letter, then she had to be positivley pissed off to learn that Simpson told Kato that she might not be the one, knowing he claimed that for the first time in his life he was free, that he called at least one woman that night to get a date and then tried to get a hold of her to take him to the airport that night. I am sure Paula was smarting for a number of reasons.

Not much is really known about Paula and Simpson's relationship, however, perhaps Paula message seemed more like a ultimatium rather then a dear john letter. IMO.

There is no evidence that Simpson loved Paula so much he would kill Nicole over her. There is no motive for Simpson to have killed Nicole, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Circumstances and feelings change in volatile relationships change all the time. That they were on good terms at some earlier point isn't necessarily indicative of what terms they were on that night. Nicole was reportedly furious about OJ's letter intimating possible IRS problems that might be in her future. Something in their relationship had apparently changed and led him to write that kind of letter.

Serpentsfall,

IMO, the best thing in the world that Simpson did for Nicole was to write her that letter. Yes it made her furious but it also made her take positive steps to get on her own two feet. Within days of getting that letter, she was looking for new homes, she put her condo on the market, she was making all the right choices at the time.

Also, Nicole had to take some of the responsibility for the letter, she knew what she was doing was flirting dangerously with the IRS. IMO, I think most people fear the IRS more then they do any other government agency.

On the night of the murders, it appears to me that when the children were around and Simpson was with Nicole's family, they were acting like a family saying goodbye to another family member. None of them looked to be uncomfortable in talking with each other and saying goodbye.

When Simpson called for Sydney, the first thing out of his mouth was to ask if Sydney was stil lawake. Nicole could have said that she was or that she was busy with her friend Rachel--they were having a sleepover. Nicole called for Syndey and let her daughter talk to her father.

Nicole may have pissed off at OJ but she didn't make her daughter suffer for her anger. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I do not read that into the expert's testimony. What I read is that is one way a compression transfer could occur. Dr. Cotton also tells us other ways that a compression transfer could occur, which I posted. However, the more important evidence about how that compression transfer might have occurred, IMHO, is the testimony about the stain being on both sides of the socks, meaning an ankle was not present in the sock at that time.

William,

I got the impression that Dr. MacDonald (sp?) considered a swipe and a compression as the same thing. It appeared to me that he considered both terms acceptable to describe blood being "pressed" on rather then splattered on.

The key witness on the socks, IMO, was Gary Sims, the DA's expert. He could not say when, where, or how the blood got on the sock. But he did express dismay how no was able to see it with their naked eye just using normal lighting.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9194828]
There is evidence that Orenthal told at least one person, Faye Resnick, that if he caught her with another man before Agust he would kill her. Many people say that Faye Resnick was unreliable, but she repeatead this remark to two other people before the murders. Also in Nicole's diary a few days before the murder, she wrote that Orenthal said over the phone:" you hung up on me, you b***h, you'll pay for that". I don't think that Nicole's talk about her fear of Orenthal killing her was a psychological game. Where is the payoff in that game?

fgump2,

A couple days I ago, I posted what Nicole wrote in journal, that "we've officially split and we are going back to every other weekend with the kids." She made this entry in April 1994. You dismissed her journal writings in April because you felt that there was evidence in May that proved she dumped him.

That is the problem with journals and the diaries, do we believe all of it or just some of it? Which parts are true, which parts maybe embellised or words used expressed more her pain and rage rather then accurate account of events?

I don't remember in any journal writting where Nicole wrote that Simpson was going to kill her and he would use scissors. (I still don't know how this conversation came up with Kato and why she would tell him that but Kato says she did.)

[GreenIce]

You don't really know WHAT prompted her Dr. OJ breakup call. Or what prompted her to come back when he called. I thought the following article was interesting (as it relates to Paula - the Marv Albert trial was pretty icky) and gave some insight as to why Paula returned - and left OJ again soon after the trial once he was "free".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/albert/fiancee.htm

Serpentsfall,

One thing I have never been able to figure out, who did Paula tell she wanted Nicole dead? I can't imagine that she would tell Simpson that she wished the mother of his children dead.

