Random Discussions On The Case

[William Anthony]

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. :)

Correction-I have posted his criminal trial testimony in which he said from his memory he observed that Kato stood there.

[martin II]

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.

I also remember stories of Paulas father demanding she leave oj during a visit to Panama city where her family lived.the media reported it as being based on ojs color.

[martin II]

She didn't give them to me, she gave them to the person who interviewed her.

You rejected my post so strongly i thought you had a direct quote.

[martin II]

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.

gi
Parks mothers anger about the recording just shows that she may have been micro managing his testimony.

If clarke is correct about the sweats being in a hamper,then les report of a washing machine was totally false.imo

[martin II]

i think ojs irs letter was good for nicole also.She had always looked to oj to pull her bacon from the fire and never made any real effort to be responsible for her own financial decisions.ojs lawyer wisely advised him not to participate in her irs scheme.

I think his involvement with Paula AND his unwillingness to continue to be involved in nicoles financial issue caused him to refuse her request.imo

[martin II]

She didn't give them to me, she gave them to the person who interviewed her.

It is my opinion that Paulas letter to oj had absolutely nothing to do with Nicole being murdered on 6/12.
Some have reached for straws to try to say paulas letter caused oj to kill nicole. It is nonsesne to back this idea.

[martin II]

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.

One christmas oj and the kids were at his NY condo for a christmas shopping and a dinner prepared by Paula.Christmas eve Nicole called from LA saying she was lonly and wanted to come to ny. She caught a plane and came to his house and crashed the activities..This pissed Paula off and she went home
angry that Nicole had been able to kill her plans with oj and the kids.

I believe Nicole knew that her actions would piss Paula off.

[GreenIce]

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,

IMO, when the state's own witnesses, one with inpeccable creditials says he does not know how or when the blood got on socks--I think is perhaps even more important the Martz.

Also, Dr. Sims could not understand why the blood was not seen or what it took the fifth person, weeks and weeks later to conduct the test on the socks. IMO, the jurors saw right through Martz, realized the DA's didn't call their own witness and he was a clear as mud. He was a horrible witness and any can draw the conclusion he had idea what he was doing but the same can't be said of Gary Sims, IMO.

[GreenIce]

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

Mr August,

IMO, it is a dishonest misleading inference and a false claim that Lange did not look inside the Bronco, all of the Bronco to look for evidence of a crime. To suggest that he only looked in the rear of of it makes no sense.

The only way this makes sense is that Lange, if he is telling the truth that he did not look for the blood in the Bronco is because he avoided it on purpose. He did not want to be asked questions about blood in the Bronco and the only way he could do that is by avoiding looking in the front of the Bronco.

He is the 4th or 5th LAPD member to say that he did not see evidence because he wasn't looking for it. These are unacceptable and highly suspicious answers because it is their job to look for evidence.

Lange not wanting to know is just like Clark and the DA's not wanting to know about MF. IMO.

[GreenIce]

gi
Parks mothers anger about the recording just shows that she may have been micro managing his testimony.

If clarke is correct about the sweats being in a hamper,then les report of a washing machine was totally false.imo

Martin,

I agree. Because of the mother's interference with her son's testimony, you have to discount much of what he said. However, I do believe the jury thought he was an honest young man and did his best to tell the jury what he remembered or didn't remember. I think when they went to Rockingham they realized that he was mistaken on several issues, mainly that he would have had to have heard the Bronco pull up as well as have to have seen it when he was backing out of the estate.

[martin II]

William,

IMO, when the state's own witnesses, one with inpeccable creditials says he does not know how or when the blood got on socks--I think is perhaps even more important the Martz.

Also, Dr. Sims could not understand why the blood was not seen or what it took the fifth person, weeks and weeks later to conduct the test on the socks. IMO, the jurors saw right through Martz, realized the DA's didn't call their own witness and he was a clear as mud. He was a horrible witness and any can draw the conclusion he had idea what he was doing but the same can't be said of Gary Sims, IMO.

Ithink the jury understood that the expert that the state had asked to prove their claim was not called by them and then listened to this witness, Martz, lie
all over the place, they had good reason not to believe the state on EDTA and to be very suspecious of certain blood samples evidence put forth by the state.One thing i am sure of is it is not a good idea for any jury to believe they have been lied to.imo

[GreenIce]

One christmas oj and the kids were at his NY condo for a christmas shopping and a dinner prepared by Paula.Christmas eve Nicole called from LA saying she was lonly and wanted to come to ny. She caught a plane and came to his house and crashed the activities..This pissed Paula off and she went home
angry that Nicole had been able to kill her plans with oj and the kids.

I believe Nicole knew that her actions would piss Paula off.

Martin,

Speaking of Christmas, wasn't the last Christmas they spent together turned out to be a bitter fight between OJ and Nicole? The Jenners' invited a former lover of Nicole's to go the same party and Paula sent a fruit basket or something?

Seems to me there were a few more players in this game then OJ and Nicole.

[martin II]

Martin,

I agree. Because of the mother's interference with her son's testimony, you have to discount much of what he said. However, I do believe the jury thought he was an honest young man and did his best to tell the jury what he remembered or didn't remember. I think when they went to Rockingham they realized that he was mistaken on several issues, mainly that he would have had to have heard the Bronco pull up as well as have to have seen it when he was backing out of the estate.

Correct
one juror stated that after the visit to rockingham and looking at the front of the house from the Ashford gate, Park could NOT have seen some of what he testified that he saw.This i think was because of the heavy bush growth in front of the house prevented him from seeing what he said he saw.

it was reported that that model of the Bronco had a loud muffler and should have been heard by Park if it had drove up to rockingham.Park was not very far from the rockingham gate.

[martin II]

Martin,

Speaking of Christmas, wasn't the last Christmas they spent together turned out to be a bitter fight between OJ and Nicole? The Jenners' invited a former lover of Nicole's to go the same party and Paula sent a fruit basket or something?

Seems to me there were a few more players in this game then OJ and Nicole.

i think i read that mrs Jenner was the ex of RK?

[GreenIce]

Ithink the jury understood that the expert that the state had asked to prove their claim was not called by them and then listened to this witness, Martz, lie
all over the place, they had good reason not to believe the state on EDTA and to be very suspecious of certain blood samples evidence put forth by the state.One thing i am sure of is it is not a good idea for any jury to believe they have been lied to.imo

Martin,

IMO, I believe if a jury thinks a witness is lying, they automatically associate that lie with the rest of the players on "that side". For instance VA's search warrant, not one juror believed the detectives' story on why the went to Rockingham. IMO, any juror would look at Judge Ito, the DA's and say, "look, I haven't been to college and I don't have degree in the law and if I know they are lying, how can you not know they are lying?"

However, I do think many jurors are able to tell the difference between an honest mistake vs a lie.

Clark said that she didn't call Martz as her witness because it was the defense's claim that the blood was planted. The way she shifted this was pretty impressive--until you realize that she picked Martz to refute the claims of the defense. Martz couldn't do it and she knew it.

I agree with about sweats, apparently none of them can decided where the "killer sweats" were. None of them can explain why socks were collected that were believed to be worn during the murders showed no blood on them but clothes were left behind because they didn't see blood on them?

I can't believe people actually believe this stuff, IMO!

[GreenIce]

i think i read that mrs Jenner was the ex of RK?

Martin,

Yes, she was RK's ex-wife. An interesting story about this, Simpson called Kris Jenner and she reported something odd. She asked Simpson about the glove found on his property, how did it get there. She said Simpson said that he wished "they" put the glove on her property. For some reason she took this as a sign of guilt but I don't get it, it seems to me that he is saying very early on he is being framed. IMO.

[William Anthony]

William,

IMO, when the state's own witnesses, one with inpeccable creditials says he does not know how or when the blood got on socks--I think is perhaps even more important the Martz.

Also, Dr. Sims could not understand why the blood was not seen or what it took the fifth person, weeks and weeks later to conduct the test on the socks. IMO, the jurors saw right through Martz, realized the DA's didn't call their own witness and he was a clear as mud. He was a horrible witness and any can draw the conclusion he had idea what he was doing but the same can't be said of Gary Sims, IMO.

The reason I say that Martz was crucial is because you're correct in that Sims added nothing to the prosecution's case but Martz found EDTA in the sock stain in an amount that indicated planting.

[Kayleighjo]

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

There was her hair found on one of the gloves.

Also, try to actually follow the posts. Clark also asked if the ankle of the killer (O.J. Simpson) had brushed against her bloody hand that it could cause the blood transfer. The defense guy confirmed that.

[Kayleighjo]

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.

And frankly I think that pissed Simpson off. I don't think he expected Nicole to start standing on her own two feet after the letter, I think he expected her to run back to him and do whatever he told her to do.

On the night of the murders the Brown family might be acting like family to Simpson but watch the video - you'll see that Nicole is standing as far away from Simpson as possible, making no contact with him whatsoever.

[Kayleighjo]

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.

Read her book again - she says "oh my god he killed them didn't he" and says that made her have to rethink alot of stuff.

[William Anthony]

There was her hair found on one of the gloves.

Also, try to actually follow the posts. Clark also asked if the ankle of the killer (O.J. Simpson) had brushed against her bloody hand that it could cause the blood transfer. The defense guy confirmed that.

That is not how I read the testimony, only that a swipe and a direct contact were both compression stains. However, the difference in the two could be determined more by the directionality of the blood, which led him to believe there was direct contact, according to my understanding.

[martin II]

There was her hair found on one of the gloves.

Also, try to actually follow the posts. Clark also asked if the ankle of the killer (O.J. Simpson) had brushed against her bloody hand that it could cause the blood transfer. The defense guy confirmed that.

THE problem with that COULD HAVE is there is no proof that nicoles open hand grabbed anything including a ankle. If Nicoles hands had been bloody she COULD HAVE GRABBED the killers ankle and left a bloody hand print on the sock. She didn't
Now how about you follow the post and look for proof of what clark asked actually happened. imo

[martin II]

The real problem with nicole grabbing the socks is they were examined 4-5 times and no blood was found and G Simms said he had no idea as to how the blood was put on the sock. so obviously he did not agree wioth clarks COULD HAVE.:cool:

[William Anthony]

There was her hair found on one of the gloves.

Also, try to actually follow the posts. Clark also asked if the ankle of the killer (O.J. Simpson) had brushed against her bloody hand that it could cause the blood transfer. The defense guy confirmed that.

Link please to Ms. NBS's hair being found on one of the gloves as I do not remember that and have looked for a link but can't find one.

[martin II]

IF oj had something he wanted nicole to do he would have held the irs letter and told her come lets talk.The fact that his lawyer sent the letter was imo telling her to kiss off.

[martin II]

Link please to Ms. NBS's hair being found on one of the gloves as I do not remember that and have looked for a link but can't find one.

DITTO
IF oj puller her head back with a hand full of her hair, the left glove should have her hair on it.

[Kayleighjo]

Link please to Ms. NBS's hair being found on one of the gloves as I do not remember that and have looked for a link but can't find one.

You don't have to look further than Doug Deedrick's testimony. He testified that hair from Nicole Brown Simpson's head appeared to have been forcibly removed and identified it as being on the glove found at Rockingham.

You've posted some of his testimony on here so I assume you know where to find it.

[Kayleighjo]

DITTO
IF oj puller her head back with a hand full of her hair, the left glove should have her hair on it.

See Doug Deedrick's testimony.

[Kayleighjo]

THE problem with that COULD HAVE is there is no proof that nicoles open hand grabbed anything including a ankle. If Nicoles hands had been bloody she COULD HAVE GRABBED the killers ankle and left a bloody hand print on the sock. She didn't
Now how about you follow the post and look for proof of what clark asked actually happened. imo

You post more COULD HAVE's than anyone I know on this forum. And for the record, her hand WERE bloody.

[William Anthony]

You don't have to look further than Doug Deedrick's testimony. He testified that hair from Nicole Brown Simpson's head appeared to have been forcibly removed and identified it as being on the glove found at Rockingham.

You've posted some of his testimony on here so I assume you know where to find it.

Is this the testimony to which you refer?

"MS. CLARK: I'm going to remove the strip concerning Nicole Brown revealing the results testified to by Mr. Deedrick.

MS. CLARK: Did any of the hairs that you found on either of the gloves or the clothing of Mr. Goldman appear to be forcibly removed?

MR. DEEDRICK: The one hair on the Rockingham glove did appear to be forcibly removed. It's approximately 12 inches long and was broken at the proximal end or at the end nearest the point of attachment near the skin. The hairs from Ronald Goldman's shirt, which was my Q23, there were about 35 forcibly removed hairs exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics as those of Nicole Brown Simpson."

Are you a favorite of the junk crafts? The Rockingham glove was a right handed glove, meaning that if the killer held Ms. NBS. by the right hand, he cut her throat with the left hand. I think the testimony was that Simpson was right handed.

[martin II]

Is this the testimony to which you refer?

"MS. CLARK: I'm going to remove the strip concerning Nicole Brown revealing the results testified to by Mr. Deedrick.

MS. CLARK: Did any of the hairs that you found on either of the gloves or the clothing of Mr. Goldman appear to be forcibly removed?

MR. DEEDRICK: The one hair on the Rockingham glove did appear to be forcibly removed. It's approximately 12 inches long and was broken at the proximal end or at the end nearest the point of attachment near the skin. The hairs from Ronald Goldman's shirt, which was my Q23, there were about 35 forcibly removed hairs exhibiting the same microscopic characteristics as those of Nicole Brown Simpson."

Are you a favorite of the junk crafts? The Rockingham glove was a right handed glove, meaning that if the killer held Ms. NBS. by the right hand, he cut her throat with the left hand. I think the testimony was that Simpson was right handed.


without knowing it that poster is saying oj a right handed person did not kill nicole.

[Kate Sachel]

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.

We view the testimony differently. Regardless, it was not my point to either prove or disprove any one individual's theory; rather to simply point that an expert did give affirmation to those two things being possible scenarios.

Unlike some, I feel no need to claim that I "know" how particular events transpired or how any one player truly thought or felt. I post generally in regard to my own personal thoughts and possible theories while "knowing" that I simply have no way to really "know".

By this point in time everyone on this forum should be aware that I agree with the criminal trial verdict in that there was reasonable doubt, and that while agreeing with that verdict I do still personally believe OJ to be the killer.

Kate

[William Anthony]

We view the testimony differently. Regardless, it was not my point to either prove or disprove any one individual's theory; rather to simply point that an expert did give affirmation to those two things being possible scenarios.

Unlike some, I feel no need to claim that I "know" how particular events transpired or how any one player truly thought or felt. I post generally in regard to my own personal thoughts and possible theories while "knowing" that I simply have no way to really "know".

By this point in time everyone on this forum should be aware that I agree with the criminal trial verdict in that there was reasonable doubt, and that while agreeing with that verdict I do still personally believe OJ to be the killer.

Kate

That is not what I was saying and, yes, I momentarily forgot that you were a poster, who believes there was reasonable doubt. I was just saying with all the theories there was reasonable doubt. Thanks for reminding me. :)

[GreenIce]

The reason I say that Martz was crucial is because you're correct in that Sims added nothing to the prosecution's case but Martz found EDTA in the sock stain in an amount that indicated planting.

William,

IMO, the fact that the DA's did not call him sent a huge message to the jury. Remember, the DA's wrote him a letter asking him to refute the defense's claim that blood was planted, obviously he could not.

I remember during the criminal trial thinking that Martz's message to the jury was that "yes, I said I was expert on this but I really wasn't so my test results can't really be trusted".

IMO, his testimony about taking his own blood and doing the test was the worst thing he could have done and testified to. He should have brought in another "expert" to help him out. If he didn't know what he was doing with OJ's an Nicole's blood, why would he know what he was doing with his own?

Also, since he claimed he was expert, then he should have stopped the first time. To keep doing more tests makes it seem like he was more interested in help the DA's rather then be a neutral witness. IMO.

[GreenIce]

And frankly I think that pissed Simpson off. I don't think he expected Nicole to start standing on her own two feet after the letter, I think he expected her to run back to him and do whatever he told her to do.

On the night of the murders the Brown family might be acting like family to Simpson but watch the video - you'll see that Nicole is standing as far away from Simpson as possible, making no contact with him whatsoever.

K,

Why would Simpson be angry and upset that Nicole was standing on her own 2 feet? Nicole standing on her own two feet would only lower his payments to her. I believe during the course of their marriage, Nicole did make attempts to enter the working world but either got board or perhaps wanted to focus more on her children and then re-enter the working world when they were older.

It is no secret that Simpson and Nicole were at odds that night. However, Nicole going to get her car and avoiding Simpson doesn't mean a thing, IMO. If Simpson had tried to approach Nicole and she kept stepping away from him, well that paints a different picture. It seems to me that both of them went out of their way to avoid the other. IMO.

[GreenIce]

You don't have to look further than Doug Deedrick's testimony. He testified that hair from Nicole Brown Simpson's head appeared to have been forcibly removed and identified it as being on the glove found at Rockingham.

You've posted some of his testimony on here so I assume you know where to find it.

K,

Deedrick was not a neutral witness and his Bronco fiber report proves this, IMO.

Nicole's hair being found on the Rockingham glove is not damning evidence if the DA's can't explain or have any proof on who put the glove back there. IMO.

[fgump2]

K,

Deedrick was not a neutral witness and his Bronco fiber report proves this, IMO.

Nicole's hair being found on the Rockingham glove is not damning evidence if the DA's can't explain or have any proof on who put the glove back there. IMO.

Does this mean that anyone associated with the prosecution can be considered non neutral and therefore should carry little or no weight?

[fgump2]

When the bruno shoe photos turned up in the civil trial of 96, I thought it was interesting that the defense made no statement about how they hoped to used future developments in forensic photo analysis to prove the photos were fakes.

I have read a little about forensic photography analysis, and I think there has been enough progress made in the field to be able to prove that if the 31 photos were faked, it should be possible to discredit them. This is my interpetation, and the article I read didn't specificly mention the Simpson case.
The link is
.http://www.interpol.int/public/Forensic/IFSS/meeting13/Reviews/Image.pdf

The developments that I think are relevant is that it is now possible to take 2 or more photographs of the same object (Mr. Simpson) and combine them to show details that weren't visible in either photo. This wasn't possible in 1996.The most common example is when two fuzzy photos are combined to create one clear photo. This has been done with crime photographs, and also photographs from outer space (mars for example). If there are photos from different angles, it is usually possible to build a 3 dimensional model. Since there were 31 photographs I am guessing it would be possible to create a fairly detailed 3 D model of Simpson's shoes.

It should be then possible to compare the 3 D model with some actual bruno shoes. I think neither camera in question was digital. Digital pictures are easier to tamper with.


This would be an additonal check on the photos. I would keep my fingers crossed if these checks were made, although I have no reason to think they were faked, but I don't think that Mr. Simpson is in any hurry to get these tests done.

This is a quote from an article.
Furthermore, there have also been advances in image processing
technologies applied to such images that now allow data from more than one image to be combined providing improved data for subsequent analysis.

[fgump2]

When the bruno shoe photos turned up in the civil trial of 96, I thought it was interesting that the defense made no statement about how they hoped to used future developments in forensic photo analysis to prove the photos were fakes.

I have read a little about forensic photography analysis, and I think there has been enough progress made in the field to be able to prove that if the 31 photos were faked, it should be possible to discredit them. This is my interpetation, and the article I read didn't specificly mention the Simpson case.
The link is
.http://www.interpol.int/public/Forensic/IFSS/meeting13/Reviews/Image.pdf

The developments that I think are relevant is that it is now possible to take 2 or more photographs of the same object (Mr. Simpson) and combine them to show details that weren't visible in either photo. This wasn't possible in 1996.The most common example is when two fuzzy photos are combined to create one clear photo. This has been done with crime photographs, and also photographs from outer space (mars for example). If there are photos from different angles, it is usually possible to build a 3 dimensional model. Since there were 31 photographs I am guessing it would be possible to create a fairly detailed 3 D model of Simpson's shoes.

It should be then possible to compare the 3 D model with some actual bruno shoes. I think neither camera in question was digital. Digital pictures are easier to tamper with.


This would be an additonal check on the photos. I would keep my fingers crossed if these checks were made, although I have no reason to think they were faked, but I don't think that Mr. Simpson is in any hurry to get these tests done.

This is a quote from an article.
Furthermore, there have also been advances in image processing
technologies applied to such images that now allow data from more than one image to be combined providing improved data for subsequent analysis.

[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.:)

No matter how many times I have corrected you, you still continue to falsely claim that in the criminal trial Park said that Kaelin was still standing “for a minute.” Park never said that in the criminal trial.

As I said before I was incorrect when I said Lange was never asked if he saw blood in the Bronco but the fact is that Lange answered that question by saying he never looked inside the front of the Bronco so he could not and did not testify if there was or wasn’t blood inside the Bronco when it was parked on Rockingham.

It’s obvious that Park realized he was wrong in his pre criminal trial testimony testifying to what he thought Kaelin did instead of saying he didn’t know what Kaelin did. Clark handled that problem in the criminal trial by questioning Park as to what he did while waiting to be let onto the estate. In the civil trial Petrocelli asked specific questions to show that Park wasn’t paying any attention to what Kaelin did while waiting to be let onto the estate.

Your claim that Petrocelli molded Park’s memory only shows your inability to understand what all the attorneys in this case understood; and that is Park was mistaken when he originally thought that Kaelin continued standing on the Ashford path after he saw him come from the behind the house.

bobaugust

[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. :)

There is no evidence that Park was mistaken when he told the police and then consistently testified that he first saw a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight.

No attorney in this case ever disputed or questioned that part of Park’s testimony. They all understood that Kaelin corroborated that part of Park’s testimony and that the small differences in recollection were so insignificant they were evidently not worth the time to point out.

The fact is that you created an illogical ridiculous fantasy William by blowing these small insignificant differences in recollection way out of proportion, making unreasonable, illogical inferences from them, and then fantasizing what you imagined Kaelin did, all because you can’t seem to comprehend or admit that Park was mistaken in his pre criminal trial testimony regarding what he thought Kaelin did. I repeat that’s what happens when you argue that mistaken testimony is what actually happened, you wind up making illogical ridiculous claims.

bobaugust

[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.:)

Dr. Cotton’s testimony that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock had virtually little or no degradation and that Nicole’s blood reference sample was considerably degraded conclusively proved 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 false. In the civil trial Baker understood that so he tried to suggest some other imaginary ways that Nicole’s blood may have gotten on Simpson’s sock.

bobaugust

[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.:)

There is no evidence that Kaelin went back to the Ashford sidewalk and stood there when he returned from behind the garage. Neither Kaelin nor Park ever said that in their pre criminal trial testimony or in the criminal trial or the civil trial.

What ever inferences you made from mistaken testimony that Park never repeated in the criminal trial or the civil trial are not reasonable inferences and have no credibility. The only thing those unreasonable inferences have done is caused you to make illogical ridiculous claims.

Nothing about your fantasy makes any sense since you pick and choose only the parts of Park’s testimony you want to believe. You exaggerate insignificant differences in recollection, and then you make up fantasies of what you only imagined happened.

I would say that you William, as the author of that fantasy, are the person who considers himself always to be right since instead of admitting your fantasy never happened you defend it by claiming that since no attorney in this case ever asked Kaelin what you fantasized Kaelin did then that somehow means your fantasy could have happened. I repeat, for someone who studies law you should be embarrassed by that ridiculous argument.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr August,

IMO, it is a dishonest misleading inference and a false claim that Lange did not look inside the Bronco, all of the Bronco to look for evidence of a crime. To suggest that he only looked in the rear of of it makes no sense.

The only way this makes sense is that Lange, if he is telling the truth that he did not look for the blood in the Bronco is because he avoided it on purpose. He did not want to be asked questions about blood in the Bronco and the only way he could do that is by avoiding looking in the front of the Bronco.

He is the 4th or 5th LAPD member to say that he did not see evidence because he wasn't looking for it. These are unacceptable and highly suspicious answers because it is their job to look for evidence.

Lange not wanting to know is just like Clark and the DA's not wanting to know about MF. IMO.

GreenIce, Lange looked in the rear of the Bronco when it was still dark outside before the detectives entered Simpson’s estate. All of the detectives who testified they saw blood inside the Bronco said they saw the blood after it was light outside.

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

No matter how many times I have corrected you, you still continue to falsely claim that in the criminal trial Park said that Kaelin was still standing “for a minute.” Park never said that in the criminal trial. YOU CAN'T CORRECT WHAT I DID NOT SAY. THAT IS PART OF YOUR PROBLEM WITH MY POSTS AND THE TESTIMONIES, IMHO. YOU PUT WHAT YOU THINK WAS SAID OR COULD HAVE OR MAYBE WAS OR ENTIRELY POSSIBLE IT WAS OR YOU PERCEIVED IT WAS SAID.:)

As I said before I was incorrect (I KNOW) when I said Lange was never asked if he saw blood in the Bronco but the fact is that Lange answered that question by saying he never looked inside the front of the Bronco so he could not and did not testify if there was or wasn’t blood inside the Bronco when it was parked on Rockingham. THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT YOU RELY ON THE TESTIMONY OF OTHERS TO CONCLUDE THERE WAS BLOOD IN THE BRONCO, DOES IT?

It’s obvious that Park realized he was wrong in his pre criminal trial testimony testifying to what he thought Kaelin did instead of saying he didn’t know what Kaelin did. Clark handled that problem in the criminal trial by questioning Park as to what he did while waiting to be let onto the estate. In the civil trial Petrocelli asked specific questions to show that Park wasn’t paying any attention to what Kaelin did while waiting to be let onto the estate. YES, AND PARK TESTIFIED THAT PETRO AND OTHERS TOLD HIM HIS TESTIMONY WAS WRONG.

Your claim that Petrocelli molded Park’s memory only shows your inability to understand what all the attorneys in this case understood; and that is Park was mistaken when he originally thought that Kaelin continued standing on the Ashford path after he saw him come from the behind the house.

bobaugust

What you seem to have a gigantic inability to understand is that lawyers are not the ones to understand the testimony or to coach a witness how to answer a question because that is unethical. There is no way the lawyer knows, who is mistaken unless the lawyer was there.:) Those lawyers molded Park's testimony/memory to fit their theory of what happened, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

There is no evidence that Park was mistaken when he told the police and then consistently testified that he first saw a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight.

No attorney in this case ever disputed or questioned that part of Park’s testimony. They all understood that Kaelin corroborated that part of Park’s testimony and that the small differences in recollection were so insignificant they were evidently not worth the time to point out.

The fact is that you created an illogical ridiculous fantasy William by blowing these small insignificant differences in recollection way out of proportion, making unreasonable, illogical inferences from them, and then fantasizing what you imagined Kaelin did, all because you can’t seem to comprehend or admit that Park was mistaken in his pre criminal trial testimony regarding what he thought Kaelin did. I repeat that’s what happens when you argue that mistaken testimony is what actually happened, you wind up making illogical ridiculous claims.

bobaugust

This is so simple. The evidence is the discrepancies in the testimonies and this is why I say that you don't seem to understand or know what the actual evidence was, which leads you to make pompous and ridiculously false claims, which I spend too large an amount of time needing to correct. :) I repeat, because you do not see or understand it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

[GreenIce]

Does this mean that anyone associated with the prosecution can be considered non neutral and therefore should carry little or no weight?

fgump2,

The main reason for the FBI is to be a neutral government agency where state governments can send their evidence to be tested.

Deedrick's work in the Simpson case was marred by his using an "independent sources" for the Bronco fibers. While Clark claims she knew nothing about the report, I do not believe her. For once she did not slam Ito for not allowing this report. Deedrick is too experienced and has testified in way too many trials to pull this. He thought that since his sources were "independant" he did not have turn over his report to the defense. Right then and there should tell you something. He should have had no problem turning over his report to the defense. All three FBI witnesses were not successful witnesses for the DA's, IMO.

However, when an FBI agent wanted to testify about Martz and the FBI's tendencies to have their reports fall in line with that of the DA's, he was not allowed to do so. The FBI and DA's should not be in bed together, IMO.

[William Anthony]

Dr. Cotton’s testimony that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock had virtually little or no degradation and that Nicole’s blood reference sample was considerably degraded conclusively proved 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 false. In the civil trial Baker understood that so he tried to suggest some other imaginary ways that Nicole’s blood may have gotten on Simpson’s sock.

bobaugust

You may think that Cotton proved the defense theory of planting wrong. However, I dispute your claim that Cotton's testimony "conclusively" proved the defense's theory wrong. :)

[William Anthony]

There is no evidence that Kaelin went back to the Ashford sidewalk and stood there when he returned from behind the garage. Neither Kaelin nor Park ever said that in their pre criminal trial testimony or in the criminal trial or the civil trial.

What ever inferences you made from mistaken testimony that Park never repeated in the criminal trial or the civil trial are not reasonable inferences and have no credibility. The only thing those unreasonable inferences have done is caused you to make illogical ridiculous claims.

Nothing about your fantasy makes any sense since you pick and choose only the parts of Park’s testimony you want to believe. You exaggerate insignificant differences in recollection, and then you make up fantasies of what you only imagined happened.

I would say that you William, as the author of that fantasy, are the person who considers himself always to be right since instead of admitting your fantasy never happened you defend it by claiming that since no attorney in this case ever asked Kaelin what you fantasized Kaelin did then that somehow means your fantasy could have happened. I repeat, for someone who studies law you should be embarrassed by that ridiculous argument.

bobaugust

The evidence is Park's testimony and I reiterate, just because you do not see it or understand it , doesn't mean it is not there. :)

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, Lange looked in the rear of the Bronco when it was still dark outside before the detectives entered Simpson’s estate. All of the detectives who testified they saw blood inside the Bronco said they saw the blood after it was light outside.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

That can't be true, unless Lange looked at the Bronco before going MF going over the wall. However, it doesn't matter when Lange looked in the rear of the Bronco, it makes no sense that he would not look in the front of it. If it was still dark he had to use a flashlight to look in the rear of the Bronco. Why was he looking at the Bronco in the first place--just checking out how it was parked? Trying to figure out the stick on the parkway?

Too many times members of the LAPD gave the excuse they didn't see any evidence because they weren't looking for it. The biggest liar of them all, IMO, on this is MF, then Lange. IMO.

[GreenIce]

When the bruno shoe photos turned up in the civil trial of 96, I thought it was interesting that the defense made no statement about how they hoped to used future developments in forensic photo analysis to prove the photos were fakes.

I have read a little about forensic photography analysis, and I think there has been enough progress made in the field to be able to prove that if the 31 photos were faked, it should be possible to discredit them. This is my interpetation, and the article I read didn't specificly mention the Simpson case.
The link is
.http://www.interpol.int/public/Forensic/IFSS/meeting13/Reviews/Image.pdf

The developments that I think are relevant is that it is now possible to take 2 or more photographs of the same object (Mr. Simpson) and combine them to show details that weren't visible in either photo. This wasn't possible in 1996.The most common example is when two fuzzy photos are combined to create one clear photo. This has been done with crime photographs, and also photographs from outer space (mars for example). If there are photos from different angles, it is usually possible to build a 3 dimensional model. Since there were 31 photographs I am guessing it would be possible to create a fairly detailed 3 D model of Simpson's shoes.

It should be then possible to compare the 3 D model with some actual bruno shoes. I think neither camera in question was digital. Digital pictures are easier to tamper with.


This would be an additonal check on the photos. I would keep my fingers crossed if these checks were made, although I have no reason to think they were faked, but I don't think that Mr. Simpson is in any hurry to get these tests done.

This is a quote from an article.
Furthermore, there have also been advances in image processing
technologies applied to such images that now allow data from more than one image to be combined providing improved data for subsequent analysis.

fgump2,

The plaintiff's expert agreed that doctored photos can fool experts. The technology even 10 years ago was just awesome. The defense were never given the time they asked for to do their own research on the pictures. However, IMO, reading the civil trial testimony on this issue is not very confusing but also it just doesn't play out as those photos being true.

The fact that a person to the Concorde over to Europe to have the picture validated, IMO, just doesn't seem right. Why England? Why sell the photo to NE tabloid first?

Also, as I have posted before, people came up to the Goldmans' and told them they would kill Simpson for him, that he wouldn't have to worry about it being traced back to him. If people were willing to kill Simpson for the Goldmans', then I don't think it is a big leap in logic that they wouldn't doctor photos for him.

Also, there is the question if the DA's knew about these photos. If they did and they did not use them, then that supports that the pictures may have been doctored.

One of those pictures were taken with several other men and not one of them thought to look at it and send it into the DA's? Tell them the name of the photographer who took it?

[GreenIce]

No matter how many times I have corrected you, you still continue to falsely claim that in the criminal trial Park said that Kaelin was still standing “for a minute.” Park never said that in the criminal trial.

As I said before I was incorrect when I said Lange was never asked if he saw blood in the Bronco but the fact is that Lange answered that question by saying he never looked inside the front of the Bronco so he could not and did not testify if there was or wasn’t blood inside the Bronco when it was parked on Rockingham.

It’s obvious that Park realized he was wrong in his pre criminal trial testimony testifying to what he thought Kaelin did instead of saying he didn’t know what Kaelin did. Clark handled that problem in the criminal trial by questioning Park as to what he did while waiting to be let onto the estate. In the civil trial Petrocelli asked specific questions to show that Park wasn’t paying any attention to what Kaelin did while waiting to be let onto the estate.

Your claim that Petrocelli molded Park’s memory only shows your inability to understand what all the attorneys in this case understood; and that is Park was mistaken when he originally thought that Kaelin continued standing on the Ashford path after he saw him come from the behind the house.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Enough is enough! It is clear that both Park and Kato were so confused by the DA's and in Park's case, his mother, that neither men could not have been able to testify about the colors of a stop sign.

You are also leaving out a very important detail that the DA's based their case on. The blood trail from the Bronco to the front door. Clark treated it as absolute proof of his guilt---however, by using this trail, she eliminates the need for Simpson to have tried to enter his property by going through the neighbor's yard.

Simpson had pockets according to the DA's, no need to try to bury it. No need to "hide" it.

Both Park and Kato spent hours and hours with the DA's and the plaintiffs' lawyers. If their stories were as rock solid as you claim they became, then they should have been rock solid the first time around. IMO.

It is clear that Park's mother coached him in his testimony--even Clark admits that.

[Kate Sachel]

That is not what I was saying and, yes, I momentarily forgot that you were a poster, who believes there was reasonable doubt. I was just saying with all the theories there was reasonable doubt. Thanks for reminding me. :)

I doubt that you have forgotten the fact that I believe there was reasonable doubt and that an acquittal was the correct verdict, and frankly it is difficult these days for me personally to tell when you are serious versus sarcastic.

Kate

[martin II]

Does this mean that anyone associated with the prosecution can be considered non neutral and therefore should carry little or no weight?

IF one of micoles hairs WAS on the rockingham glove that means that oj did not grabe her hair.explain that.

[martin II]

You post more COULD HAVE's than anyone I know on this forum. And for the record, her hand WERE bloody.

IF one of nicoles hairs was found on the rockingham glove, the right glove then the killer was left handed. the autopsy report says the killer was right handed. so the hair on that glove means nothing.

[William Anthony]

Mr. August,

That can't be true, unless Lange looked at the Bronco before going MF going over the wall. However, it doesn't matter when Lange looked in the rear of the Bronco, it makes no sense that he would not look in the front of it. If it was still dark he had to use a flashlight to look in the rear of the Bronco. Why was he looking at the Bronco in the first place--just checking out how it was parked? Trying to figure out the stick on the parkway?

Too many times members of the LAPD gave the excuse they didn't see any evidence because they weren't looking for it. The biggest liar of them all, IMO, on this is MF, then Lange. IMO.

One cannot ignore the fact that flashlights were in abundance. :)

[William Anthony]

I doubt that you have forgotten the fact that I believe there was reasonable doubt and that an acquittal was the correct verdict, and frankly it is difficult these days for me personally to tell when you are serious versus sarcastic.

Kate

I truly did forget and that may well be due to your absence. I know it is hard to tell when I am serious or sarcastic. I wasn't being sarcastic in my response to you. The fact that we can see the testimony differently and different inferences drawn or maybe the same inferences allows for reasonable doubt. I have not formed a conclusion or even a concrete belief one way or another as to Simpson being the murderer.

[Kate Sachel]

I truly did forget and that may well be due to your absence. I know it is hard to tell when I am serious or sarcastic. I wasn't being sarcastic in my response to you. The fact that we can see the testimony differently and different inferences drawn or maybe the same inferences allows for reasonable doubt. I have not formed a conclusion or even a concrete belief one way or another as to Simpson being the murderer.

My absence is due mostly to the nonsense that is once again being posted non-stop on these forums. I refuse to sink to those levels and find that I am not able to have discussion with individuals who wish only to attack or attempt to assassinate character; it disgusts me. I should think that we should be able to hold decent discussion regarding any topic of this case without resorting to childish tactics and purposefully doing things to ensure discord.

I see that Deepwater posted an announcement regarding the necessity of respecting one another. I have little doubt that it will be heeded by some.

Kate

[William Anthony]

My absence is due mostly to the nonsense that is once again being posted non-stop on these forums. I refuse to sink to those levels and find that I am not able to have discussion with individuals who wish only to attack or attempt to assassinate character; it disgusts me. I should think that we should be able to hold decent discussion regarding any topic of this case without resorting to childish tactics and purposefully doing things to ensure discord.

I see that Deepwater posted an announcement regarding the necessity of respecting one another. I have little doubt that it will be heeded by some.

Kate

Well I understand what you mean by post that want to assassinate character and I do believe there was a need long ago for a post reminding posters to be respectful of one another, as far back as when a couple of posters said they had no respect for me.

[Kate Sachel]

Well I understand what you mean by post that want to assassinate character and I do believe there was a need long ago for a post reminding posters to be respectful of one another, as far back as when a couple of posters said they had no respect for me.

This isn't all about you William, though I do certainly recall moments when you were quite unfairly attacked and, if I recall correctly, I personally had something publicly to say in regard to that.

With that said, I believe that you give as good as you get. While yours aren't always quite as blatant, the innuendo is crystal clear to many of us who are not quite as naive as some may believe.

I came back on to this forum not long ago and endured a particular individual's childish tactics and outlandish behaviors toward me. We have all been victims. However, while we cannot control what others might say or change how they act, we do have full control over how we react to those responses and the things that we say to others.

Kate

[William Anthony]

This isn't all about you William, though I do certainly recall moments when you were quite unfairly attacked and, if I recall correctly, I personally had something publicly to say in regard to that.

With that said, I believe that you give as good as you get. While yours aren't always quite as blatant, the innuendo is crystal clear to many of us who are not quite as naive as some may believe.

I came back on to this forum not long ago and endured a particular individual's childish tactics and outlandish behaviors toward me. We have all been victims. However, while we cannot control what others might say or change how they act, we do have full control over how we react to those responses and the things that we say to others.

Kate

Of course, this is not all about me or anyone else for that matter. I think a lot of posters read what they want to into the post of someone else. That is why I do not place much faith in innuendo and ask for a clarification of what posters mean. I simply pointed to the posts about posters, saying that they have no respect for me as an indication that the post of the moderator with a reminder of being respectful to other posters was long over due and it would be my guess that some must have complained, as I did, about the disrespect but I did not complain directly to the moderator, which may have been the difference. I think that, if one expects to be treated civilly, they must act civilly or be prepared to accept what response the get in return. However, that is just my opinion and the most important thing for any of us to do is to abide by the rules and the moderator's instructions, IMHO.

[Kate Sachel]

Of course, this is not all about me or anyone else for that matter. I think a lot of posters read what they want to into the post of someone else. That is why I do not place much faith in innuendo and ask for a clarification of what posters mean. I simply pointed to the posts about posters, saying that they have no respect for me as an indication that the post of the moderator with a reminder of being respectful to other posters was long over due and it would be my guess that some must have complained, as I did, about the disrespect but I did not complain directly to the moderator, which may have been the difference. I think that, if one expects to be treated civilly, they must act civilly or be prepared to accept what response the get in return. However, that is just my opinion and the most important thing for any of us to do is to abide by the rules and the moderator's instructions, IMHO.

And how about those that do act civilly and are still treated badly?

Kate

[William Anthony]

And how about those that do act civilly and are still treated badly?

Kate

Now Kate, you have seen how I handled that.:) Seriously, I don't think any of us are without blame and there is room for improvement in all of us.

[Kate Sachel]

Now Kate, you have seen how I handled that.:) Seriously, I don't think any of us are without blame and there is room for improvement in all of us.

Truthfully I have seen some who have been without blame that have literally been bullied off of this forum. I think that is a shame.

It is only my hope that people might take this into consideration and think a little longer before posting something that is mean in spirit or hurtful to another individual.

Kate

[fgump2]

IF one of nicoles hairs was found on the rockingham glove, the right glove then the killer was left handed. the autopsy report says the killer was right handed. so the hair on that glove means nothing.

It is very easy to see how a right handed killer could have pulled a hair out by the roots with a right hand. He would have had the right hand down near her hair, and a hair could easily have been caught in the right hand.

The more relevant question would be why no hairs on the left glove. I can only guess. It might be that Simpson deliberately took to the left hand glove off, to p**s? to scratch himself? to be able to grip better? I suppose if he took it off deliberately that would probably be before the fight. I don't recall if there was blood on the left hand glove

If he got hairs on the left hand glove, those might have gotten rubbed off in the struggle with goldman. THis is the sort of thing that could be partly decided by testing. Of course it would be hard to get a long haired person to volunteer to get their hair pulled back like that. SInce someone posted that there were some of Nicole's hair rubbed onto the front of GOldman's shirt, we should assume that the killer had a hand pressed against that location. That would shoot down the theory that one person killed Ron while the other person killed Nicole.

[William Anthony]

Truthfully I have seen some who have been without blame that have literally been bullied off of this forum. I think that is a shame.

It is only my hope that people might take this into consideration and think a little longer before posting something that is mean in spirit or hurtful to another individual.

Kate

That may have been before my time. I have seen some say they were misunderstood and not post any more, even though some apologies were made to them. I think it is a poster's personal choice to post or not post and, if they feel they are being unfairly attacked and want to continue posting, then they should contact the moderator and I think the moderator should act as a fence mender rather than a sentencing judge, unless the posts are so extreme and there has been irreparable harm.