I find it rather odd that Paula's car was stolen and in it was a notebook with Nicole's daily activites. I find just too weird that the guy who "stole" it, not only cracked up the car but left all his evidence behind. I hope who ever was paying this guy cancelled the check! IMO.

Paula, it appears is a devout woman. She was disappointed that Simpson would not go to church with her or move to her home state of Florida. Thats what I remember anyway.

However, the thing about Paula's book and in her interviews, she never says that she believes Simpson did it. She says everything but and why? She can't let herself believe that a man she loved so much could do such a thing?

Give me a break. Paula was pissed and she got some of her own back, IMO.

[GreenIce]

Evidently you still can’t seem to understand that Dr. Cotton said “I do think you can make some conclusions about whether it came from the reference tube, from the patterns, from the degradation in the two patterns in that film.”

She then went on to explain that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock had virtually little to no degradation and that Nicole’s blood reference sample was not clean.

JANUARY 27, 1997 MR. LAMBERT

Remember Robin Cotton comes -- and she testified a long time ago. I hope you all remember. She -- she told that you she did DNA tests on this same blood from the back spot – the very same spot that Dr. Rieders was doing his testimony about EDTA. And what did she tell you?

This is her Autorad -- remember, she talked to you about auto radiographs, about when she did the RFLP tests. This one right here, item 13, that's the socks -- that's the Autorad for the socks.

This one right here, right here, is Nicole. And what she told you is that's the blood from Nicole's reference vial. And she also told you that this blood right here that's in the socks, this DNA in the socks that's not degraded; it's in really good shape. And she told you why.

She said if that blood was splashed onto those socks while Mr. Simpson was committing the murders, and about 30 minutes or so later, he took off the socks and left them on that rug in his bedroom, where they air-dried overnight, that is a perfect condition for preserving the DNA in those socks.

That's just as if a criminalist had taken a swatch right after Nicole had been slashed and put it to air-dry. That's exactly the circumstances that she described to us.

And as a consequence, that DNA in the socks, it's not degraded. Then she said, let's take a look at the DNA out of the reference vial. See that dark shadow? She said that's degradation. See this? This is all degradation.

So she said the blood out of the reference vial is pretty degraded. And she told us why. That reference vial was taken 24 hours after Nicole was murdered. It had been sitting in her dead body until the autopsy was done. And she explained that blood degrades under those conditions, not separately.

So here you have degraded blood in the reference vial, no degraded blood in the socks. That's what tells Robin Cotton, says therefore, the blood on the socks couldn't have come out of the reference vial.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

First off, where was Dr. Cotton on this issue in the criminal trial? Is she an expert on EDTA and the methods that are used to test it?

Second off, to what scientific certainity did she claim her results were? That it was 100 percent impossible for the blood to have come the vial, 75%, what was the percentage?

How many EDTA experts would agree with Dr. Cotton's opinons?

[GreenIce]

GI
Thanks for that info about Parks mother.

Some time ago i read a piece on Parks mother prompting and giving him lines to use. Between Parks mother and Clarks prompting it is clear as to why Park could never get his testiminy to be the same from week to week.

The jury was paying attention and something in his testimony triggered some distrust of his testimony which is why they called for the readback of him.They then realized that he could not have seen the things he testified to so i think they tossed his testimony as they realized that he had been telling them a pack of lies fed to him by someone. I guess his mother.
His mother sat at the prosecution table whenever he testified looking him straight in the eye.

Martin,

I just thought of something, if the mother was a criminal defense lawyer, then why would she be so upset about Robert Shapiro recording the conversation with her son? Doesn't it only make sense that any interviews conducted regarding that night be recorded or one form or another?