[William Anthony]

It is very easy to see how a right handed killer could have pulled a hair out by the roots with a right hand. He would have had the right hand down near her hair, and a hair could easily have been caught in the right hand.

The more relevant question would be why no hairs on the left glove. I can only guess. It might be that Simpson deliberately took to the left hand glove off, to p**s? to scratch himself? to be able to grip better? I suppose if he took it off deliberately that would probably be before the fight. I don't recall if there was blood on the left hand glove

If he got hairs on the left hand glove, those might have gotten rubbed off in the struggle with goldman. THis is the sort of thing that could be partly decided by testing. Of course it would be hard to get a long haired person to volunteer to get their hair pulled back like that. SInce someone posted that there were some of Nicole's hair rubbed onto the front of GOldman's shirt, we should assume that the killer had a hand pressed against that location. That would shoot down the theory that one person killed Ron while the other person killed Nicole.

I think the point is that, If the killer were holding Ms. NBS by the hairs on her head and pulling her head back with his right hand while cutting her throat, then it is reasonable to conclude that her throat was cut with the left hand and the killer was left handed, if there was only one killer.

[fgump2]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9195182]fgump2,



The plaintiff's expert agreed that doctored photos can fool experts. The technology even 10 years ago was just awesome. The defense were never given the time they asked for to do their own research on the pictures. However, IMO, reading the civil trial testimony on this issue is not very confusing but also it just doesn't play out as those photos being true.

If the problem was time for the defense to check it out, it has been about 13 years now.

The fact that a person to the Concorde over to Europe to have the picture validated, IMO, just doesn't seem right. Why England? Why sell the photo to NE tabloid first?

Also, as I have posted before, people came up to the Goldmans' and told them they would kill Simpson for him, that he wouldn't have to worry about it being traced back to him. If people were willing to kill Simpson for the Goldmans', then I don't think it is a big leap in logic that they wouldn't doctor photos for him.

The fact that someone made that offer to Fred doesn’t mean that they would have done it. The person may have been hoping for an interesting remark for the trash news media.

Also, there is the question if the DA's knew about these photos. If they did and they did not use them, then that supports that the pictures may have been doctored. I don’t think there is any evidence that the DAs knew about them.

If the DAs knew about them and had reason to doubt their credibility, that should have come out by now. Interesting stories usually don’t stay buried forever.
One of those pictures were taken with several other men and not one of them thought to look at it and send it into the DA's? Tell them the name of the photographer who took it?

[QUOTE]

I continue to think that if the photos were tampered with then it should be possible to prove it by now, by the techniques I described. Also I am pretty sure there was a picture published of Simpson wearing Bruno M. in 1993, before the killings.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9195182]fgump2,



The plaintiff's expert agreed that doctored photos can fool experts. The technology even 10 years ago was just awesome. The defense were never given the time they asked for to do their own research on the pictures. However, IMO, reading the civil trial testimony on this issue is not very confusing but also it just doesn't play out as those photos being true.

If the problem was time for the defense to check it out, it has been about 13 years now.

The fact that a person to the Concorde over to Europe to have the picture validated, IMO, just doesn't seem right. Why England? Why sell the photo to NE tabloid first?

Also, as I have posted before, people came up to the Goldmans' and told them they would kill Simpson for him, that he wouldn't have to worry about it being traced back to him. If people were willing to kill Simpson for the Goldmans', then I don't think it is a big leap in logic that they wouldn't doctor photos for him.

The fact that someone made that offer to Fred doesn’t mean that they would have done it. The person may have been hoping for an interesting remark for the trash news media.

Also, there is the question if the DA's knew about these photos. If they did and they did not use them, then that supports that the pictures may have been doctored. I don’t think there is any evidence that the DAs knew about them.

If the DAs knew about them and had reason to doubt their credibility, that should have come out by now. Interesting stories usually don’t stay buried forever.
One of those pictures were taken with several other men and not one of them thought to look at it and send it into the DA's? Tell them the name of the photographer who took it?

[QUOTE]

I continue to think that if the photos were tampered with then it should be possible to prove it by now, by the techniques I described. Also I am pretty sure there was a picture published of Simpson wearing Bruno M. in 1993, before the killings.

fgump2,

IMO, nothing is going to change anybody's mind. I always felt that perhaps one day Sydney Simpson may give an interview about what she saw and heard that night, yet I can also understand why she might never talk about it.

This case drove people insane, IMO. Fred was pretty sure the person was serious and I think he got more then one offer. I don't think Timothy McVeigh or Jeff Dahlmer were as hated as OJ Simpson was at that time. IMO.

[GreenIce]

Read her book again - she says "oh my god he killed them didn't he" and says that made her have to rethink alot of stuff.

K,

Paula's book, IMO, has very little value unless you want to take into consideration her death wish for Nicole and the fact it was her car that was "stolen" and Nicole's whereabouts were documented in a notebook.

Like I posted before, Paula was humilated during the trial and her "Dear OJ" message did not have her desired effect. Simpson rolled with it and started calling othe women. Not the actions of a man who even remotely upset about Paula.

Paula couldn't have her way before the murders or after he got out jail, her career was suffering and she wanted Simpson to settle down, he refused and she left.

[GreenIce]

Dr. Cotton’s testimony that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock had virtually little or no degradation and that Nicole’s blood reference sample was considerably degraded conclusively proved 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 false. In the civil trial Baker understood that so he tried to suggest some other imaginary ways that Nicole’s blood may have gotten on Simpson’s sock.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Why didn't Dr. Cotton testify to this in the criminal trial? Also, I believe it was her opinon. Please provided the degree of scientific certainty to this. If it is her opinon and her opinon only, then that is not conclusive proof. IMO.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9195182]fgump2,



The plaintiff's expert agreed that doctored photos can fool experts. The technology even 10 years ago was just awesome. The defense were never given the time they asked for to do their own research on the pictures. However, IMO, reading the civil trial testimony on this issue is not very confusing but also it just doesn't play out as those photos being true.

If the problem was time for the defense to check it out, it has been about 13 years now.

The fact that a person to the Concorde over to Europe to have the picture validated, IMO, just doesn't seem right. Why England? Why sell the photo to NE tabloid first?

Also, as I have posted before, people came up to the Goldmans' and told them they would kill Simpson for him, that he wouldn't have to worry about it being traced back to him. If people were willing to kill Simpson for the Goldmans', then I don't think it is a big leap in logic that they wouldn't doctor photos for him.

The fact that someone made that offer to Fred doesn’t mean that they would have done it. The person may have been hoping for an interesting remark for the trash news media.

Also, there is the question if the DA's knew about these photos. If they did and they did not use them, then that supports that the pictures may have been doctored. I don’t think there is any evidence that the DAs knew about them.

If the DAs knew about them and had reason to doubt their credibility, that should have come out by now. Interesting stories usually don’t stay buried forever.
One of those pictures were taken with several other men and not one of them thought to look at it and send it into the DA's? Tell them the name of the photographer who took it?

[QUOTE]

I continue to think that if the photos were tampered with then it should be possible to prove it by now, by the techniques I described. Also I am pretty sure there was a picture published of Simpson wearing Bruno M. in 1993, before the killings.

the trial is over. oj was found not guilty. they should be looking to prove what 14 years later and for what purpose?

[martin II]

K,

Paula's book, IMO, has very little value unless you want to take into consideration her death wish for Nicole and the fact it was her car that was "stolen" and Nicole's whereabouts were documented in a notebook.

Like I posted before, Paula was humilated during the trial and her "Dear OJ" message did not have her desired effect. Simpson rolled with it and started calling othe women. Not the actions of a man who even remotely upset about Paula.

Paula couldn't have her way before the murders or after he got out jail, her career was suffering and she wanted Simpson to settle down, he refused and she left.

Kato testifiued that on 6/12 oj told him he didn't think he was going to marry Paula although she was his woman at that time.

[martin II]

Read her book again - she says "oh my god he killed them didn't he" and says that made her have to rethink alot of stuff.

Her bias against oj would cause her to make that kind of streatch.

[martin II]

It is very easy to see how a right handed killer could have pulled a hair out by the roots with a right hand. He would have had the right hand down near her hair, and a hair could easily have been caught in the right hand.

The more relevant question would be why no hairs on the left glove. I can only guess. It might be that Simpson deliberately took to the left hand glove off, to p**s? to scratch himself? to be able to grip better? I suppose if he took it off deliberately that would probably be before the fight. I don't recall if there was blood on the left hand glove

If he got hairs on the left hand glove, those might have gotten rubbed off in the struggle with goldman. THis is the sort of thing that could be partly decided by testing. Of course it would be hard to get a long haired person to volunteer to get their hair pulled back like that. SInce someone posted that there were some of Nicole's hair rubbed onto the front of GOldman's shirt, we should assume that the killer had a hand pressed against that location. That would shoot down the theory that one person killed Ron while the other person killed Nicole.


So oj took time to p**s and scratch himself in the middle of killing nicole. what was ron doing looking and waiting to be attacked?

[martin II]

Mr. August,

Why didn't Dr. Cotton testify to this in the criminal trial? Also, I believe it was her opinon. Please provided the degree of scientific certainty to this. If it is her opinon and her opinon only, then that is not conclusive proof. IMO.

She stated that it was her opinions many times.

[martin II]

William,

IMO, the fact that the DA's did not call him sent a huge message to the jury. Remember, the DA's wrote him a letter asking him to refute the defense's claim that blood was planted, obviously he could not.

I remember during the criminal trial thinking that Martz's message to the jury was that "yes, I said I was expert on this but I really wasn't so my test results can't really be trusted".

IMO, his testimony about taking his own blood and doing the test was the worst thing he could have done and testified to. He should have brought in another "expert" to help him out. If he didn't know what he was doing with OJ's an Nicole's blood, why would he know what he was doing with his own?

Also, since he claimed he was expert, then he should have stopped the first time. To keep doing more tests makes it seem like he was more interested in help the DA's rather then be a neutral witness. IMO.

After the trial Martz was demoted at his FBI job. one reason was for testifying above his expertise level.

[martin II]

How about this.
A neck can be cut by a killer without having to pull the head back by the hair.

[fgump2]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9195263][QUOTE=GreenIce;9195182]fgump2,



The plaintiff's expert agreed that doctored photos can fool experts. The technology even 10 years ago was just awesome. The defense were never given the time they asked for to do their own research on the pictures. However, IMO, reading the civil trial testimony on this issue is not very confusing but also it just doesn't play out as those photos being true.

If the problem was time for the defense to check it out, it has been about 13 years now.

The fact that a person to the Concorde over to Europe to have the picture validated, IMO, just doesn't seem right. Why England? Why sell the photo to NE tabloid first?

Also, as I have posted before, people came up to the Goldmans' and told them they would kill Simpson for him, that he wouldn't have to worry about it being traced back to him. If people were willing to kill Simpson for the Goldmans', then I don't think it is a big leap in logic that they wouldn't doctor photos for him.

The fact that someone made that offer to Fred doesn’t mean that they would have done it. The person may have been hoping for an interesting remark for the trash news media.

Also, there is the question if the DA's knew about these photos. If they did and they did not use them, then that supports that the pictures may have been doctored. I don’t think there is any evidence that the DAs knew about them.

If the DAs knew about them and had reason to doubt their credibility, that should have come out by now. Interesting stories usually don’t stay buried forever.
One of those pictures were taken with several other men and not one of them thought to look at it and send it into the DA's? Tell them the name of the photographer who took it?



fgump2,

IMO, nothing is going to change anybody's mind. I always felt that perhaps one day Sydney Simpson may give an interview about what she saw and heard that night, yet I can also understand why she might never talk about it.

This case drove people insane, IMO. Fred was pretty sure the person was serious and I think he got more then one offer. I don't think Timothy McVeigh or Jeff Dahlmer were as hated as OJ Simpson was at that time. IMO.


I am not an expert on forensic photography, in this case discovering whether the information in a photo has been tampered with. I think that the new techniques of combining the information in two or more photos might detect tampering in two ways:
(1) By giving more information about the shoes; that is a better look at the shoes. In other words is the combined informaton about the shoes consistent with the Bruno M. appearance. I am guessing this might show evidence of tampering. IF the computer couldn't combine the information about the shoes, that might be evidence of tampering.

(2) the combined information would give a lot more information about all visibile information about Mr. Simpson, including hair texture for example. Would evidence of tampering be magnified also? I think it would, but I don't know. Experts might disagree about this.The information from combining the photos would show more about Simson's hair, or the shirt he was wearing that couldn't be seen by studying the photos. For example the combined results might show a loose thread on SImpson's shirt that would be impossible to notice on any of the 31 photos. In the same way, it is possible that evidence of tampering might show up on the combined information.

I find it easy to believe that nobody will ever put the work in to decide this. Even if people tried to check this out, the results might be ambiguous.

[fgump2]

So oj took time to p**s and scratch himself in the middle of killing nicole. what was ron doing looking and waiting to be attacked?

If SImpson took his left glove off deliberatly, it probably would have been before the fight.

[fgump2]

[QUOTE=fgump2;9195263][QUOTE=GreenIce;9195182]fgump2,



The plaintiff's expert agreed that doctored photos can fool experts. The technology even 10 years ago was just awesome. The defense were never given the time they asked for to do their own research on the pictures. However, IMO, reading the civil trial testimony on this issue is not very confusing but also it just doesn't play out as those photos being true.

If the problem was time for the defense to check it out, it has been about 13 years now.

The fact that a person to the Concorde over to Europe to have the picture validated, IMO, just doesn't seem right. Why England? Why sell the photo to NE tabloid first?

Also, as I have posted before, people came up to the Goldmans' and told them they would kill Simpson for him, that he wouldn't have to worry about it being traced back to him. If people were willing to kill Simpson for the Goldmans', then I don't think it is a big leap in logic that they wouldn't doctor photos for him.

The fact that someone made that offer to Fred doesn’t mean that they would have done it. The person may have been hoping for an interesting remark for the trash news media.

Also, there is the question if the DA's knew about these photos. If they did and they did not use them, then that supports that the pictures may have been doctored. I don’t think there is any evidence that the DAs knew about them.

If the DAs knew about them and had reason to doubt their credibility, that should have come out by now. Interesting stories usually don’t stay buried forever.
One of those pictures were taken with several other men and not one of them thought to look at it and send it into the DA's? Tell them the name of the photographer who took it?



the trial is over. oj was found not guilty. they should be looking to prove what 14 years later and for what purpose?

I meant the civil trial with the resulting judgement that SImpson moved to Florida to avoid paying. If he could prove the photos were wrong he might be able to appeal the civil trial results, or at least win in the court of public opinion.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=martin II;9195282][QUOTE=fgump2;9195263]

I meant the civil trial with the resulting judgement that SImpson moved to Florida to avoid paying. If he could prove the photos were wrong he might be able to appeal the civil trial results, or at least win in the court of public opinion.

fgump2,

Simpson talked about moving to Florida even before the murders. However, IMO, Simpson did not do anything different that a lot of people would do if they have the money to do so--move to place where his finances could be protected.

The problem is, unless the person who doctored the photos testifies to that, it can't be proved. However, for the sake of argument, if Simpson did have an expert after the civil trial who's results were different then the plaintiffs' experts, it wouldn't change because people would say that he paid for someone to doctor the doctor photos.

IMO, there was no way for Simpson to win in the court of public opinon. Even if you believe he didn't actually kill Nicole, I believe it is possible that many people, including myself could make the case that he was responsible for Nicole's death. Again, IMO.

One last thing, even if Simpson did prove, even to the G's that the photos were doctored, these same G's would say that even if the pictures are doctored, that still does not mean he is innocent. They would cite other evidence as proof of his "guilt", IMO.

[GreenIce]

Dr. Cotton’s testimony that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock had virtually little or no degradation and that Nicole’s blood reference sample was considerably degraded conclusively proved 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 false. In the civil trial Baker understood that so he tried to suggest some other imaginary ways that Nicole’s blood may have gotten on Simpson’s sock.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Dr. Cotton's testimony does not explain how 4 or 5 members of the SID team did not use the proper the equipment to check for blood on the socks.

In Clark's book, she says something interesting, she said that Dr. Baden did not use the high intensity light when he examined the socks so he couldn't be sure if blood was or wasn't there.

IIRC, Dr. Baden was not allowed to handle the socks, he was only allowed to look at them. When Dr. Lee wanted to examine the socks, they were "lost".

If the socks were baking in the SID truck, then they would have degraded significantly. How do you explain that certain samples were affect by this but others weren't?

Also, Gary Sims said that he could not say when or how the blood got on the socks. Again, Dr. Cotton have her opinon on this issue in the civil trial, no one on the state's said in the criminal trial made this argument.

Shouldn't Roger Martz have used this theory?

[GreenIce]

After the trial Martz was demoted at his FBI job. one reason was for testifying above his expertise level.

Martin,

I read the FBI report on this and it was rather confusing. They said while he was a horrible witness it did not affect his results. IMO, that makes no sense. It appears to me that Martz was demoted because of his demeanor during the trial. I'm not exactly sure why the would demote him for that.

[martin II]

If SImpson took his left glove off deliberatly, it probably would have been before the fight.

I don't think that you have established that oj took a left glove off before
THE FIGHT' But why would he do this before the fight??????

The autopsy report said nicole was killed by a killer with a knife in his right hand.Some believe the killer pulled her hair back with his left hand. one strand of hair was found on the right hand glove.offering the solution is that oj took time to p**s in the middle of killing her is a off the hook streatch.imo

[martin II]

Martin,

I read the FBI report on this and it was rather confusing. They said while he was a horrible witness it did not affect his results. IMO, that makes no sense. It appears to me that Martz was demoted because of his demeanor during the trial. I'm not exactly sure why the would demote him for that.


He testified in a manner not acceptable to the fbi" he was not prepared as they though he should have been. He had bad experiences in other cases.
i don't umderstand why the DA selected him in the first place.

[martin II]

[QUOTE=GreenIce;9195275][QUOTE=fgump2;9195263]


I am not an expert on forensic photography, in this case discovering whether the information in a photo has been tampered with. I think that the new techniques of combining the information in two or more photos might detect tampering in two ways:
(1) By giving more information about the shoes; that is a better look at the shoes. In other words is the combined informaton about the shoes consistent with the Bruno M. appearance. I am guessing this might show evidence of tampering. IF the computer couldn't combine the information about the shoes, that might be evidence of tampering.

(2) the combined information would give a lot more information about all visibile information about Mr. Simpson, including hair texture for example. Would evidence of tampering be magnified also? I think it would, but I don't know. Experts might disagree about this.The information from combining the photos would show more about Simson's hair, or the shirt he was wearing that couldn't be seen by studying the photos. For example the combined results might show a loose thread on SImpson's shirt that would be impossible to notice on any of the 31 photos. In the same way, it is possible that evidence of tampering might show up on the combined information.

I find it easy to believe that nobody will ever put the work in to decide this. Even if people tried to check this out, the results might be ambiguous.

As has been posted the defence was not given the time to do the testing to prove tampering. i believe they did cast doubt on the pictures to the jury.

pictures do not prove that oj killed anyone at bundy on 6/12.

[bobaugust]

What you seem to have a gigantic inability to understand is that lawyers are not the ones to understand the testimony or to coach a witness how to answer a question because that is unethical. There is no way the lawyer knows, who is mistaken unless the lawyer was there.:) Those lawyers molded Park's testimony/memory to fit their theory of what happened, IMHO.

Of course the lawyers in this case understood the testimony, Are you suggesting that the “magnificent” Cochran did not understand Park and Kaelin’s testimony and that’s why he never made the claims that you have made?

There is no evidence that Petrocelli coached Park as to how to answer his questions. Petrocelli simply asked clear and concise questions that allowed Park to provide answers to make it perfectly clear as to what he saw or didn’t see. I would think someone studying law would be wise to learn from an attorney as sharp as Petrocelli. It was obvious to me from Park’s criminal trial testimony that Park wasn’t paying any attention to what Kaelin did after he saw Simpson enter his house and lights come. Park never saw Kaelin continued on to the garage before he got out of his limo and spoke with Simpson over the intercom. If it was obvious to me I have no doubt it was obvious to Simpson’s defense attorneys since they never brought up Park’s mistaken pre criminal trial testimony.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

This is so simple. The evidence is the discrepancies in the testimonies and this is why I say that you don't seem to understand or know what the actual evidence was, which leads you to make pompous and ridiculously false claims, which I spend too large an amount of time needing to correct. :) I repeat, because you do not see or understand it, doesn't mean it isn't there.

Yes this is simple. There are always small insignificant differences in what different witnesses recall even when they see the exact same event. It’s what witnesses agree on that tells us what happened, not the small insignificant differences.

I would say when it comes to this issue that you William are the only one who can’t seem to understand what part of Park’s testimony was mistaken, not me, and not the attorneys in his case.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You may think that Cotton proved the defense theory of planting wrong. However, I dispute your claim that Cotton's testimony "conclusively" proved the defense's theory wrong. :)

You’re entitled to your opinion but I agree with someone who actually understood what Dr. Cotton said. Petrocelli wrote,

“Dr. Cotton explained that when blood is drawn for testing by labs, it is preserved with the chemical EDTA, which stops the DNA in the blood from degrading. (Degradation is simply the breaking down of a chemical into its component parts over time.) But when she compared the degradation levels of Nicole's autopsy vial, Dr. Cotton found the autopsy vial contained the more degraded blood. The blood on the sock was fresher and richer in DNA content than the blood in the vial. Once blood has degraded, it is impossible to raise its DNA count; you can't pony it back up. Under the conspiracy theory, the blood used to plant on the sock came from Nicole's autopsy vial, but that blood had a lower DNA count than the blood on the sock. Nicole's blood was fresher when it spurted out and splashed onto Simpson's sock as he was killing her than two days later when the coroner collected it. This completely destroyed the notion of any planting; it’s impossible for degraded blood to become fresh again. Nicole's blood on the sock could not have been planted.”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

The evidence is Park's testimony and I reiterate, just because you do not see it or understand it , doesn't mean it is not there. :)

The part of Park’s testimony you have relied on to create your fantasy was mistaken testimony that Park never repeated in the criminal trial or the civil trial. When you argue that mistaken testimony is what actually happened, you wind up making illogical ridiculous claims.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

That can't be true, unless Lange looked at the Bronco before going MF going over the wall. However, it doesn't matter when Lange looked in the rear of the Bronco, it makes no sense that he would not look in the front of it. If it was still dark he had to use a flashlight to look in the rear of the Bronco. Why was he looking at the Bronco in the first place--just checking out how it was parked? Trying to figure out the stick on the parkway?

Too many times members of the LAPD gave the excuse they didn't see any evidence because they weren't looking for it. The biggest liar of them all, IMO, on this is MF, then Lange. IMO.

GreenIce, yes Lange looked at the Bronco before Fuhrman went over the wall. That’s what I said when I wrote “before the detectives entered Simpson’s estate.” According to Lange and Vannatter’s book Vannatter did use a flashlight to look into the back of the Bronco and learned that it was Simpson’s Bronco by reading the words on a package there that said “Orenthal Productions.” According to their book Vannatter also used his flashlight to see inside the Bronco and noticed “its lock knobs were in the locked position.”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Enough is enough! It is clear that both Park and Kato were so confused by the DA's and in Park's case, his mother, that neither men could not have been able to testify about the colors of a stop sign.

You are also leaving out a very important detail that the DA's based their case on. The blood trail from the Bronco to the front door. Clark treated it as absolute proof of his guilt---however, by using this trail, she eliminates the need for Simpson to have tried to enter his property by going through the neighbor's yard.

Simpson had pockets according to the DA's, no need to try to bury it. No need to "hide" it.

Both Park and Kato spent hours and hours with the DA's and the plaintiffs' lawyers. If their stories were as rock solid as you claim they became, then they should have been rock solid the first time around. IMO.

It is clear that Park's mother coached him in his testimony--even Clark admits that.

GreenIce, I agree, enough is enough when someone imagines a fantasy of what they think could have happened and then claim their fantasy raises “reasonable doubt” for them.

No I didn’t forget about some of Clark’s mistaken ideas, she was wrong, Simpson didn’t bury or hide his right hand glove. The evidence is that Simpson brought it back with him from Bundy and was unaware that he dropped it on the narrow dark south path when he jumped from the top his fence and collided with the back wall of Kaelin’s room to enter his estate.

It didn’t matter how many hours Kaelin spent with Clark since he was trying not to say anything that he thought might be detrimental to Simpson. When Kaelin testified in the criminal trial he was a Simpson supporter.

bobaugust

[GreenIce]

He testified in a manner not acceptable to the fbi" he was not prepared as they though he should have been. He had bad experiences in other cases.
i don't umderstand why the DA selected him in the first place.


Martin,

Judge Ito ordered the DA's to use the FBI, however, it appears that they were able to select Martz. Perhaps his reputation of slanting his evidence for the DA's came into play or that they were hoping for a subpar performance and blame his results on his sloppy work or mistakes.

It also makes you wonder why they sent out samples of the same stain to different labs yet did not do the same for the EDTA issue. I don't know if there was enough left but it does make you wonder, especially when they knew Martz did find EDTA.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, I agree, enough is enough when someone imagines a fantasy of what they think could have happened and then claim their fantasy raises “reasonable doubt” for them.

No I didn’t forget about some of Clark’s mistaken ideas, she was wrong, Simpson didn’t bury or hide his right hand glove. The evidence is that Simpson brought it back with him from Bundy and was unaware that he dropped it on the narrow dark south path when he jumped from the top his fence and collided with the back wall of Kaelin’s room to enter his estate.

It didn’t matter how many hours Kaelin spent with Clark since he was trying not to say anything that he thought might be detrimental to Simpson. When Kaelin testified in the criminal trial he was a Simpson supporter.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Since you swear by Marcia Clark's closing testimony in regards to the time of the thumps, then you have to also swear by her explaination of the thumps in her closing.


She does not have Simpson jumping any fence. She has him running on his own property to get rid of the glove. She claims that in the darkness, he was running toward the back of the alley were he slammed into the AC unit and then bounced into the wall. That did not happen any more then your fantasy that he climbed the fence, stood on a thin wire and launced himself into the wall. It is your fantasy that he could have accomplished all of this without breaking a single leaf in the process, without dripping any blood, without leaving any marks or fibers back there. That is your fantasy.

It is your fantasy that Simpson, intent on killing Nicole and Ron that night, would make sure that anyone who came to his house would know that he was not home by turning off all the lights. That just doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense that Clark has him running from the Bronco into his front door dripping blood. It is your fantasy that Simpson would, on purpose, would decide his best bet not to get caught or be heard was to go behind the wall, where he knew Kato was the only one on his estate.

Also, according to you, his dark sweats protected him from being recognized by his own kids---do you really think he would have gone to great lengths not to be seen by the driver? Do you really think he would engage in any activity that would draw the driver's attention to him?

Prove Kato was a Simpson supporter? Did he not testify falsely to what he was wearing that night? Did he testify falsely to what he heard that night? Did he testify falsely to the time he heard the thumps? Did he testify falsely to what he thought it was?

You have no proof that he was a Simpson supporter. In fact, his testimony alone proves he was not. IMO.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, yes Lange looked at the Bronco before Fuhrman went over the wall. That’s what I said when I wrote “before the detectives entered Simpson’s estate.” According to Lange and Vannatter’s book Vannatter did use a flashlight to look into the back of the Bronco and learned that it was Simpson’s Bronco by reading the words on a package there that said “Orenthal Productions.” According to their book Vannatter also used his flashlight to see inside the Bronco and noticed “its lock knobs were in the locked position.”

bobaugust

Mr. August,

First off, they have no idea who locked the doors. They did not go to the Bronco with Fuhrman. Simpson was known to leave the Bronco open so that means nothing---and of course they are going to say it was locked.

MF already told them who the Bronco was linked to. Hertz owned, obviously Simpson had a "company car".

Vanatter claimed a tiny speck of blood was sufficient to jump over the wall, do you mean to tell me that Lange never thought to see if they could see anything else looking at the driver's seat?

Again, they claimed not to see evidence because they were not looking for it. To suggest they were attracted to the way the Bronco was parked makes no sense. In Gerald Uelman's book, he says the Bronco was moved before it was impounded, that there are pictures to prove it. Again, because of their lies and coverups, anything they write can't be trusted, IMO.

Vanatter and Lange have been caught in too many lies and coverups. IMO.

[GreenIce]

You’re entitled to your opinion but I agree with someone who actually understood what Dr. Cotton said. Petrocelli wrote,

“Dr. Cotton explained that when blood is drawn for testing by labs, it is preserved with the chemical EDTA, which stops the DNA in the blood from degrading. (Degradation is simply the breaking down of a chemical into its component parts over time.) But when she compared the degradation levels of Nicole's autopsy vial, Dr. Cotton found the autopsy vial contained the more degraded blood. The blood on the sock was fresher and richer in DNA content than the blood in the vial. Once blood has degraded, it is impossible to raise its DNA count; you can't pony it back up. Under the conspiracy theory, the blood used to plant on the sock came from Nicole's autopsy vial, but that blood had a lower DNA count than the blood on the sock. Nicole's blood was fresher when it spurted out and splashed onto Simpson's sock as he was killing her than two days later when the coroner collected it. This completely destroyed the notion of any planting; it’s impossible for degraded blood to become fresh again. Nicole's blood on the sock could not have been planted.”

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Petrocelli should have read Lange and Vanatter's book before he wrote his. In their book they say they helped or watched the ME fill jars of Nicole's and maybe Ron's blood.

Do you really think Petrocelli was going to say that the blood was planted? And ruin his win?

[martin II]

Mr. August,

First off, they have no idea who locked the doors. They did not go to the Bronco with Fuhrman. Simpson was known to leave the Bronco open so that means nothing---and of course they are going to say it was locked.

MF already told them who the Bronco was linked to. Hertz owned, obviously Simpson had a "company car".

Vanatter claimed a tiny speck of blood was sufficient to jump over the wall, do you mean to tell me that Lange never thought to see if they could see anything else looking at the driver's seat?

Again, they claimed not to see evidence because they were not looking for it. To suggest they were attracted to the way the Bronco was parked makes no sense. In Gerald Uelman's book, he says the Bronco was moved before it was impounded, that there are pictures to prove it. Again, because of their lies and coverups, anything they write can't be trusted, IMO.

Vanatter and Lange have been caught in too many lies and coverups. IMO.


The jury caught the lies of these two and some spoke of it in deliberations.ito also spoke of the lie vanhatter told.

[martin II]

GreenIce, I agree, enough is enough when someone imagines a fantasy of what they think could have happened and then claim their fantasy raises “reasonable doubt” for them.

No I didn’t forget about some of Clark’s mistaken ideas, she was wrong, Simpson didn’t bury or hide his right hand glove. The evidence is that Simpson brought it back with him from Bundy and was unaware that he dropped it on the narrow dark south path when he jumped from the top his fence and collided with the back wall of Kaelin’s room to enter his estate.your heros vanhatter and two other detectives testified that no one jumped the fence.there was no evidence found to prove that oj or anyone else jumped that fence.

It didn’t matter how many hours Kaelin spent with Clark since he was trying not to say anything that he thought might be detrimental to Simpson. When Kaelin testified in the criminal trial he was a Simpson supporter. no way kato was a oj supporter.

bobaugust

There were many opportunities for kato to bend his testimony in favor of oj but he didn't

[martin II]

If SImpson took his left glove off deliberatly, it probably would have been before the fight.

fgump2

Are you suggesting that oj standing in the yard waiting for nicole to come out decides to take off the left hand glove before the fight because he knew he would use his left hand to pull her hair back to cut her neck so he discarded it on purpose before he attacked nicole and ron?

[martin II]

Martin,

Judge Ito ordered the DA's to use the FBI, however, it appears that they were able to select Martz. Perhaps his reputation of slanting his evidence for the DA's came into play or that they were hoping for a subpar performance and blame his results on his sloppy work or mistakes.

It also makes you wonder why they sent out samples of the same stain to different labs yet did not do the same for the EDTA issue. I don't know if there was enough left but it does make you wonder, especially when they knew Martz did find EDTA.

The FBI must have had a more competant expert than martz.Or the da could have used some university expert. They selected martz for some strange reason but i don't think they knew the defence would call DR REDIERS sp but this was just another blunder by the DA.

[William Anthony]

the part of park’s testimony you have relied on to create your fantasy was mistaken testimony that park never repeated in the criminal trial or the civil trial. When you argue that mistaken testimony is what actually happened, you wind up making illogical ridiculous claims.

Bobaugust

q: Can you show us on the diagram, direct the pointer to where you saw him on the side yard?

A: Right there where the arrow was where the path -- where the path comes out from behind the house. he came out to just about the driveway, right there, (indicating).

q: Was he on the driveway or was he on the grass?

A: No, he was off a couple feet.

Q: Okay. Tell the pointer where to go.

A: Just right -- right there, (indicating).

Q: Okay. Was he on the grass or on the path?

A: I couldn't see.

Q: You couldn't tell?

A: No.

Q: So is that the general location where he was?

A: Yes.

Q: Could you tell what kind of flashlight he had?

A: At that time, no.

Q: What was he doing when you saw him?

a: He was just standing there, from what i observed.

q: Okay. Could you tell where he was looking or what he was doing?

A: He looked at me and then he just -- he started to look, you know, in the area of the rockingham driveway.

Q: Now, when he was looking at you, where were you?

A: I was inside the car on the phone.

Q: Talking to your boss?

A: Yes.

Q: How long -- now, at the same time that you saw kato kaelin in the side yard, did you see anything else?

A: Yes. I saw a figure come down -- well, not come down, but i saw a figure come into the entranceway of the house just about where the -- where the driveway starts.

Q: Can you show us on this diagram where you first saw that person?

A: Umm, just if you go where the circle is, go straight back -- no, the other way, a little bit farther. It was about there, (indicating), around that area.

Q: Okay. Roughly that area?

A: Yeah.

Q: Okay. Can you describe the person that you saw -- was that the first point at which you saw the person?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. Can you describe what he looked like, what that person looked like.

Mr. Cochran: Object to the form of that question, your honor.

The court: Overruled.

The witness: Six foot, 200 pounds.

Q: By ms. Clark: Six foot, 200 pounds?

A: All dark clothing.

Q: And could you tell anything else about this person?

A: No.

Q: Could you tell whether the person was caucasian or african american?

A: Black.

Q: Okay. And how -- in relationship to when you saw kato kaelin, when did you first see this person?

A: It was just -- it was almost simultaneously. It was seconds after i saw him.

Q: And this six-foot 200-pound african american person in all dark clothing, was this person moving quickly or slowly?

A: Not quickly, not slowly, a good pace walk it seemed to be.

Q: And moving in what direction, sir?

A: Into the house or toward the house.

Q: Did you form an opinion as to whether this was a male or female?

A: No.

Q: And when you saw that person, did that person walk into the entrance?

A: Yes.

Q: After that person walked into the entrance, what did you do?

A: I then proceeded to -- well, i was still talking to dale at the same time. I said "somebody's here." he said, "fine, finish the job, take him to the airport and i will see you tomorrow" or whatever. I hung up the phone and i still waited another -- it was about another thirty seconds or so before i got out of the car, but i was still waiting for some somebody to come open the gate. I figured somebody was going to come open the gate for me. They still didn't.

Q: How long after you saw the six-foot 200-pound person in all dark clothing go into the house did you continue to talk to dale st. John?

A: Oh, it was just anywhere between ten to thirty seconds. It wasn't very long.

Q: Okay. So on the phone bill in front of you, sir, on that last call where it indicates 10:52 and 17 seconds, does it indicate how long the phone call was for, the duration of the call?

A: Umm, yes, two minutes and 55 seconds.

Q: Okay. Does that comport with your memory of the length of the phone call?

A: Yes.

Q: And so you would have hung up with him at 10:55 and 12 seconds?

A: Yes.

Q: And it was within the last ten to thirty seconds of that call at 10 -- of ending that call at 10:55 that you saw this six-foot 200-pound person go into the entrance?

A: Yes.

Q: After you hung up with dale st. John you said you sat for another thirty seconds or so?

A: Yes.

Mr. Cochran: I would like to object, your honor.

Q: By ms. Clark: Why was that?

Mr. Cochran: This is leading and suggestive and we covered this.

Ms. Clark: That was foundational, your honor.

The court: Sustained.

Q: By ms. Clark: After you -- you indicated that you sat for another thirty seconds. Why did you sit for another thirty seconds in your car after you hung up?

A: Because i was waiting for the gate to be opened. I figured somebody is home, they saw me and they are going to let me in.

Q: And did kato kaelin come over to let you in?

A: No, he didn't.

Q: And did the six-foot 200-pound person dressed in all dark clothing come to let you in?

A: No.

Q: And after thirty seconds what did you do?

A: That is when i got back up and out of the car and rang the intercom. This time there was an answer, which was mr. Simpson. He told me that he overslept and he just got out of the shower and he would be down in a minute.

[William Anthony]

Continuation-

Q: OKAY. HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU HAVE TO RING THE BUZZER THIS TIME BEFORE IT WAS ANSWERED?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION, HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU HAVE TO RING THE BUZZER.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: CAN YOU REPEAT IT?

Q: BY MS. CLARK: HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU HAVE TO RING THE BUZZER THIS TIME BEFORE IT WAS ANSWERED?

A: OH, IT WAS JUST -- HE ANSWERED IT PRETTY MUCH IMMEDIATELY.

Q: AS SOON AS YOU RANG?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN HE SAID TO YOU --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHEN YOU HEARD THE VOICE SAY TO YOU, "I'M SORRY, I OVERSLEPT," DID YOU RECOGNIZE THAT VOICE?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THIS HAS BEEN COVERED.

THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE ALSO, THAT LAST STATEMENT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHOSE VOICE WAS IT?

A: MR. SIMPSON'S.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU SAY HE SAID TO YOU?

A: THAT HE OVERSLEPT --

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR. WE ALL HEARD IT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: HE OVERSLEPT, HE JUST GOT OUT OF THE SHOWER AND HE WOULD BE DOWN IN A MINUTE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, HAD YOU EVER HEARD MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE BEFORE?

A: YES.

Q: HOW HAD YOU HEARD IT BEFORE?

A: ON T.V. COMMENTARY, SPORTS.

Q: IS THAT HOW YOU RECOGNIZED IT?

A: YES.

Q: COULD YOU TELL, WHEN YOU SAW THAT SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON WALK INTO THE ENTRANCE, COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THAT PERSON WAS COMING FROM THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY OR FROM THE AREA OF THE GARAGE FROM THE SOUTH PATHWAY?

A: NO, I COULDN'T.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THAT PERSON HAD ANYTHING IN HIS HAND -- IN THEIR HANDS?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN THAT PERSON WALKED INTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOUSE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY CHANGE IN THE LIGHTING IN THE HOUSE?

A: SOME LIGHTS CAME ON DOWNSTAIRS, YES.

Q: AND WAS THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PERSON ENTERED THE HOUSE?

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY.

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

A: JUST SECONDS.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHICH LIGHTS WENT ON?

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

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

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

Q: DID HE ACKNOWLEDGE YOU IN ANY WAY AFTER THAT PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, HE KIND OF GAVE ME A HAND GESTURE TO LET ME KNOW HE WAS THERE.

No, matter how many times you post incorrect information, it will remain incorrect, as this is Park's testimony from the criminal trial.

"..was mistaken testimony that park never repeated in the criminal trial or the civil trial." -by bobaugust

[William Anthony]

You’re entitled to your opinion but I agree with someone who actually understood what Dr. Cotton said. Petrocelli wrote,

“Dr. Cotton explained that when blood is drawn for testing by labs, it is preserved with the chemical EDTA, which stops the DNA in the blood from degrading. (Degradation is simply the breaking down of a chemical into its component parts over time.) But when she compared the degradation levels of Nicole's autopsy vial, Dr. Cotton found the autopsy vial contained the more degraded blood. The blood on the sock was fresher and richer in DNA content than the blood in the vial. Once blood has degraded, it is impossible to raise its DNA count; you can't pony it back up. Under the conspiracy theory, the blood used to plant on the sock came from Nicole's autopsy vial, but that blood had a lower DNA count than the blood on the sock. Nicole's blood was fresher when it spurted out and splashed onto Simpson's sock as he was killing her than two days later when the coroner collected it. This completely destroyed the notion of any planting; it’s impossible for degraded blood to become fresh again. Nicole's blood on the sock could not have been planted.”

bobaugust

You may believe the braggadocios claims of Petro but, at most, Cotton's testimony only showed that the blood was probably not blood from the reference sample of Ms. NBS, not that the blood had not been planted, and the EDTA evidence allowed a reasonable inference to be drawn that it had been planted.

[William Anthony]

Yes this is simple. There are always small insignificant differences in what different witnesses recall even when they see the exact same event. It’s what witnesses agree on that tells us what happened, not the small insignificant differences.

I would say when it comes to this issue that you William are the only one who can’t seem to understand what part of Park’s testimony was mistaken, not me, and not the attorneys in his case.

bobaugust

There are always those that will feel that discrepancies, which tend to show that their conclusions are wrong, are insignificant discrepancies. I have not seen anything that Park and Kato agreed upon from running and walking to standing and not stopping to when a gesture was made, until their respective memories showed signs of being molded.

I am not the only one, who understood this, as evidenced by Petro asking Park was he looking at the dashboard for a minute. :) The other lawyers were not so bold or should I say their questions were not so bold and Park's testimony was not such a blatant change, which Mr. Baker ridiculed. I hope you can see that to include the aforementioned discrepancies listed above.

[William Anthony]

Of course the lawyers in this case understood the testimony, Are you suggesting that the “magnificent” Cochran did not understand Park and Kaelin’s testimony and that’s why he never made the claims that you have made?

There is no evidence that Petrocelli coached Park as to how to answer his questions. Petrocelli simply asked clear and concise questions that allowed Park to provide answers to make it perfectly clear as to what he saw or didn’t see. I would think someone studying law would be wise to learn from an attorney as sharp as Petrocelli. It was obvious to me from Park’s criminal trial testimony that Park wasn’t paying any attention to what Kaelin did after he saw Simpson enter his house and lights come. Park never saw Kaelin continued on to the garage before he got out of his limo and spoke with Simpson over the intercom. If it was obvious to me I have no doubt it was obvious to Simpson’s defense attorneys since they never brought up Park’s mistaken pre criminal trial testimony.

bobaugust

I see that you did not understand what I said and I need to be more specific when I talk with you. It is not the lawyer's understanding of the testimony that counts; it is the jury's understanding of the testimony. What I am saying is that the magnificent one did understand Park's testimony and told the jury that Park was mistaken. The jury then had Park's testimony read back, which indicates they found the magnificent one credible, IMHO. I think, judging from your posts, that you are the type that needs to have everything spelled out for you. I think the jury, others and I are able to draw our own reasonable inferences but may need someone to point certain things out which will allow us to agree or disagree. I don't think that others and I have to have everything specifically argued or spelled out for us to see what the speaker means.