Should it have mattered to her that her son's interview was recorded? Also, I don't remember Robert Shapiro ever addressing this issue--did he say he did record the conversation with out Park's knowledge?

Another interesting thing from Clark's book. She says the sweats were in Simpson's clothes hamper. Don't think she said anything about the washing machine.

[bobaugust]

Testimony of Lang on cross by the magnificent one on the date of March 9th.

"Q: DID YOU LOOK INSIDE THAT BRONCO EITHER WITH A NAKED EYE OR A FLASHLIGHT, LOOK INSIDE TO SEE IF YOU SAW ANY BLOOD INSIDE THERE AT THAT POINT ON JUNE 13TH?

A: I PEERED IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE AND OBSERVED SOME ITEMS IN THE REAR. I DID NOT PEER INTO THE FRONT.

Q: I COULDN'T HEAR YOUR -- YOU DROPPED YOUR VOICE.

A: I DID NOT PEER INTO THE FRONT. I PEERED INTO THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE AND OBSERVED SOME ITEMS IN THE REAR. "

Contrary, to your claim Lang was asked if he saw blood in the Bronco. To say that he was never asked is a misleading dishonest false statement that misstates the evidence, IMHO.

I did not remember reading the testimony you posted so thank you for posting it. I stand corrected.

The record is clear that Lange didn’t say he saw blood inside the Bronco and he didn’t say he didn’t see any blood inside the Bronco so my comment is the same. Any inference or claim that Lange saw or didn’t see blood in the Bronco is a dishonest misleading inference and a false claim.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I first brought it to your attention that Kato was not asked did he stop at the Ashford walkway on his return from the first cursory search. You then made the statement, saying that Lang was never asked if he saw blood in the Bronco, which I have now proven that statement of your wrong, also. However, even though Lang was asked, let's stick to your statement that he was not asked and, therefore, there was no evidence whether or not he saw blood in the Bronco, which was my statement that we could not say Kato did not stop and stand after his first cursory search. However, because Park testified to seeing Kato standing and still standing, there is testimony that he did return to near the Ashford walkway after completing his first cursory search, as his testimony was that he did not stop prior to doing that search.:)

The only thing that is ridiculously false, IMHO, is your attempts to backtrack from your statements and failure to consider all the evidence as other posters are now doing and what the changes in Park's testimonies signify.:)

There is no testimony that the first time Park saw Kaelin that night was when Kaelin came back from behind the garage.

The fact is that Park first told the police and then consistently testified that the first time he saw Kaelin that night was when he saw a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight and stop when he got to the driveway. That was what Park was referring to when he said from what he remembered Kaelin was still standing on the sidewalk.

The fact is there is no testimony that Kaelin returned to the Ashford pathway when he came out from behind the garage on his first trip to investigate the noises. That’s only your fantasy. A fantasy based only on your inability to comprehend that Park was mistaken regarding this issue in his pre criminal trial testimony. Park made that very clear when he was specifically asked about it in the civil trial. As I said before that’s what happens when you argue that mistaken testimony is what actually happened, you wind up making illogical ridiculous claims.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I have posted the testimony, which refutes your claim, that something was conclusively established. I see the plaintiffs' lawyer carried their burden of persuasion when it came to you but, must I remind you, what the lawyers say is not evidence.:)

The testimony you posted doesn’t refute my claim at all. The fact that Nicole’s blood was found to have virtually little or no degradation and the fact that Nicole’s reference sample had considerable degradation made it very clear that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock could not have come from her reference sample. That fact proved the defense sock blood planting theory to be false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You see you were asking a question and relying on the fact that other officers had seen blood in the Bronco to conclude that there was blood in the Bronco (which is what that means), even though Lang (which you incorrectly claimed was never asked) did not testify to seeing blood in the vehicle. This is exactly my point when it comes to relying on the testimony of Park (someone other than the witness who made an observation), who testified to seeing kato standing and still standing, and concluding that Kato was standing and still standing after completing his first cursory search (giving credence to Kato's testimony that he did not stop while going to do his first cursory search) even though kato was not specifically asked did he go back to the Ashford pathway after completing his first cursory search. :)

What I see is that when Lange was asked that question his answer was that he never looked into the front of the Bronco, only in the rear of the Bronco. So my comment regarding any inference or claim based on that testimony remains the same.