This is not to criticize any lawyer but I will add my objections to Petro's questions which you call clear and concise and Petro sharp, reminding you that Petro is on direct.

"A. He was a little bit -- little bit farther back.

Q. Farther back, towards the side?

A. When I first saw him.

Q. When you first saw him. Okay.

And when you first saw him -- and did you then see where he went after you first saw him? (objection-leading and assumes facts not in evidence.

A. I didn't pay any attention to him. (Move that the answer be stricken)

Q. Okay.

And did he, at that point in time, open the gate for you?

A. No, he didn't.



Now, and during this period of time, do you or do you not see this blond-haired person while you're getting off the phone, while you're seeing the other person go into the house?

A. I don't remember that.

Q. You don't remember seeing him, then? (Objection-asked and answered)

A. I -- after I saw him the first time, I didn't pay any attention to him. (Objection-non responsive, move for the answer to be stricken)

Q. Okay.

Did there come a time when you saw him again? (Objection-misstates the testimony)

A. When he opened the gate for me.

What I'm trying to find out is whether between the time you first saw him and the time you saw him open the gate later on, whether you saw him in between.

A. No.

But let's examine the cross to see what Park's true testimony is.

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

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

A. No.

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

A. True.

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

A. About a minute.

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

A. Yes.

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

A. Don't really care.

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

A. Don't know.

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

A. True.

[William Anthony]

More testimony from the socio political production in which Park is trapped on cross.



"Q. Now, is it your testimony, Mr. Park, that when you observed -- and let's just assume that it's Mr. Simpson, okay -- lived in the place, was an African American, he's 6 feet tall, 200 pounds, okay.

When you saw Mr. Simpson, was it simultaneously that you saw Mr. Kaelin?

A. Almost.

Q. Now, who did you see first?

A. Mr. Kaelin.

Q. So you saw Mr. Kaelin first, and I take it that during this period when you're talking to your boss, and you're observing out the windscreen (sic) of your automobile, you're trying to see activities in here because you're really concerned about whether or not you're going to get Mr. Simpson to the airport, right?

A. Correct.

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

A. Correct.

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

A. Yes.

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

A. Yes.

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

A. That's correct

[martin II]

Continuation-

Q: OKAY. HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU HAVE TO RING THE BUZZER THIS TIME BEFORE IT WAS ANSWERED?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION, HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU HAVE TO RING THE BUZZER.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: CAN YOU REPEAT IT?

Q: BY MS. CLARK: HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU HAVE TO RING THE BUZZER THIS TIME BEFORE IT WAS ANSWERED?

A: OH, IT WAS JUST -- HE ANSWERED IT PRETTY MUCH IMMEDIATELY.

Q: AS SOON AS YOU RANG?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN HE SAID TO YOU --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHEN YOU HEARD THE VOICE SAY TO YOU, "I'M SORRY, I OVERSLEPT," DID YOU RECOGNIZE THAT VOICE?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THIS HAS BEEN COVERED.

THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE ALSO, THAT LAST STATEMENT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHOSE VOICE WAS IT?

A: MR. SIMPSON'S.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU SAY HE SAID TO YOU?

A: THAT HE OVERSLEPT --

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR. WE ALL HEARD IT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: HE OVERSLEPT, HE JUST GOT OUT OF THE SHOWER AND HE WOULD BE DOWN IN A MINUTE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, HAD YOU EVER HEARD MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE BEFORE?

A: YES.

Q: HOW HAD YOU HEARD IT BEFORE?

A: ON T.V. COMMENTARY, SPORTS.

Q: IS THAT HOW YOU RECOGNIZED IT?

A: YES.

Q: COULD YOU TELL, WHEN YOU SAW THAT SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON WALK INTO THE ENTRANCE, COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THAT PERSON WAS COMING FROM THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY OR FROM THE AREA OF THE GARAGE FROM THE SOUTH PATHWAY?

A: NO, I COULDN'T.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THAT PERSON HAD ANYTHING IN HIS HAND -- IN THEIR HANDS?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN THAT PERSON WALKED INTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOUSE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY CHANGE IN THE LIGHTING IN THE HOUSE?

A: SOME LIGHTS CAME ON DOWNSTAIRS, YES.

Q: AND WAS THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PERSON ENTERED THE HOUSE?

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY.

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

A: JUST SECONDS.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHICH LIGHTS WENT ON?

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

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

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

Q: DID HE ACKNOWLEDGE YOU IN ANY WAY AFTER THAT PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, HE KIND OF GAVE ME A HAND GESTURE TO LET ME KNOW HE WAS THERE.

No, matter how many times you post incorrect information, it will remain incorrect, as this is Park's testimony from the criminal trial.

"..was mistaken testimony that park never repeated in the criminal trial or the civil trial." -by bobaugust

seems like Park is saying Kato never moved from that sidewalk as he said STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK. Park did not know Kato had gone to the garage area.

[William Anthony]

There were many opportunities for kato to bend his testimony in favor of oj but he didn't

There should have been three different spots on the fence where someone stood and jumped into the wall on three different occasions. :)

[William Anthony]

seems like Park is saying Kato never moved from that sidewalk as he said STILL STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK. Park did not know Kato had gone to the garage area.

That is what Park said in the testimonies he gave before testifying in the criminal trial, contrary to the other poster's claim. Park did not know that Kato had gone to the garage area before Park first saw him, IMHO.

[William Anthony]

There are always those that will feel that discrepancies, which tend to show that their conclusions are wrong, are insignificant discrepancies. I have not seen anything that Park and Kato agreed upon from running and walking to standing and not stopping to when a gesture was made, until their respective memories showed signs of being molded.

I am not the only one, who understood this, as evidenced by Petro asking Park was he looking at the dashboard for a minute. :) The other lawyers were not so bold or should I say their questions were not so bold and Park's testimony was not such a blatant change, which Mr. Baker ridiculed. I hope you can see that to include the aforementioned discrepancies listed above.

Correction-Petro did not ask Park if he looked at the dashboard. Park volunteered that information.

[William Anthony]

Park never saw Kaelin continued on to the garage before he got out of his limo and spoke with Simpson over the intercom. If it was obvious to me I have no doubt it was obvious to Simpson’s defense attorneys since they never brought up Park’s mistaken pre criminal trial testimony.

bobaugust

Would you consider Mr. Baker one of Simpson's defense attorneys?

[William Anthony]

The part of Park’s testimony you have relied on to create your fantasy was mistaken testimony that Park never repeated in the criminal trial or the civil trial. When you argue that mistaken testimony is what actually happened, you wind up making illogical ridiculous claims.

bobaugust

When you argue that something did not happen that did, "you wind up making illogical ridiculous claims", in order to support your conclusion, which makes your conclusion appear erroneous.

[fgump2]

Mr. August,

Petrocelli should have read Lange and Vanatter's book before he wrote his. In their book they say they helped or watched the ME fill jars of Nicole's and maybe Ron's blood.

Do you really think Petrocelli was going to say that the blood was planted? And ruin his win?

I regard it as fact that the blood on the sock from Nicole was less degraded than the reference blood. That is pretty easy and unambiguous oribken for a person with her educational background. She would have risked perjury and therefore jail if she had lied about it.

The question is could there have been another source of blood besides the reference vial. I don't know. I don't recall reading the part about Nicole's body being drained of blood, but if it was, then there would be a question about when the reference blood was taken and when the other blood was taken. I would guess that the reference sample was taken first.

If the blood on the sock was planted, it would interesting to know why it was less degraded than the reference sample. My guess is that the easiest answer is that it wasn't planted.

I don't think the factor of the broken refrigerator would have been a factor for the socks. The socks might have been taken back to the police dept in a different vehicle than the one with a broken refrigerator.

The socks would have dried relatively quickly, before they were collected, and when the socks were dry, the DNA would break down quite slowly even if it was hot. The samples that degraded were wet when they degraded.

[William Anthony]

I regard it as fact that the blood on the sock from Nicole was less degraded than the reference blood. That is pretty easy and unambiguous oribken for a person with her educational background. She would have risked perjury and therefore jail if she had lied about it.

The question is could there have been another source of blood besides the reference vial. I don't know. I don't recall reading the part about Nicole's body being drained of blood, but if it was, then there would be a question about when the reference blood was taken and when the other blood was taken. I would guess that the reference sample was taken first.

If the blood on the sock was planted, it would interesting to know why it was less degraded than the reference sample. My guess is that the easiest answer is that it wasn't planted.

I don't think the factor of the broken refrigerator would have been a factor for the socks. The socks might have been taken back to the police dept in a different vehicle than the one with a broken refrigerator.

The socks would have dried relatively quickly, before they were collected, and when the socks were dry, the DNA would break down quite slowly even if it was hot. The samples that degraded were wet when they degraded.

Let's talk about evidence and do some extrapolations to see what inferences can be drawn. First Martz found one thousand times more EDTA than what should have been present in non preserved human blood, which indicates planting. However, let's not stop there. Let's see what Petro said, according to a poster, "Dr. Cotton explained that when blood is drawn for testing by labs, it is preserved with the chemical EDTA, which stops the DNA in the blood from degrading." Hence, we can infer that whatever blood was on the sock that was identified as Ms. NBS's was in a test tube at some point. We the consider the fact that DF was at Rockingham prior to going to Bundy. We then consider the evidence that the socks were not on the video when they were supposed to be. meaning they were not in the bedroom. Unless the socks were magical or someone lied about seeing the socks on the bedroom floor, they were moved as in taken somewhere. Let's now consider that DF examined them and saw no blood but collected them because the looked out of place but did not collect a sweat suit in the washing machine with ladies underwear but examined the sweat suit. Let's consider the fact that a pair of socks would be easier to carry/conceal than a sweat suit. We then consider the large pool of blood under Ms. NBS. We can draw an inference that there was blood taken from that pool and placed in a test tube and later transferred to those magical socks that were out of place in a bedroom and no blood was seen on them. There is a theory that the blood from Ms. NBS's reference sample was planted on the socks in the lab after they were collected. However, a reasonable inference can be drawn that blood was planted on the socks before they were collected or after from a source of Ms. NBS's blood other than the reference sample.

[William Anthony]

There is no evidence that Petrocelli coached Park as to how to answer his questions. by bobaugust

"Let me ask you this: Was that purported -- the bag that you saw 10 feet behind the vehicle, 15 feet behind the vehicle; how far was it, sir?

A. Five feet, ten feet.

Q. And you remember specifically the bag with enough specificity to say that it was not Exhibit 899, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, Mr. Petrocelli showed you an exhibit of -- a picture of Exhibit 899 in the five hours that you spent with him, didn't he?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And he told you that that wasn't the bag, didn't he?

MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, hearsay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Him and others."



"Q. Did I then tell you Mr. Simpson claims this is the bag; does that refresh your recollection? ?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did I -- did you say?

A. No."

[weezer]

oh gosh -- I loooove to extrapolate!

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9704a/07simpso.htm
"...We find no basis to conclude that Martz committed perjury or misled the trier of facts or defense in the Simpson case. Nor do we conclude that Martz improperly erased digital data underlying his results. . ."

Blood evidence; Henry C. Lee, Frank Tirnady
Martz testimony: ". . .but at mere trace levels of 2 parts per million, a far cry from the 2,000 parts per million found in the reference blood. . ."

ROBIN COTTON, director Cellmark Diagnostics: Simpson's genetic markers match those found in blood drops near bodies and in foyer of house; chances 1 in 170 million that someone else's type would match blood drop near bodies; less-sophisticated testing on four other blood drops gave better chance blood could have been someone else's, but calculations still overwhelmingly against him; unlikely Ms. Simpson's test tube blood was planted on socks because test results on samples so different - DNA in Ms. Simpson's blood vial degraded more than DNA in sock blood sample. Nov. 14-15, 1996:

“. . .But on cross-examination the witness acknowledged that he had been told to videotape the room only after it had been searched and, presumably, the pair of socks had been picked up. "That's why we don't see socks in the picture, isn't it, Mr. Ford?" Deputy District Attorney Christopher A. Darden asked. Mr. Ford agreed. . .”

“. . .But in the second warrant affidavit it clearly states that “. . .your affiant did not know which specific clothing to look for and can no longer remember whether clothing of that description was present at the location, as literally hundred of items of clothing were seen. Your affiant now wishes to examine the clothing in the residence for the specific black cotton type sweat suit described, and if found, to examine that clothing more closely for traces of blood. . .”

[GreenIce]

I regard it as fact that the blood on the sock from Nicole was less degraded than the reference blood. That is pretty easy and unambiguous oribken for a person with her educational background. She would have risked perjury and therefore jail if she had lied about it.

The question is could there have been another source of blood besides the reference vial. I don't know. I don't recall reading the part about Nicole's body being drained of blood, but if it was, then there would be a question about when the reference blood was taken and when the other blood was taken. I would guess that the reference sample was taken first.

If the blood on the sock was planted, it would interesting to know why it was less degraded than the reference sample. My guess is that the easiest answer is that it wasn't planted.

I don't think the factor of the broken refrigerator would have been a factor for the socks. The socks might have been taken back to the police dept in a different vehicle than the one with a broken refrigerator.

The socks would have dried relatively quickly, before they were collected, and when the socks were dry, the DNA would break down quite slowly even if it was hot. The samples that degraded were wet when they degraded.

fgump2,

Petrocelli had a major advantage in his trial. He did not have the same the standard of proof, the judge ruled that Simpson had to name who the person was who planted the evidence, when he/she did, why he/she did it and where he/she did it. The judge made it perfectly clear that it did not matter how it was collected or any other problems, the only thing that matter in his court is that the evidence was collected.

Don't you find it odd that Petrocelli was able to make it seem like he answered every single question the DA's failed to answer--and he didn't even have to be exact, he just had to get into the ball park. Petrocelli was able to give the jurors several different theories and they could pick and choose from two trials on which answers they liked the best. They were able to give the benefit of the doubt to the plaintiffs where as the criminal jury could not give the benefit of the doubt to the DA's.

Dr. Cotton's explaination of her theory is not rocket science. Are we to believe that Dr. Sims, an expert in this field, never new about degrading blood? Dr. Cotton could no more prove how or when the blood on the got on the sock any more then Dr. Sims could. Bottom line, she gave an opinon and that is all she gave.

Dr. Cotton's explaintation does not included on how 4 members of the SID team, including the head of the department did not see blood on the socks. Dr. Cotton explaination does not included anything about the blood being pressed into the sock and through an ankle.

The problem with the evidence in this case is that you can't latch on to one factor of the evidence when there are several factors involved in one piece of evidence. We have with the socks, the blood on the back gate, with the blood in the Bronco, etc. and all the problems with this evidence has a very common theme. IMO.

[GreenIce]

The FBI must have had a more competant expert than martz.Or the da could have used some university expert. They selected martz for some strange reason but i don't think they knew the defence would call DR REDIERS sp but this was just another blunder by the DA.

Martin,

They did not select Martz for some strange reason, they know exactly why they choose him and I believe it is because he had the same issues that Fung, Mozzola and the nurse had. Their work was sub par and their testimony was as clear as mud--which is what the DA's wanted. IMO.

They did know that the defense was going to call Dr. Reiders, what really pissed Clark off was that he was called out of line. He had to go to Austria or some place and Judge Ito allowed the defense to call him early. Clark felt this was unfair because she was not prepared for him. I think that is why she was upset.

The biggest blunder by Clark was not calling Martz and the nurse during her case in chief. If you think about it, Clark did not call some of the most important witnesses during her case. Michelle Kestler, the nurse, Roger Martz, and I think there might be a couple a more but I can't remember them.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, yes Lange looked at the Bronco before Fuhrman went over the wall. That’s what I said when I wrote “before the detectives entered Simpson’s estate.” According to Lange and Vannatter’s book Vannatter did use a flashlight to look into the back of the Bronco and learned that it was Simpson’s Bronco by reading the words on a package there that said “Orenthal Productions.” According to their book Vannatter also used his flashlight to see inside the Bronco and noticed “its lock knobs were in the locked position.”

bobaugust

Mr. August,

If the four detectives were there to give death notification and to help Simpson get himself together so he could collect his minor children, why would any detective even being looking a the Bronco?

Was it parked illegally? Was it hazard to other cars passing by. Looking inside and seeing Simpson's name on some packages hardly connects him to the crime scene at Bundy---his car was parked infront his estate? What is the big deal?

A tiny drop of blood on the door handle also is not an indicator that the Bronco was in any way connected to the blood bath at Bundy.

Again, according to you, at least three detectives when to Bronco when they were there to give a death notification, and three detectives just knew a tiny drop of blood was reason to be alarmed? That just doesn't pass the laugh test.

And once they did jump the wall, their actions make no sense and it is clear that they were not there to give a death notification. IMO.

[GreenIce]

I regard it as fact that the blood on the sock from Nicole was less degraded than the reference blood. That is pretty easy and unambiguous oribken for a person with her educational background. She would have risked perjury and therefore jail if she had lied about it.

The question is could there have been another source of blood besides the reference vial. I don't know. I don't recall reading the part about Nicole's body being drained of blood, but if it was, then there would be a question about when the reference blood was taken and when the other blood was taken. I would guess that the reference sample was taken first.

If the blood on the sock was planted, it would interesting to know why it was less degraded than the reference sample. My guess is that the easiest answer is that it wasn't planted.

I don't think the factor of the broken refrigerator would have been a factor for the socks. The socks might have been taken back to the police dept in a different vehicle than the one with a broken refrigerator.

The socks would have dried relatively quickly, before they were collected, and when the socks were dry, the DNA would break down quite slowly even if it was hot. The samples that degraded were wet when they degraded.

fgump2,

When you consider all the blood evidence in this case, you must also take into consideration all the blood evidence that was "lost" and other evidence that the LAPD said was never tested while authors and journalists reported in fact that it was tested.

The problem with this case is that when you take each piece of evidence and make a list and divided it up as "pro-DA" vs "pro Defense", the defense wins on points, IMO.

[GreenIce]

The jury caught the lies of these two and some spoke of it in deliberations.ito also spoke of the lie vanhatter told.

Martin,

IMO, I think Vanatter's testimony was even more troublesome for the DA's then Fuhrman's. IMO, Fuhrman knew that some of his testimony was going to clash with Vanatter's and didn't care. Again, IMO, it made Vanatter look like he was trying to cover Fuhrman or needed to cover for Fuhrman to protect the case.

[tv]

fgump2,

Petrocelli had a major advantage in his trial. He did not have the same the standard of proof, the judge ruled that Simpson had to name who the person was who planted the evidence, when he/she did, why he/she did it and where he/she did it. Untrue. The judge just wanted some shred of evidence that would give the theories of planting credibility. The plain truth is that the defense was unable to provide it. The judge made it perfectly clear that it did not matter how it was collected or any other problems, the only thing that matter in his court is that the evidence was collected. Judge Fujisaki --"The fact remains that the evidence was collected, examined and the evidence cannot be attacked because of the collection procedures unless that attack estabishes somne defect, incompetency, or lack of foundation in the chain of evidence..."

Don't you find it odd that Petrocelli was able to make it seem like he answered every single question the DA's failed to answer--and he didn't even have to be exact, he just had to get into the ball park. Petrocelli was able to give the jurors several different theories and they could pick and choose from two trials on which answers they liked the best. Untrue. This is very misleading to someone that doesn't know the facts of the civil trial. They were able to give the benefit of the doubt to the plaintiffs where as the criminal jury could not give the benefit of the doubt to the DA's.

Dr. Cotton's explaination of her theory is not rocket science. Are we to believe that Dr. Sims, an expert in this field, never new about degrading blood? Dr. Cotton could no more prove how or when the blood on the got on the sock any more then Dr. Sims could. Bottom line, she gave an opinon and that is all she gave. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that degraded blood can't be made fresh again.

Dr. Cotton's explaintation does not included on how 4 members of the SID team, including the head of the department did not see blood on the socks. Dr. Cotton explaination does not included anything about the blood being pressed into the sock and through an ankle. Dr. Cotton was director of Cellmark Diagnostics which tested some of the DNA. She wasn't there to give testimony on collection or handling procedures by the LAPD lab.

The problem with the evidence in this case is that you can't latch on to one factor of the evidence when there are several factors involved in one piece of evidence. We have with the socks, the blood on the back gate, with the blood in the Bronco, etc. and all the problems with this evidence has a very common theme. IMO. The common theme is that unless the defense in either case accuses the LAPD of planting and misconduct there is no way to deny that OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole, the mother of his children, while those children lay sleeping close by. It's all they've got. There are many things that point to OJS as the killer that could not have been and were not affected by anything that LE could have done.

You'll be happy to know I took you off ignore so you won't have to ask other posters to quote your posts to me. :)

[William Anthony]

"...We find no basis to conclude...", not that there is none.:)

Blood evidence; Henry C. Lee, Frank Tirnady
Martz testimony: ". . .but at mere trace levels of 2 parts per million, a far cry from the 2,000 parts per million found in the reference blood. . ." It is still a thousand times the amount found in non preserved human blood.

“. . .But on cross-examination the witness acknowledged that he had been told to videotape the room only after it had been searched and, presumably, the pair of socks had been picked up. Enough said.:)

“. . .But in the second warrant affidavit it clearly states that “. . .your affiant did not know which specific clothing to look for and can no longer remember whether clothing of that description was present at the location, as literally hundred of items of clothing were seen. Your affiant now wishes to examine the clothing in the residence for the specific black cotton type sweat suit described, and if found, to examine that clothing more closely for traces of blood. . .” We would like to go on a fishing expedition. :)

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Since you swear by Marcia Clark's closing testimony in regards to the time of the thumps, then you have to also swear by her explaination of the thumps in her closing.


She does not have Simpson jumping any fence. She has him running on his own property to get rid of the glove. She claims that in the darkness, he was running toward the back of the alley were he slammed into the AC unit and then bounced into the wall. That did not happen any more then your fantasy that he climbed the fence, stood on a thin wire and launced himself into the wall. It is your fantasy that he could have accomplished all of this without breaking a single leaf in the process, without dripping any blood, without leaving any marks or fibers back there. That is your fantasy.

It is your fantasy that Simpson, intent on killing Nicole and Ron that night, would make sure that anyone who came to his house would know that he was not home by turning off all the lights. That just doesn't make sense. It also doesn't make sense that Clark has him running from the Bronco into his front door dripping blood. It is your fantasy that Simpson would, on purpose, would decide his best bet not to get caught or be heard was to go behind the wall, where he knew Kato was the only one on his estate.

Also, according to you, his dark sweats protected him from being recognized by his own kids---do you really think he would have gone to great lengths not to be seen by the driver? Do you really think he would engage in any activity that would draw the driver's attention to him?

Prove Kato was a Simpson supporter? Did he not testify falsely to what he was wearing that night? Did he testify falsely to what he heard that night? Did he testify falsely to the time he heard the thumps? Did he testify falsely to what he thought it was?

You have no proof that he was a Simpson supporter. In fact, his testimony alone proves he was not. IMO.

GreenIce, No I do not have to “swear by her (Clark’s) explanation of the thumps in her closing” There are many things that I agree with Clark on but there are also many things I disagree with her on.

I must say you have an annoying habit of attributing things to me that make no sense to you that I have never said. The fact is that the only lights that were seen on inside Simpson’s house from outside the gates to the estate that night were upstairs lights until Simpson entered his front door.

The evidence is that Simpson could not have entered either of his gates when he returned from Bundy without being seen or heard by the limo driver parked at the Ashford gate. The evidence is that the chain link fence between Simpson’s and the Salinger’s property based on the difference in elevations was at its lowest point behind the guest room where the glove was found.

I have never said that Simpson wore dark clothing to prevent his kids from recognizing him. That’s ridiculous. I believe Simpson was more concerned about being seen or heard entering his estate then entering his house.

I believe Kaelin testified truthfully regarding what he saw, heard, and did the night of the murders. If you had read Clark’s book you would know that she believe Kaelin was more a defense witness, skewing his answers towards protecting Simpson. That’s why Clark eventually declared Kaelin a hostile witness.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

First off, they have no idea who locked the doors. They did not go to the Bronco with Fuhrman. Simpson was known to leave the Bronco open so that means nothing---and of course they are going to say it was locked.

MF already told them who the Bronco was linked to. Hertz owned, obviously Simpson had a "company car".

Vanatter claimed a tiny speck of blood was sufficient to jump over the wall, do you mean to tell me that Lange never thought to see if they could see anything else looking at the driver's seat?

Again, they claimed not to see evidence because they were not looking for it. To suggest they were attracted to the way the Bronco was parked makes no sense. In Gerald Uelman's book, he says the Bronco was moved before it was impounded, that there are pictures to prove it. Again, because of their lies and coverups, anything they write can't be trusted, IMO.

Vanatter and Lange have been caught in too many lies and coverups. IMO.

GreenIce, the evidence is that when the police first saw the Bronco parked on Rockingham the Bronco was locked. It was dark outside and the windows of the Bronco were tinted.

The blood drop above the driver’s door handle on the outside of the Bronco was only one of the detectives concerns that led to the decision to enter the estate.

Photographs were taken of the Bronco showing it parked the same way the police first saw it. I have no idea what you think Uelmen was referring to in his book. Support your claim and post what Uelmen actually wrote or post the page number in his book where he wrote what you say he wrote.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

q: Can you show us on the diagram, direct the pointer to where you saw him on the side yard?

A: Right there where the arrow was where the path -- where the path comes out from behind the house. he came out to just about the driveway, right there, (indicating).

q: Was he on the driveway or was he on the grass?

A: No, he was off a couple feet.

Q: Okay. Tell the pointer where to go.

A: Just right -- right there, (indicating).

Q: Okay. Was he on the grass or on the path?

A: I couldn't see.

Q: You couldn't tell?

A: No.

Q: So is that the general location where he was?

A: Yes.

Q: Could you tell what kind of flashlight he had?

A: At that time, no.

Q: What was he doing when you saw him?

a: He was just standing there, from what i observed.



You evidently still can’t seem to comprehend that when Park said that Kaelin was just standing there; “there” is the Ashford pathway where Park said Kaelin stopped after he saw him come from behind the house, not from the garage.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

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

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

Q: DID HE ACKNOWLEDGE YOU IN ANY WAY AFTER THAT PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, HE KIND OF GAVE ME A HAND GESTURE TO LET ME KNOW HE WAS THERE.

No, matter how many times you post incorrect information, it will remain incorrect, as this is Park's testimony from the criminal trial.

"..was mistaken testimony that park never repeated in the criminal trial or the civil trial." -by bobaugust

What you evidently still can’t seem to comprehend is that when Park said that Kaelin was just still standing on the sidewalk; “on the sidewalk” is the Ashford pathway where Park said Kaelin stopped after he saw him come from behind the house, not from the garage.

Park never repeated his mistaken pre criminal trial testimony that after Kaelin came from behind the house and stopped when he got to the driveway he stood there until he opened the gate.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

You may believe the braggadocios claims of Petro but, at most, Cotton's testimony only showed that the blood was probably not blood from the reference sample of Ms. NBS, not that the blood had not been planted, and the EDTA evidence allowed a reasonable inference to be drawn that it had been planted.

Thank you for finally admitting that Dr. Cotton’s testimony of the differences in degradation conclusively proved that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock could not have come from her reference sample thus proving the defense sock blood planting theory false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

There are always those that will feel that discrepancies, which tend to show that their conclusions are wrong, are insignificant discrepancies. I have not seen anything that Park and Kato agreed upon from running and walking to standing and not stopping to when a gesture was made, until their respective memories showed signs of being molded.

I am not the only one, who understood this, as evidenced by Petro asking Park was he looking at the dashboard for a minute. :) The other lawyers were not so bold or should I say their questions were not so bold and Park's testimony was not such a blatant change, which Mr. Baker ridiculed. I hope you can see that to include the aforementioned discrepancies listed above.

The fact is that Park first saw Kaelin come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight after Kaelin left his room to check out the noises he had just heard. The fact is that Kaelin testified he came around the house down the pathway with a flashlight after leaving his room to investigate the noises he had just heard. That is the evidence in this case and the small insignificant discrepancies you have pointed out does not change that evidence.

I see where admitted your comment was incorrect when you said “I am not the only one, who understood this, as evidenced by Petro asking Park was he looking at the dashboard for a minute.”

The fact is that Park had previously testified in the criminal trial that when he was speaking to Dale on the phone he “may have looked at the dashboard or something here or there.”

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

I see that you did not understand what I said and I need to be more specific when I talk with you. It is not the lawyer's understanding of the testimony that counts; it is the jury's understanding of the testimony. What I am saying is that the magnificent one did understand Park's testimony and told the jury that Park was mistaken. The jury then had Park's testimony read back, which indicates they found the magnificent one credible, IMHO. I think, judging from your posts, that you are the type that needs to have everything spelled out for you. I think the jury, others and I are able to draw our own reasonable inferences but may need someone to point certain things out which will allow us to agree or disagree. I don't think that others and I have to have everything specifically argued or spelled out for us to see what the speaker means.

This is not to criticize any lawyer but I will add my objections to Petro's questions which you call clear and concise and Petro sharp, reminding you that Petro is on direct.



If you think Cochran told the jury that Park was mistaken about first seeing Kaelin come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight then post the transcript where Cochran said that.

You can play like a lawyer and add all the objections you want to that Baker never made and I will play like a judge and overrule all of them.

Nothing in Baker’s cross examination in any way changes the fact that Park first saw Kaelin come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight after Kaelin left his room to check on the noises he had just heard.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

More testimony from the socio political production in which Park is trapped on cross.




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

A. Yes.



Nothing in Baker’s cross examination in any way changes the fact that Park first saw Kaelin come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight after Kaelin left his room to check on the noises he had just heard.

bobaugust

[martin II]

I regard it as fact that the blood on the sock from Nicole was less degraded than the reference blood. That is pretty easy and unambiguous oribken for a person with her educational background. She would have risked perjury and therefore jail if she had lied about it.

The question is could there have been another source of blood besides the reference vial. I don't know. I don't recall reading the part about Nicole's body being drained of blood, but if it was, then there would be a question about when the reference blood was taken and when the other blood was taken. I would guess that the reference sample was taken first.

If the blood on the sock was planted, it would interesting to know why it was less degraded than the reference sample. My guess is that the easiest answer is that it wasn't planted.

I don't think the factor of the broken refrigerator would have been a factor for the socks. The socks might have been taken back to the police dept in a different vehicle than the one with a broken refrigerator.

The socks would have dried relatively quickly, before they were collected, and when the socks were dry, the DNA would break down quite slowly even if it was hot. The samples that degraded were wet when they degraded.

FGUMP2

All of the collected samples were loaded in the one truck with the broken refrigerator.

Can you explain why Vanhatter went to the coronors office to collect NBS and Rons blood and what happened to that blood?

[martin II]

I regard it as fact that the blood on the sock from Nicole was less degraded than the reference blood. That is pretty easy and unambiguous oribken for a person with her educational background. She would have risked perjury and therefore jail if she had lied about it.

The question is could there have been another source of blood besides the reference vial. I don't know. I don't recall reading the part about Nicole's body being drained of blood, but if it was, then there would be a question about when the reference blood was taken and when the other blood was taken. I would guess that the reference sample was taken first.

If the blood on the sock was planted, it would interesting to know why it was less degraded than the reference sample. My guess is that the easiest answer is that it wasn't planted.

I don't think the factor of the broken refrigerator would have been a factor for the socks. The socks might have been taken back to the police dept in a different vehicle than the one with a broken refrigerator.

The socks would have dried relatively quickly, before they were collected, and when the socks were dry, the DNA would break down quite slowly even if it was hot. The samples that degraded were wet when they degraded.

If Dr Cotton had testified on that issue to a Medical Certainty then you would be on firmer ground that it was a fact. But since she only gave her opinion on the issue, it cannot be considered as fact. You would agree i am sure?

[William Anthony]

You evidently still can’t seem to comprehend that when Park said that Kaelin was just standing there; “there” is the Ashford pathway where Park said Kaelin stopped after he saw him come from behind the house, not from the garage.

bobaugust

What you evidently still can't understand is that the discrepancies in the testimonies allows a reasonable inference to be drawn that Park did not see Kato come from behind the house, because Kato said he did not stop then. :)

[William Anthony]

What you evidently still can’t seem to comprehend is that when Park said that Kaelin was just still standing on the sidewalk; “on the sidewalk” is the Ashford pathway where Park said Kaelin stopped after he saw him come from behind the house, not from the garage.

Park never repeated his mistaken pre criminal trial testimony that after Kaelin came from behind the house and stopped when he got to the driveway he stood there until he opened the gate.

bobaugust

What you obviously don't understand is that Park was trapped in the socio political production and that when he said that Kato was standing and still standing in the criminal trial, he was saying that Kato was stopped. :)

Don't you remember that Park testified in the socio political production that he did not see Kato walk in any direction but admitted that he saw Kato walk up the driveway , not up or down the pathway. :)

[William Anthony]

Thank you for finally admitting that Dr. Cotton’s testimony of the differences in degradation conclusively proved that Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock could not have come from her reference sample thus proving the defense sock blood planting theory false.

bobaugust

This is what I said, "...at most, Cotton's testimony only showed that the blood was probably not blood from the reference sample of Ms. NBS,..." Do you understand the difference between probably and conclusively?

[William Anthony]

If you think Cochran told the jury that Park was mistaken about first seeing Kaelin come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight then post the transcript where Cochran said that.

You can play like a lawyer and add all the objections you want to that Baker never made and I will play like a judge and overrule all of them.

Nothing in Baker’s cross examination in any way changes the fact that Park first saw Kaelin come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight after Kaelin left his room to check on the noises he had just heard.

bobaugust

There is only one difference, which is I have the training to make the objections but you do not have the training to rule on them. As I have previously stated, not all of us have the need to have everything specifically spelled out for us as we can see things for ourselves.

As it relates to the obvious in Baker's cross, just because you do not see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. :)

[William Anthony]

Nothing in Baker’s cross examination in any way changes the fact that Park first saw Kaelin come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight after Kaelin left his room to check on the noises he had just heard.

bobaugust

See response to my last post.

[martin II]

You'll be happy to know I took you off ignore so you won't have to ask other posters to quote your posts to me. :)

hhhmmmmm

Are you reading minds?

[tv]

hhhmmmmm

Are you reading minds?

I don't know what this was supposed to mean but I'm not engaging in petty arguments with you. DW has asked us to be polite and I'm trying to honor her request.

[martin II]

I don't know what this was supposed to mean but I'm not engaging in petty arguments with you. DW has asked us to be polite and I'm trying to honor her request.

My question was not petty.i was surprised at your post. but i agree that it is much better to be polite.


thanks.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, No I do not have to “swear by her (Clark’s) explanation of the thumps in her closing” There are many things that I agree with Clark on but there are also many things I disagree with her on.

I must say you have an annoying habit of attributing things to me that make no sense to you that I have never said. The fact is that the only lights that were seen on inside Simpson’s house from outside the gates to the estate that night were upstairs lights until Simpson entered his front door.

The evidence is that Simpson could not have entered either of his gates when he returned from Bundy without being seen or heard by the limo driver parked at the Ashford gate. The evidence is that the chain link fence between Simpson’s and the Salinger’s property based on the difference in elevations was at its lowest point behind the guest room where the glove was found.

I have never said that Simpson wore dark clothing to prevent his kids from recognizing him. That’s ridiculous. I believe Simpson was more concerned about being seen or heard entering his estate then entering his house.

I believe Kaelin testified truthfully regarding what he saw, heard, and did the night of the murders. If you had read Clark’s book you would know that she believe Kaelin was more a defense witness, skewing his answers towards protecting Simpson. That’s why Clark eventually declared Kaelin a hostile witness.

bobaugust

Mr. August,

The DA's said that there was blood trail leading from the Bronco, to his front door and foyer. This blood trail eliminates Simpson from being behind Kato's wall. As you have posted, the evidence is that Simpson would not have entered his property using the gates without being seen or heard--this proves that Simpson was inside his house as he claimed and that when the driver saw him it was on his way back into the house.

There is only evidence that at least one person was behind Kato's wall and that is Mark Fuhrman. He found the glove, he talked to Rosa Lopez and asked permission to walk along the property line.

There is no trace or physical evidence that anyone climbed the fence or crashed into the wall.

In Clark's book, she says that Kato would never say that he thought it was an intruder and he would not say what he was looking for when he went to check out the thumps. Kato would not say what Clark wanted him to say.

When she declared him a hostile witness, it was over a conversation he had with Simpson.

Please give a list of how Kato was trying to protect Simpson with his testimony? If you believe he was telling the truth, then why are you saying that Clark made a mistake in doing this? That Kato was not protecting Simpson?

[bobaugust]

What you evidently still can't understand is that the discrepancies in the testimonies allows a reasonable inference to be drawn that Park did not see Kato come from behind the house, because Kato said he did not stop then. :)

There is no doubt that Park first saw Kaelin come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight and no attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed there was.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

What you obviously don't understand is that Park was trapped in the socio political production and that when he said that Kato was standing and still standing in the criminal trial, he was saying that Kato was stopped. :)

Don't you remember that Park testified in the socio political production that he did not see Kato walk in any direction but admitted that he saw Kato walk up the driveway , not up or down the pathway. :)

Here we go again. What you still can’t seem to comprehend is that Park was pointing out where Kaelin went on the diagram of the Rockingham estate. The diagram was positioned so that north was at the top so the garage and south path are at the bottom of the exhibit and the Ashford gate and gate control box are at the top of the diagram. When Park said he saw Kaelin go “up the driveway he saw Kaelin come from the garage area and go to the gate control box.

Kaelin testified to the same thing in the criminal trial when he pointed out on the same exhibit where he went after he came out from behind the garage. “Came back out, walked UP the driveway.”

November 20, 1996 Park

(Indicating to Exhibit 116.)
Q. You -- can you tell us by walking up to Exhibit 116 and pointing out where the white male walked up to and how the white male opened the gate for you?
A. He came up the driveway from this direction, and he didn't come up to the gate and open it manually. He -- I guess where it says control box, somewhere over in that area, he hit a button or what-not, and the gate opened.

March 22, 1995 Kaelin

Q OKAY.SO YOU WALKED DOWN THE DRIVEWAY AROUND THE GARAGE TO THE SOUTH PATHWAY, CAME BACK OUT, WALKED BACK UP THE DRIVEWAY AND THE LIMO DRIVER -- THE LIMOUSINE WAS STILL OUTSIDE THE ASHFORD GATE?
A YES.
Q WHEN YOU SAID YOU WENT TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX, YOU POINTED TO AN AREA ON PEOPLE'S 66. IS THAT WHERE IT IS INDICATED BY THAT TREE?
A YES.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

This is what I said, "...at most, Cotton's testimony only showed that the blood was probably not blood from the reference sample of Ms. NBS,..." Do you understand the difference between probably and conclusively?

Do you not understand the reality that once blood has degraded it can’t be changed into blood that is not degraded? That’s logical proof that puts an end to the question did Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock come from her reference sample. It did not because it could not have. That fact conclusively proved the defense sock blood planting theory that Nicole’s blood was planted from her reference sample.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

There is only one difference, which is I have the training to make the objections but you do not have the training to rule on them. As I have previously stated, not all of us have the need to have everything specifically spelled out for us as we can see things for ourselves.

As it relates to the obvious in Baker's cross, just because you do not see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. :)

Baker was far more trained and experienced than you are and he never made the objections that you played at making. It sure seems to me that you’re the one who needs things specifically spelled out for you since you evidently can’t seem to comprehend that the Ashford pathway was to Park’s left and the driveway from the garage was to his front and right. You also can’t seem to comprehend that Kaelin was asked several different times what he did when he came back out from behind the garage and he never said anything about returning to the Ashford path and stand there before going to the gate control box as you have fantasized he did.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

The DA's said that there was blood trail leading from the Bronco, to his front door and foyer. This blood trail eliminates Simpson from being behind Kato's wall. As you have posted, the evidence is that Simpson would not have entered his property using the gates without being seen or heard--this proves that Simpson was inside his house as he claimed and that when the driver saw him it was on his way back into the house.

There is only evidence that at least one person was behind Kato's wall and that is Mark Fuhrman. He found the glove, he talked to Rosa Lopez and asked permission to walk along the property line.

There is no trace or physical evidence that anyone climbed the fence or crashed into the wall.

In Clark's book, she says that Kato would never say that he thought it was an intruder and he would not say what he was looking for when he went to check out the thumps. Kato would not say what Clark wanted him to say.

When she declared him a hostile witness, it was over a conversation he had with Simpson.

Please give a list of how Kato was trying to protect Simpson with his testimony? If you believe he was telling the truth, then why are you saying that Clark made a mistake in doing this? That Kato was not protecting Simpson?

GreenIce, the prosecution got it wrong. There was one blood drop outside the Rockingham gate and two blood drops just inside the gate. All three were on the cement in the middle of the driveway. If you look at the photo of these blood drops and see how the Rockingham gate opens from one side, you should be able to understand that if Simpson had entered that gate when he was dripping blood, the blood drops would be on the side of the of driveway where the gate starts to swing open, not in the middle of the driveway.

What those blood drops show is that Simpson stood outside the gate in the middle of the driveway, and later after entering his property by scaling his fence behind Kaelin’s room when he returned to the driveway he went back to the closed Rockingham gate and stood in the center of the driveway. Why would he do that? We don’t know but I have speculated that it was to retrieve his car phone.

http://bobaugust.com/rockgate.jpg

The noises and vibrations on Kaelin’s back wall is evidence that someone was behind his room since they weren’t caused by an earthquake. Why do you think Kaelin was so scared when he went to investigate the noises? The fact is that there were only three people on Simpson’s estate at that time; Kaelin, Park, and Simpson. Which of those three do you think made those noises?