Kaelin was never asked what only you imagine he did because every time Kaelin was asked what he did when he came out from behind the garage his answer was consistent and clear. He saw the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate.

For you to suggest that just because no attorney in this case ever asked Kaelin if he went back to the Ashford path and stood there for some time somehow means that’s what Kaelin actually did is something I would expect someone who has no concept of what evidence is might claim. Based on your argument anyone could claim anything they can fantasize that no attorney ever asked about and it would have the same credibility as your claim. Zero credibility. Your claims are ridiculous and wrong. For someone who studies law you should be embarrassed.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

First off, where was Dr. Cotton on this issue in the criminal trial? Is she an expert on EDTA and the methods that are used to test it?

Second off, to what scientific certainity did she claim her results were? That it was 100 percent impossible for the blood to have come the vial, 75%, what was the percentage?

How many EDTA experts would agree with Dr. Cotton's opinons?

What does an EDTA expert have to do with Dr. Cotton’s degradation comparisons?

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

William,

I got the impression that Dr. MacDonald (sp?) considered a swipe and a compression as the same thing. It appeared to me that he considered both terms acceptable to describe blood being "pressed" on rather then splattered on.

The key witness on the socks, IMO, was Gary Sims, the DA's expert. He could not say when, where, or how the blood got on the sock. But he did express dismay how no was able to see it with their naked eye just using normal lighting.

That is how I understand McDonnell's testimony. He simply testified it took some pressure to make the stain.

I think Martz was a crucial witness on the socks.

[William Anthony]

I did not remember reading the testimony you posted so thank you for posting it. I stand corrected.

The record is clear that Lange didn’t say he saw blood inside the Bronco and he didn’t say he didn’t see any blood inside the Bronco so my comment is the same. Any inference or claim that Lange saw or didn’t see blood in the Bronco is a dishonest misleading inference and a false claim.

bobaugust

As I have said before, because one of us says something, no matter how authoritatively we try to say it, does not make it true.:)

I don't think anyone made the claim that Lang said he saw blood in the Bronco, and you supported it with the false claim, which you now stand corrected on, that Lang never testified to seeing blood in the Bronco, because he was never asked.

You listed there other detectives who testified to seeing blood in the Bronco. I listed Park's testimony on seeing Kato standing and still standing and the fact that Kato was never asked if he stopped or stood after completing his first cursory search. Any inference or claim that Park did not see Kato standing and still standing in the same position as he was for another minute before Kato proceeded to open the gate or that Petro and others did not mold Park's memory in the socio political production is a dishonest misleading inference and a false claim.:)

[William Anthony]

There is no testimony that the first time Park saw Kaelin that night was when Kaelin came back from behind the garage.

The fact is that Park first told the police and then consistently testified that the first time he saw Kaelin that night was when he saw a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight and stop when he got to the driveway. That was what Park was referring to when he said from what he remembered Kaelin was still standing on the sidewalk.

The fact is there is no testimony that Kaelin returned to the Ashford pathway when he came out from behind the garage on his first trip to investigate the noises. That’s only your fantasy. A fantasy based only on your inability to comprehend that Park was mistaken regarding this issue in his pre criminal trial testimony. Park made that very clear when he was specifically asked about it in the civil trial. As I said before that’s what happens when you argue that mistaken testimony is what actually happened, you wind up making illogical ridiculous claims.

bobaugust

There is evidence that Park was mistaken as to when he first saw Kato and that evidence is based on all the discrepancies and the need of Park to change his testimony. I am sure you have heard that there is no need to change the truth. :)