Yes there is evidence that someone scaled the fence that wasn’t revealed until some time later after the hanging foliage covering the top of the fence was trimmed back; bent wires on the top of the fence. Wires bent inwards, towards the wall that are consistent with someone putting their foot on top of the fence to jump from the Salinger’s property to the south path behind Kaelin’s room on Simpson’s property. Bent wires directly over the exact place the killer’s right hand glove was found and opposite the exact place on the back wall where the noises and vibrations occurred.

Clark wrote about her strategy for handling Kaelin,

“First, I figured, I would get all I could the nice way. I wouldn't alienate him before extracting everything he'd give me without a fight. Then I'd see how he did on cross. If he screwed up - tried to backpedal - it would actually make his direct testimony look more credible, because the jury would see how much he loved the defense. Then, on redirect, I'd hit him with the hard stuff. And I had an idea for how to do just that.”

bobaugust

[William Anthony]

There is no doubt that Park first saw Kaelin come from behind the house and down the pathway with a flashlight and no attorney in this case ever suggested, inferred, or claimed there was.

bobaugust

Just because you say there is no doubt does not mean that there was not and, in fact, the evidence is, because there was doubt, Park's and Kato's testimonies needed to be molded.

[William Anthony]

Here we go again. What you still can’t seem to comprehend is that Park was pointing out where Kaelin went on the diagram of the Rockingham estate. The diagram was positioned so that north was at the top so the garage and south path are at the bottom of the exhibit and the Ashford gate and gate control box are at the top of the diagram. When Park said he saw Kaelin go “up the driveway he saw Kaelin come from the garage area and go to the gate control box.

Kaelin testified to the same thing in the criminal trial when he pointed out on the same exhibit where he went after he came out from behind the garage. “Came back out, walked UP the driveway.”

November 20, 1996 Park

(Indicating to Exhibit 116.)
Q. You -- can you tell us by walking up to Exhibit 116 and pointing out where the white male walked up to and how the white male opened the gate for you?
A. He came up the driveway from this direction, and he didn't come up to the gate and open it manually. He -- I guess where it says control box, somewhere over in that area, he hit a button or what-not, and the gate opened.

March 22, 1995 Kaelin

Q OKAY.SO YOU WALKED DOWN THE DRIVEWAY AROUND THE GARAGE TO THE SOUTH PATHWAY, CAME BACK OUT, WALKED BACK UP THE DRIVEWAY AND THE LIMO DRIVER -- THE LIMOUSINE WAS STILL OUTSIDE THE ASHFORD GATE?
A YES.
Q WHEN YOU SAID YOU WENT TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX, YOU POINTED TO AN AREA ON PEOPLE'S 66. IS THAT WHERE IT IS INDICATED BY THAT TREE?
A YES.

bobaugust

And this has what to do with Park testifying that he did not see Kato walk in any direction but at the same time, trying to mold his testimony to say that he saw Kato walk up the driveway, which is what I meant about being trapped. Your post of the testimonies is superfluous to the issue I was addressing.:)

[William Anthony]

Do you not understand the reality that once blood has degraded it can’t be changed into blood that is not degraded? That’s logical proof that puts an end to the question did Nicole’s blood found on Simpson’s sock come from her reference sample. It did not because it could not have. That fact conclusively proved the defense sock blood planting theory that Nicole’s blood was planted from her reference sample.

bobaugust

Ah, I see you have caught your mistake and disagree with Petro's claim that the testimony proved conclusively that blood on the sock could not have been planted. Although we may disagree as to whether or not the blood could have been planted from the reference sample, I see that you have not eliminated other sources of the preserved blood being placed on the socks, which means that the testimony did not conclusively prove the blood could not have been planted.:)

[William Anthony]

Baker was far more trained and experienced than you are and he never made the objections that you played at making. It sure seems to me that you’re the one who needs things specifically spelled out for you since you evidently can’t seem to comprehend that the Ashford pathway was to Park’s left and the driveway from the garage was to his front and right. You also can’t seem to comprehend that Kaelin was asked several different times what he did when he came back out from behind the garage and he never said anything about returning to the Ashford path and stand there before going to the gate control box as you have fantasized he did.

bobaugust

Ah, you become more insulting, rude and disrespectful, which let's me know that you are beginning to see the light. I do not doubt that Baker had more experience and training than I have in the law, just as I have of you. Just because Baker did not object, does not mean that the question was not objectionable. As I remember, during the criminal trial, the lawyers had to be reminded that the lawyer questioning the witness was the one to make the objections, due to lawyers from the same side jumping up to make objections. Let me spell out what I mean. In the heat of battle as Mr. Baker was certain things get overlooked and another learned individual may point that out and, yes, make objections.

I comprehend the diagram to the utmost but you have a problem comprehending the discrepancies in the testimonies and the reasonable inferences to be drawn as a result of those discrepancies. I reiterate that you have relied on the fact that Lang did not testify to seeing blood in the Bronco, because he was not asked (although, I again needed to correct that statement, which was another incorrect statement of yours about the evidence), which was my original statement and remains my position on Kato being asked whether or not he went back to the Ashford pathway and stood.

[William Anthony]

"Q. You -- can you tell us by walking up to Exhibit 116 and pointing out where the white male walked up to and how the white male opened the gate for you?

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

Q. Okay."



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

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

A. No.

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

A. True.

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

A. About a minute.

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

A. Yes.

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

A. Don't really care.

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

A. Don't know.

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

A. True.

If a poster cannot see that Park was trapped, then I might be arguing with those with poor eyesight. :) Park testified that Kato "came up the driveway from this direction" and opened the gate from the gate control box. However, he gets trapped, because he admits that he allegedly did not see Kato until Kato was at the gate control box and did not see Kato walk in any direction. I think that a reasonable inference can be drawn that Park forgot Petro's coaching.

[martin II]

"Q. You -- can you tell us by walking up to Exhibit 116 and pointing out where the white male walked up to and how the white male opened the gate for you?

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

Q. Okay."



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

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

A. No.

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

A. True.

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

A. About a minute.

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

A. Yes.

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

A. Don't really care.

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

A. Don't know.

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

A. True.

If a poster cannot see that Park was trapped, then I might be arguing with those with poor eyesight. :) Park testified that Kato "came up the driveway from this direction" and opened the gate from the gate control box. However, he gets trapped, because he admits that he allegedly did not see Kato until Kato was at the gate control box and did not see Kato walk in any direction. I think that a reasonable inference can be drawn that Park forgot Petro's coaching.

That is what happens when a witness is told to change what he knows happened to something else. he gets confused as to what he is supposed to say and is caught in a lie.

[William Anthony]

That is what happens when a witness is told to change what he knows happened to something else. he gets confused as to what he is supposed to say and is caught in a lie.

Martin,

Look at this from Park's criminal trial testimony.

"Q: AFTER THAT PERSON WALKED INTO THE ENTRANCE, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: I THEN PROCEEDED TO -- WELL, I WAS STILL TALKING TO DALE AT THE SAME TIME. I SAID "SOMEBODY'S HERE." HE SAID, "FINE, FINISH THE JOB, TAKE HIM TO THE AIRPORT AND I WILL SEE YOU TOMORROW" OR WHATEVER. I HUNG UP THE PHONE AND I STILL WAITED ANOTHER -- IT WAS ABOUT ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS OR SO BEFORE I GOT OUT OF THE CAR, BUT I WAS STILL WAITING FOR SOME SOMEBODY TO COME OPEN THE GATE. I FIGURED SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO COME OPEN THE GATE FOR ME. THEY STILL DIDN'T.

Q: HOW LONG AFTER YOU SAW THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON IN ALL DARK CLOTHING GO INTO THE HOUSE DID YOU CONTINUE TO TALK TO DALE ST. JOHN?

A: OH, IT WAS JUST ANYWHERE BETWEEN TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS. IT WASN'T VERY LONG.

Q: OKAY. SO ON THE PHONE BILL IN FRONT OF YOU, SIR, ON THAT LAST CALL WHERE IT INDICATES 10:52 AND 17 SECONDS, DOES IT INDICATE HOW LONG THE PHONE CALL WAS FOR, THE DURATION OF THE CALL?

A: UMM, YES, TWO MINUTES AND 55 SECONDS.

Q: OKAY. DOES THAT COMPORT WITH YOUR MEMORY OF THE LENGTH OF THE PHONE CALL?

A: YES.

Q: AND SO YOU WOULD HAVE HUNG UP WITH HIM AT 10:55 AND 12 SECONDS?

A: YES.

Q: AND IT WAS WITHIN THE LAST TEN TO THIRTY SECONDS OF THAT CALL AT 10 -- OF ENDING THAT CALL AT 10:55 THAT YOU SAW THIS SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON GO INTO THE ENTRANCE?

A: YES.

Q: AFTER YOU HUNG UP WITH DALE ST. JOHN YOU SAID YOU SAT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS OR SO?

A: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO OBJECT, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHY WAS THAT?

MR. COCHRAN: THIS IS LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE AND WE COVERED THIS.

MS. CLARK: THAT WAS FOUNDATIONAL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AFTER YOU -- YOU INDICATED THAT YOU SAT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS. WHY DID YOU SIT FOR ANOTHER THIRTY SECONDS IN YOUR CAR AFTER YOU HUNG UP?

A: BECAUSE I WAS WAITING FOR THE GATE TO BE OPENED. I FIGURED SOMEBODY IS HOME, THEY SAW ME AND THEY ARE GOING TO LET ME IN.

Q: AND DID KATO KAELIN COME OVER TO LET YOU IN?

A: NO, HE DIDN'T.

Q: AND DID THE SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON DRESSED IN ALL DARK CLOTHING COME TO LET YOU IN?

A: NO.

Q: AND AFTER THIRTY SECONDS WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: THAT IS WHEN I GOT BACK UP AND OUT OF THE CAR AND RANG THE INTERCOM. THIS TIME THERE WAS AN ANSWER, WHICH WAS MR. SIMPSON. HE TOLD ME THAT HE OVERSLEPT AND HE JUST GOT OUT OF THE SHOWER AND HE WOULD BE DOWN IN A MINUTE.

Q: OKAY. HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU HAVE TO RING THE BUZZER THIS TIME BEFORE IT WAS ANSWERED?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION, HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU HAVE TO RING THE BUZZER.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: CAN YOU REPEAT IT?

Q: BY MS. CLARK: HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU HAVE TO RING THE BUZZER THIS TIME BEFORE IT WAS ANSWERED?

A: OH, IT WAS JUST -- HE ANSWERED IT PRETTY MUCH IMMEDIATELY.

Q: AS SOON AS YOU RANG?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN HE SAID TO YOU --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHEN YOU HEARD THE VOICE SAY TO YOU, "I'M SORRY, I OVERSLEPT," DID YOU RECOGNIZE THAT VOICE?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THIS HAS BEEN COVERED.

THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE ALSO, THAT LAST STATEMENT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHOSE VOICE WAS IT?

A: MR. SIMPSON'S.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU SAY HE SAID TO YOU?

A: THAT HE OVERSLEPT --

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR. WE ALL HEARD IT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: HE OVERSLEPT, HE JUST GOT OUT OF THE SHOWER AND HE WOULD BE DOWN IN A MINUTE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, HAD YOU EVER HEARD MR. SIMPSON'S VOICE BEFORE?

A: YES.

Q: HOW HAD YOU HEARD IT BEFORE?

A: ON T.V. COMMENTARY, SPORTS.

Q: IS THAT HOW YOU RECOGNIZED IT?

A: YES.

Q: COULD YOU TELL, WHEN YOU SAW THAT SIX-FOOT 200-POUND PERSON WALK INTO THE ENTRANCE, COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THAT PERSON WAS COMING FROM THE ROCKINGHAM DRIVEWAY OR FROM THE AREA OF THE GARAGE FROM THE SOUTH PATHWAY?

A: NO, I COULDN'T.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHETHER THAT PERSON HAD ANYTHING IN HIS HAND -- IN THEIR HANDS?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN THAT PERSON WALKED INTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOUSE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY CHANGE IN THE LIGHTING IN THE HOUSE?

A: SOME LIGHTS CAME ON DOWNSTAIRS, YES.

Q: AND WAS THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PERSON ENTERED THE HOUSE?

MR. COCHRAN: LEADING AND SUGGESTIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY.

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

A: JUST SECONDS.

Q: COULD YOU TELL WHICH LIGHTS WENT ON?

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

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

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

Q: DID HE ACKNOWLEDGE YOU IN ANY WAY AFTER THAT PERSON WENT INTO THE HOUSE?

A: FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, HE KIND OF GAVE ME A HAND GESTURE TO LET ME KNOW HE WAS THERE. "

Park waited 30 seconds in the car after he got off the phone with his boss and waited 30 seconds before getting off the phone with his boss (one minute) and then walked to the intercom and IIRC, Kato buzzed him in within 20 to thirty seconds. His lies loom large as he testified he sat in the limo looking at the dashboard until Kato he again saw Kato. Park must have forgotten about walking to the intercom.

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

A. Yes."

[fgump2]

I think the point is that, If the killer were holding Ms. NBS by the hairs on her head and pulling her head back with his right hand while cutting her throat, then it is reasonable to conclude that her throat was cut with the left hand and the killer was left handed, if there was only one killer.

****************************
There are two reasons for thinking the killer was right handed. First of all the autopsy report said the killer was probably right handed. Secondly the right hand glove was more worn than the left hand glove, which also indicates a right handed person. I don't have a link that says the right hand glove was more worn, but the book by Rantala says this ch 5, page 52.

[tv]

****************************
There are two reasons for thinking the killer was right handed. First of all the autopsy report said the killer was probably right handed. Secondly the right hand glove was more worn than the left hand glove, which also indicates a right handed person. I don't have a link that says the right hand glove was more worn, but the book by Rantala says this ch 5, page 52.

Your post interested me so I went back and read that page -- :)

"So the man wearing those shoes on the night of June 12th had not worn them extensively before that, and might have had them as long as 3 1/2 years. This could suggest that the owner never really cared for the shoes, making them a perfect choice for murder because he knew he might have to throw them away. The gloves may have been similarly selected for the same reason: they were getting old (the right-hand glove was very worn) and didn't fit very well so the killer didn't mind that he'd have to get rid of them forever after the crime."

[William Anthony]

****************************
There are two reasons for thinking the killer was right handed. First of all the autopsy report said the killer was probably right handed. Secondly the right hand glove was more worn than the left hand glove, which also indicates a right handed person. I don't have a link that says the right hand glove was more worn, but the book by Rantala says this ch 5, page 52.

Originally Posted by William Anthony View Post
I think the point is that, If the killer were holding Ms. NBS by the hairs on her head and pulling her head back with his right hand while cutting her throat, then it is reasonable to conclude that her throat was cut with the left hand and the killer was left handed, if there was only one killer.

[William Anthony]

Your post interested me so I went back and read that page -- :)

"So the man wearing those shoes on the night of June 12th had not worn them extensively before that, and might have had them as long as 3 1/2 years. This could suggest that the owner never really cared for the shoes, making them a perfect choice for murder because he knew he might have to throw them away. The gloves may have been similarly selected for the same reason: they were getting old (the right-hand glove was very worn) and didn't fit very well so the killer didn't mind that he'd have to get rid of them forever after the crime."

How could not wearing shoes make them old or show that the person who owned them did not care for them? It could mean that the person preserved them because they liked them and considered them special, only to be worn on special occasions when dress shoes were called for. The photos of Simpson in the shoes shows he wore them more often than the post mentions, if you believe the photos are genuine.

[martin II]

Your post interested me so I went back and read that page -- :)

"So the man wearing those shoes on the night of June 12th had not worn them extensively before that, and might have had them as long as 3 1/2 years. This could suggest that the owner never really cared for the shoes, making them a perfect choice for murder because he knew he might have to throw them away. The gloves may have been similarly selected for the same reason: they were getting old (the right-hand glove was very worn) and didn't fit very well so the killer didn't mind that he'd have to get rid of them forever after the crime."

Was there any testimony by Rubin that one glove was more worn than the other? From your post these were some opinions from someone.

[tv]

MR. COCHRAN: And those gloves we have been talking about, the two gloves, item no. 9, LAPD number, and I think item no. 77, those gloves are--especially one of them is used. It has some--it's worn in the palm area, isn't it?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: There's like a hole or something in that palm area; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: It appears that way.

[tv]

How could not wearing shoes make them old or show that the person who owned them did not care for them? It could mean that the person preserved them because they liked them and considered them special, only to be worn on special occasions when dress shoes were called for. The photos of Simpson in the shoes shows he wore them more often than the post mentions, if you believe the photos are genuine.

All photos of OJ Simpson wearing the shoes were taken by two different photographers, Scull and Flammer, on the same day, September 26, 1993, at Rich Stadium when the Bills played the Dolphins. The photo of him in the Bills newsletter wearing the Bruno Maglis was taken at the same game and was published seven months before the murders.

[weezer]

". . .The footwear, manufactured in Italy, retailed for $160 per pair and was sold by only 40 retailers across America. In all, only 300 pairs of size 12 (Simpson's size) were ever sold. Only 9% of the population wore size 12. Simpson had denied ever owing a pair, calling them, "ugly-ass shoes."

[martin II]

MR. COCHRAN: And those gloves we have been talking about, the two gloves, item no. 9, LAPD number, and I think item no. 77, those gloves are--especially one of them is used. It has some--it's worn in the palm area, isn't it?

MR. RUBIN: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: There's like a hole or something in that palm area; isn't that correct?

MR. RUBIN: It appears that way.

which glove was worn more right or left.

If the killer pulled nicoles hair back with his left hand and cut her with knife in right hand, why is there not bunch of hair on the left glove??
i think ONE strand of hair was on the right hand glove.
i looked at two pair leather gloves i have had for 2-3 years and both are worn equally.

[martin II]

Bloomingdales male shoe manager testified that he never sold any BM shoes to Simpson. This was a dissapointment to the da as they sent detectives to the store where oj purchased his shoes hoping to find proof that he purchased the BM shoes there. He purchased other shoes but not BM.

[weezer]

obviously, orenthal wasn't wearing the left glove when he pulled her head back with his left hand, put his foot on her back, and butchered her. :eek:

it is impossible to have ANYTHING that is 'worn equally'. ;)

[martin II]

All photos of OJ Simpson wearing the shoes were taken by two different photographers, Scull and Flammer, on the same day, September 26, 1993, at Rich Stadium when the Bills played the Dolphins. The photo of him in the Bills newsletter wearing the Bruno Maglis was taken at the same game and was published seven months before the murders.

Some photos of some shoes that may have looked like BM taken in Buffalo
does not prove that oj made BM shoe prints at bundy.Especially since that same shoe sole was used on shoes made by Lloyds and distributed world wide.
imo

[weezer]

not a true or correct statement. :seeya:

[tv]

MR. DARDEN: Let me hand you item 9, the Rockingham glove. And this is People's 164-A, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. That is the right hand glove. Mr. Darden.

[martin II]

MR. DARDEN: Let me hand you item 9, the Rockingham glove. And this is People's 164-A, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. That is the right hand glove. Mr. Darden.

OK
THANKS.

If a hole was worn in the right hand glove by some use, wonder why oj or anyone would have kept the glove.Does this mean that some believe oj was doing tv announcements with gloves with a hole in it. Seems to me that he could afford a new pair.
maby the lab cut the hole to get a sample.

[martin II]

how does one under normal wear and tear wear a hole in one of the gloves and continue to wear the gloves. A millionair on tv with gloves with a hole in the palm. a millionair with many other pairs of gloves in his clothes closet. Something wrong with that.imo

[tv]

how does one under normal wear and tear wear a hole in one of the gloves and continue to wear the gloves. A millionair on tv with gloves with a hole in the palm. a millionair with many other pairs of gloves in his clothes closet. Something wrong with that.imo

There's no evidence that OJ Simpson continued to wear the gloves after the hole was worn in the right hand glove.

[Kate Sachel]

I have been thinking in regard to recent postings on the fact that a single hair matching the characteristics of the hair of Nicole Brown Simpson was found on the glove at Rockingham. Some suggest that this would indicate that the killer is left handed, whereas OJ Simpson is right handed.

We have a scenario (the slashing of the throat) that was made from two actions. Action number one would be that the killer grabbed Nicole's hair to bring her head up. Action number two would be that the killer then slashed her throat.

Which hand do you use for the first action? Do you automatically use the predominant hand for the first action, and the other for the second? Or do you use the predominant hand for the second action?

I have asked this question of numerous people and the answers vary depending on several factors. I personally find it interesting.

Anyone care to weigh in?

Kate

[martin II]

There's no evidence that OJ Simpson continued to wear the gloves after the hole was worn in the right hand glove.

There is no evidence that oj wore THOSE gloves on 6/12 because there is no evidence that nicole gave the gloves we believe she purchased to oj and because the murder gloves the prosecution brought into court were proven by Darden not to fit ojs very large hands. We know she gave one pair to a male friend. She could have given the 2nd pair to another friend like B Jenner
one of her boyfriends or Marcus Allen a special friend. I believe oj had more than one pair of fine leather gloves.imo

[martin II]

From the nature of the cut i believe the knife wound indicates that the knife was held by a right handed person and the wound was made fron left,nicoles neck,to right of her neck. If true then one would naturally grab the hair with the left to cut with the knife in the right hand.
But it is possible to put the head/neck into position to be cut without pulling the hair to do. imo

[weezer]

Jurors Carrie Bess and Rubin-Jackson collaborated with Cooley on the book, which comes out this week.