That is what the prosecution wanted us to believe. The fact is that Kato said he ran down that pathway but Park said he walked. The fact is that Park said Kato stopped and waved but Kato said he continued and did not wave until after he had completed his first cursory search. The fact is that Park said Kato stopped but Kato said he continued. :)

It is not my fantasy. It is a reasonable inference drawn from all the evidence and, just because something contradicts your inference, does not mean it is a fantasy. You have said that Park was mistaken in his pretrial testimony but I have posted his criminal trial testimony in which he said from what he observed Kato stood there. It is your inability to comprehend to all the testimony or refusal to see that Park's memory was molded because it contradicts your conclusion, which I think it is the latter because it makes you become more insulting and rude. :) However, let us speak of another thing about your failure to change your statements, because you think them right, is why I end up correcting so many of them and that may contribute to your rudeness and offensiveness. :)

[William Anthony]

The testimony you posted doesn’t refute my claim at all. The fact that Nicole’s blood was found to have virtually little or no degradation and the fact that Nicole’s reference sample had considerable degradation made it very clear that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock could not have come from her reference sample. That fact proved the defense sock blood planting theory to be false.

bobaugust

I will reiterate what I have previously stated, just because you don't see it doesn't mean it did not happen. It refutes your claim that something was conclusively proven.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conclusive

The defense got Cotton to admit there were several ways the blood could have gotten on the sock. It was only her opinion that it did not come from Ms. NBS's reference sample. It proved nothing false as it related to planting and Martz came more close to conclusively proving that it was planted.:)

[William Anthony]

What I see is that when Lange was asked that question his answer was that he never looked into the front of the Bronco, only in the rear of the Bronco. So my comment regarding any inference or claim based on that testimony remains the same. SEE MY RESPONSE IN A PREVIOUS POST. :)

Kaelin was never asked what only you imagine he did because every time Kaelin was asked what he did when he came out from behind the garage his answer was consistent and clear. He saw the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. SEE YOU STATEMENT AS TO WHAT LANG WAS NEVER ASKED AND YOUR RELIANCE ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE OTHER DETECTIVES ON THE ISSUE, AS I RELY ON PARKS.:)

For you to suggest that just because no attorney in this case ever asked Kaelin if he went back to the Ashford path and stood there for some time somehow means that’s what Kaelin actually did is something I would expect someone who has no concept of what evidence is might claim. Based on your argument anyone could claim anything they can fantasize that no attorney ever asked about and it would have the same credibility as your claim. Zero credibility. Your claims are ridiculous and wrong. For someone who studies law you should be embarrassed.

bobaugust

Anyone who reads and understands the English language should be embarrassed by making such false claims as those that are contained in your last offensive, insulting and rude paragraph. Let me set the record straight. I did not suggest that Kato did anything. It was Park's testimony that suggested that and allowed me to draw the reasonable inference. I rely on the fact that I have been trained to realize that testimony is actual evidence and to deny that testimony as evidence is beyond the concept of not knowing and understanding evidence and leads to statements that are pompous and ridiculously wrong but may fail to embarrass the author of the statement, if such an author considers himself to always be right.:)

[martin II]

In your posting that OJ's sudden motivation for writing the letter to Nicole about the IRS was because of the increasing seriousness of his relationship with Paula, based on something you read in OJ's book.

Daniel Petrocelli, the lawyer for Ronald Goldman's father, asked Simpson about the apparent two-timing of Barbieri. ""Well,'' he said, stumbling, ""Paula and I was trying to get back together. I don't -- I didn't consider Paula and I an attachment or unattachment.''"

Yes from his book and from CF testimony. You quoting something from PETRO?
as Kato tesitfied the day of the recital he had not completely made up his mind about marrying Paula but they had decided to give it a try since he had backed away from nicole as evident by them being reported in the media as looking like love birds at the chatity event on 6/11 evening.imo