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

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

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

[martin II]

There's no evidence that OJ Simpson continued to wear the gloves after the hole was worn in the right hand glove.

i believe that oj would own several pair of gloves so no reason to keep a pair with a hole in the palm.

[weezer]

Murder in Brentwood by Mark Fuhrman; p 331

". . .While searching the master bedroom closet, Brad saw a pair of gloves in simpson's bureau. Brad noted that the gloves were the same type and style as the glove left at Bundy and the one I found behind Kato's bungalow. Brad took the gloves downstairs and showed them to a group of Robbery/Homicide detectives, asking if they wanted to collect them for comparison with the other gloves. One of the detectives told Brad, "No, put it back where you found it." Brad did as he was told, placing the gloves back in their original spot in the bureau. . ."

[weezer]

I have been thinking in regard to recent postings on the fact that a single hair matching the characteristics of the hair of Nicole Brown Simpson was found on the glove at Rockingham. Some suggest that this would indicate that the killer is left handed, whereas OJ Simpson is right handed.

We have a scenario (the slashing of the throat) that was made from two actions. Action number one would be that the killer grabbed Nicole's hair to bring her head up. Action number two would be that the killer then slashed her throat.

Which hand do you use for the first action? Do you automatically use the predominant hand for the first action, and the other for the second? Or do you use the predominant hand for the second action?

I have asked this question of numerous people and the answers vary depending on several factors. I personally find it interesting.

Anyone care to weigh in?

Kate

from Lakshamanan testimony:

". . .Although Lakshmanan couldn't say which came first - the head blow or the neck wounds - he suggested that Ms. Simpson was somehow restrained, either by being dazed or by being held, when the assailant cut her neck.

"They (wounds) are localized to one area of the neck, which would signify that there was some limitation of movement," he said.

The nature of the wounds suggested that if the assailant were using the right hand, the attacker would have been face to face with Ms. Simpson. If using the left hand, the attack would have come from behind. . ."

[William Anthony]

I have been thinking in regard to recent postings on the fact that a single hair matching the characteristics of the hair of Nicole Brown Simpson was found on the glove at Rockingham. Some suggest that this would indicate that the killer is left handed, whereas OJ Simpson is right handed.

We have a scenario (the slashing of the throat) that was made from two actions. Action number one would be that the killer grabbed Nicole's hair to bring her head up. Action number two would be that the killer then slashed her throat.

Which hand do you use for the first action? Do you automatically use the predominant hand for the first action, and the other for the second? Or do you use the predominant hand for the second action?

I have asked this question of numerous people and the answers vary depending on several factors. I personally find it interesting.

Anyone care to weigh in?

Kate

I don't think any of Ms. NBS's hairs were found on the left hand glove.

[William Anthony]

Given the lack of blood, the theory is that Simpson, if he was the killer, attacked from behind and that Ms. NBS had been on the steps when he approached and pulled her head back cutting her throat.

[William Anthony]

All photos of OJ Simpson wearing the shoes were taken by two different photographers, Scull and Flammer, on the same day, September 26, 1993, at Rich Stadium when the Bills played the Dolphins. The photo of him in the Bills newsletter wearing the Bruno Maglis was taken at the same game and was published seven months before the murders.

Perhaps, I am mistaking the picture of the shoes, which I did not follow the socio political production, with the picture of the gloves that were seen in the criminal trial.

[weezer]

". . .The gloves were dark brown leather, cashmere lined, size extra large. Manufactured by Aris Gloves, a subsidiary of Consolidated Food Corporation, the Isotoner Lights brand, style number 70263, were part of a small batch of only 300 pairs that had been sold exclusively by Bloomingdale's Department Store on 3rd Avenue in New York between 1989 and 1992. The store sold 240 pairs and returned the rest to the manufacturer. On December 20th, 1990, Nicole Brown Simpson had purchased two pairs of these gloves for $110. The gloves had a distinctive stitching and V pattern in the palm and were very identifiable. The prosecution assembled press photographs and videotapes of O.J.Simpson wearing this type of leather gloves during football game telecasts in 1993 and 1994. . ."

[martin II]

Nicole purchased two pairs of some gloves color and size unknown. The prosecution presented in court the gloves thought to have been used by a killer on 6/12. The gloves presented did not fit oj simpsons large hands so there was no proof that he ever had these gloves on his hands.imo

[weezer]

Jurors Carrie Bess and Rubin-Jackson collaborated with Cooley on the book, which comes out this week.

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

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

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

". . .The prosecution assembled press photographs and videotapes of O.J.Simpson wearing this type of leather gloves during football game telecasts in 1993 and 1994. . ."

[martin II]

Bloomingdales origionally ordered 1,000 doz gloves. The unsold gloves were returned to Aris.Normally Aris would then sell the returns to several discounters like Marshalls etc in order not to get stuck with them. This means that the returns Aris light gloves would be available for purchase in many discount stores all over America.imo

[martin II]

The opinion of two jurors after the trial only means they had a opinion on that issue different from the opinion of the 10 other jurors. It must not have meant too much to them as they all voted not guilty.the jurors don't have to agree on every piece of evidence.

[William Anthony]

Bloomingdales origionally ordered 1,000 doz gloves. The unsold gloves were returned to Aris.Normally Aris would then sell the returns to several discounters like Marshalls etc in order not to get stuck with them. This means that the returns Aris light gloves would be available for purchase in many discount stores all over America.imo

If neither the theory or the evidence fits....

[weezer]

anyone have a link to ANYTHING about the leftover gloves being sold to Marshall's or ANY other retailer?

[martin II]

If neither the theory or the evidence fits....

my point is that if bloomingdales returned the unsold gloves to Aris, ARIS would have to sell them as closeouts to some discounter in order not to suffer such a large loss.
Its done all the time.That is how discounters get name brand goods.

[weezer]

anyone have a link to ANYTHING about Bloomingdales selling the leftover gloves to Marshall's or ANY other retailer?

[martin II]

if bloominmgdales returned some unsold gloves to Aris,the goods would belong to Aris and bloomingdales would not be in a position to sell them.Aris would be because upon return the property would belong to Aris not Bloomingdales.

[GreenIce]

GreenIce, the prosecution got it wrong. There was one blood drop outside the Rockingham gate and two blood drops just inside the gate. All three were on the cement in the middle of the driveway. If you look at the photo of these blood drops and see how the Rockingham gate opens from one side, you should be able to understand that if Simpson had entered that gate when he was dripping blood, the blood drops would be on the side of the of driveway where the gate starts to swing open, not in the middle of the driveway.

What those blood drops show is that Simpson stood outside the gate in the middle of the driveway, and later after entering his property by scaling his fence behind Kaelin’s room when he returned to the driveway he went back to the closed Rockingham gate and stood in the center of the driveway. Why would he do that? We don’t know but I have speculated that it was to retrieve his car phone.

http://bobaugust.com/rockgate.jpg

The noises and vibrations on Kaelin’s back wall is evidence that someone was behind his room since they weren’t caused by an earthquake. Why do you think Kaelin was so scared when he went to investigate the noises? The fact is that there were only three people on Simpson’s estate at that time; Kaelin, Park, and Simpson. Which of those three do you think made those noises?

Yes there is evidence that someone scaled the fence that wasn’t revealed until some time later after the hanging foliage covering the top of the fence was trimmed back; bent wires on the top of the fence. Wires bent inwards, towards the wall that are consistent with someone putting their foot on top of the fence to jump from the Salinger’s property to the south path behind Kaelin’s room on Simpson’s property. Bent wires directly over the exact place the killer’s right hand glove was found and opposite the exact place on the back wall where the noises and vibrations occurred.

Clark wrote about her strategy for handling Kaelin,

“First, I figured, I would get all I could the nice way. I wouldn't alienate him before extracting everything he'd give me without a fight. Then I'd see how he did on cross. If he screwed up - tried to backpedal - it would actually make his direct testimony look more credible, because the jury would see how much he loved the defense. Then, on redirect, I'd hit him with the hard stuff. And I had an idea for how to do just that.”

bobaugust

Mr. August,

Again, tell me how Kato tried to help the defense? How was he protecting OJ? You your self said you believed him---so how was protecting Simpson? Did he give a false description of what Simpson was wearing? Did he give a false impression of what may have caused the thumps? Clark made him a hostile witness for a strategic move and that was all.

There is not proof, as testified by at least state witness that no one was behind that wall other the Mark Fuhrman and he was the only one who was on the Salinger's (sp?) side of the fence by the AC unit.

The Clark is lying about the blood drops leading from his Bronco to his front door? BTW, according to Fung, he never labeled or tested every single blood drop--which means that the blood trail did go right from the Bronco to the Front Door and somebody realized that this blood trail made no sense if Simpson was the killer.

Not to mention that he never bleed any where else on his property, even when scaling a fence and jumping to a wall.

I do not know what caused the noise. I do no that loud noises can move items inside a room or a house---however, it could not make a glove, in plastic bag jump over the fence or move it from the Bronco to behind Kato's wall. However, if your theory is correct, then it could have easily been recreated and Kato would have given a better description or a demonstration when what he did in the criminal trial.

There is no shred of evidence that Simpson was in the neighbor's yard, especially knowing that he could have used another path and not risk being seen or heard by one.

[GreenIce]

You'll be happy to know I took you off ignore so you won't have to ask other posters to quote your posts to me. :)

TV,

Is this another G trick---leading me into a false sense of security before you start making references to my home planet:) I come in peace if, you do.

[GreenIce]

Nicole purchased two pairs of some gloves color and size unknown. The prosecution presented in court the gloves thought to have been used by a killer on 6/12. The gloves presented did not fit oj simpsons large hands so there was no proof that he ever had these gloves on his hands.imo

Martin,

IMO, the key factor with the gloves is that the tag was cut of the gloves. Only that tag could provided which extra large glove side it was.

Also, please note, Aris did not have any representitive to testify in the trial. In act, it appeared to me they were not cooperating in this area. It makes no sense to me that the DA's would not have forced a representative of Aris to testify and provide their records. The fact the DA's did not make overtures to Aris, speaks volume. Why was Brenda V doing the DA's job?

[tv]

TV,

Is this another G trick---leading me into a false sense of security before you start making references to my home planet:) I come in peace if, you do.

I have no reason to trick you. http://bestsmileys.com/peace/2.gif-- no references to your home planet if you promise there will be no references to my ilk.

[GreenIce]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9195634]

Yes there is evidence that someone scaled the fence that wasn’t revealed until some time later after the hanging foliage covering the top of the fence was trimmed back; bent wires on the top of the fence. Wires bent inwards, towards the wall that are consistent with someone putting their foot on top of the fence to jump from the Salinger’s property to the south path behind Kaelin’s room on Simpson’s property. Bent wires directly over the exact place the killer’s right hand glove was found and opposite the exact place on the back wall where the noises and vibrations occurred.

Mr. August,

Kato was never asked to go back behind the wall to give a demonstration on what he heard or where he heard it. His grand jury and and criminal trial make that clear. In fact, he was never asked to given a description of the "thumps" and I think I read somewhere that he did not describe the noise as three thumps when he first spoke to MF or Vanatter. He described it as a noise--not three thumps.

[GreenIce]

I have no reason to trick you. http://bestsmileys.com/peace/2.gif-- no references to your home planet if you promise there will be no references to my ilk.

TV Dinner,

Okay, I agree. Truce?

[GreenIce]

Nicole purchased two pairs of some gloves color and size unknown. The prosecution presented in court the gloves thought to have been used by a killer on 6/12. The gloves presented did not fit oj simpsons large hands so there was no proof that he ever had these gloves on his hands.imo

Martin,

The gloves were pretty worn and beat up, correct? Did the DA's ever indicate what the wear and tear was from?

[tv]

TV Dinner,

Okay, I agree. Truce? Okay, truce. I'll stick to the evidence and testimony with no personal comments. I can do it... I can do it... I can do it...:)

[fgump2]

Martin,

IMO, the key factor with the gloves is that the tag was cut of the gloves. Only that tag could provided which extra large glove side it was.

Also, please note, Aris did not have any representitive to testify in the trial. In act, it appeared to me they were not cooperating in this area. It makes no sense to me that the DA's would not have forced a representative of Aris to testify and provide their records. The fact the DA's did not make overtures to Aris, speaks volume. Why was Brenda V doing the DA's job?

One of the most important facts about the gloves is that there were at least several pictures of Mr. SImpson wearing glvoes of that type. These pictures were taken when Simpson was working as a TV announcer. I think there were pictures of him wearing both black and brown gloves of that type. So he could get his hands in size extra large gloves of that type. Those pictures are more important than the sales slip. Just one of the many coincidences we have to believe if we are to think that Mr. Simpson was innocent. I think the police found a pair of black gloves like the murder gloves; but his brown pair seem to have disappeared - unless we assume that that pair were the gloves used in the murder.

[William Anthony]

One of the most important facts about the gloves is that there were at least several pictures of Mr. SImpson wearing glvoes of that type. These pictures were taken when Simpson was working as a TV announcer. I think there were pictures of him wearing both black and brown gloves of that type. So he could get his hands in size extra large gloves of that type. Those pictures are more important than the sales slip. Just one of the many coincidences we have to believe if we are to think that Mr. Simpson was innocent. I think the police found a pair of black gloves like the murder gloves; but his brown pair seem to have disappeared - unless we assume that that pair were the gloves used in the murder.

The forcibly removed hair of Ms. NBS found on the right handed Rockingham glove does not fit the scenario of Ms. NBS being killed by a right handed murderer, since the theory is that the murderer pulled her head back and cut her throat, nor did the gloves the prosecution claimed were the murder weapons fit Simpson's hands.

[bobaugust]

Just because you say there is no doubt does not mean that there was not and, in fact, the evidence is, because there was doubt, Park's and Kato's testimonies needed to be molded.

Wrong, there is no evidence that contradicts Park’s testimony that the first person he saw that night was a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight. None of Simpson’s attorneys ever disputed that part of Park’s testimony. Just because you created a fantasy that you want to believe raises doubts to you does not mean your doubts are credible.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

And this has what to do with Park testifying that he did not see Kato walk in any direction but at the same time, trying to mold his testimony to say that he saw Kato walk up the driveway, which is what I meant about being trapped. Your post of the testimonies is superfluous to the issue I was addressing.:)

On cross examination Baker reaffirmed that Park wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin when he finished his telephone call and that Park never saw what Kaelin did until he saw him walk “up” the driveway to the gate control box.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Ah, I see you have caught your mistake and disagree with Petro's claim that the testimony proved conclusively that blood on the sock could not have been planted. Although we may disagree as to whether or not the blood could have been planted from the reference sample, I see that you have not eliminated other sources of the preserved blood being placed on the socks, which means that the testimony did not conclusively prove the blood could not have been planted.:)

I have always said that the fact that Nicole’s blood had virtually little or no degradation means it could not have come from Nicole’s degraded autopsy blood reference sample. That fact conclusively proved the defense sock blood planting theory false that Nicole’s blood was planted on Simpson’s sock with blood from her reference sample.

Petrocelli simplified that fact by telling the jury that Nicole’s blood on the sock could not have been planted since there was no other sock blood planting.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Ah, you become more insulting, rude and disrespectful, which let's me know that you are beginning to see the light. I do not doubt that Baker had more experience and training than I have in the law, just as I have of you. Just because Baker did not object, does not mean that the question was not objectionable. As I remember, during the criminal trial, the lawyers had to be reminded that the lawyer questioning the witness was the one to make the objections, due to lawyers from the same side jumping up to make objections. Let me spell out what I mean. In the heat of battle as Mr. Baker was certain things get overlooked and another learned individual may point that out and, yes, make objections.

I comprehend the diagram to the utmost but you have a problem comprehending the discrepancies in the testimonies and the reasonable inferences to be drawn as a result of those discrepancies. I reiterate that you have relied on the fact that Lang did not testify to seeing blood in the Bronco, because he was not asked (although, I again needed to correct that statement, which was another incorrect statement of yours about the evidence), which was my original statement and remains my position on Kato being asked whether or not he went back to the Ashford pathway and stood.

I don’t believe I’m being rude, I’m only pointing out the facts that you can’t seem to understand as well as how ridiculous your claim is that since Kaelin was not asked if he did what you fantasize he did you seem to think that is evidence that he actually did what you fantasized he did.

Kaelin WAS asked what he did when he came out from behind the garage on his first investigation and he clearly testified that he saw the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. He even pointed out on the prosecution exhibit how he went “up” the driveway to the gate control box. And Park corroborated that part of Kaelin’s testimony when Park pointed out on the same exhibit where he saw Kaelin come from and go “up” the driveway to the gate control box.

Kaelin never said he went back to the Ashford pathway and stand there for a minute to two minutes before he opened the gate. That’s only a fantasy that you have imagined and any inference you make from that fantasy has no credibility. If you find that insulting, rude or disrespectful then so be it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

If a poster cannot see that Park was trapped, then I might be arguing with those with poor eyesight. :) Park testified that Kato "came up the driveway from this direction" and opened the gate from the gate control box. However, he gets trapped, because he admits that he allegedly did not see Kato until Kato was at the gate control box and did not see Kato walk in any direction. I think that a reasonable inference can be drawn that Park forgot Petro's coaching.

When Park said true that he didn’t observe Kaelin walking in any direction, north, south, east, or any variations thereof he was referring to when he finished his telephone call and didn’t see what Kaelin did until he saw Kaelin walk “up” the driveway to the gate control box.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Mr. August,

Again, tell me how Kato tried to help the defense? How was he protecting OJ? You your self said you believed him---so how was protecting Simpson? Did he give a false description of what Simpson was wearing? Did he give a false impression of what may have caused the thumps? Clark made him a hostile witness for a strategic move and that was all.

There is not proof, as testified by at least state witness that no one was behind that wall other the Mark Fuhrman and he was the only one who was on the Salinger's (sp?) side of the fence by the AC unit.

The Clark is lying about the blood drops leading from his Bronco to his front door? BTW, according to Fung, he never labeled or tested every single blood drop--which means that the blood trail did go right from the Bronco to the Front Door and somebody realized that this blood trail made no sense if Simpson was the killer.

Not to mention that he never bleed any where else on his property, even when scaling a fence and jumping to a wall.

I do not know what caused the noise. I do no that loud noises can move items inside a room or a house---however, it could not make a glove, in plastic bag jump over the fence or move it from the Bronco to behind Kato's wall. However, if your theory is correct, then it could have easily been recreated and Kato would have given a better description or a demonstration when what he did in the criminal trial.

There is no shred of evidence that Simpson was in the neighbor's yard, especially knowing that he could have used another path and not risk being seen or heard by one.

GreenIce, I’m not going to quote everything Clark wrote about how uncooperative she believed Kaelin was. If you read her book you evidently didn’t understand what she wrote about this.

The proof that someone was behind Kaelin’s room was Kaelin’s testimony that if it wasn’t an earthquake then someone was back there as well as the fact that the glove was found right behind the wall of his room. It wasn’t an earthquake.

I don’t believe Clark was lying about the blood drops she just came to the wrong conclusion. All of the blood drops that were seen were on metal, cement, plastic, or fabric. No blood drops were ever found on any natural surface except for the leaves of the plants near the victims.

There is no evidence that the glove was in a plastic bag. That was only imaginary speculation. The blood and fiber evidence found on the killer’s right hand glove points only to Simpson as handling that glove, not to anyone else.

There was no other path that Simpson could have used after parking his Bronco on Rockingham.

bobaugust

[martin II]

[QUOTE=bobaugust;9195634]

Yes there is evidence that someone scaled the fence that wasn’t revealed until some time later after the hanging foliage covering the top of the fence was trimmed back; bent wires on the top of the fence. Wires bent inwards, towards the wall that are consistent with someone putting their foot on top of the fence to jump from the Salinger’s property to the south path behind Kaelin’s room on Simpson’s property. Bent wires directly over the exact place the killer’s right hand glove was found and opposite the exact place on the back wall where the noises and vibrations occurred.

Mr. August,

Kato was never asked to go back behind the wall to give a demonstration on what he heard or where he heard it. His grand jury and and criminal trial make that clear. In fact, he was never asked to given a description of the "thumps" and I think I read somewhere that he did not describe the noise as three thumps when he first spoke to MF or Vanatter. He described it as a noise--not three thumps.

There was one bent wire not wires as bob says and that one bent wire could have been bent by the gradner or by the photographer thay stood on the fence to take pictures of the glove or it caoulkd have been bent at installation.

[martin II]

GreenIce, I’m not going to quote everything Clark wrote about how uncooperative she believed Kaelin was. If you read her book you evidently didn’t understand what she wrote about this.

The proof that someone was behind Kaelin’s room was Kaelin’s testimony that if it wasn’t an earthquake then someone was back there as well as the fact that the glove was found right behind the wall of his room. It wasn’t an earthquake.

I don’t believe Clark was lying about the blood drops she just came to the wrong conclusion. All of the blood drops that were seen were on metal, cement, plastic, or fabric. No blood drops were ever found on any natural surface except for the leaves of the plants near the victims.

There is no evidence that the glove was in a plastic bag. That was only imaginary speculation. The blood and fiber evidence found on the killer’s right hand glove points only to Simpson as handling that glove, not to anyone else.

There was no other path that Simpson could have used after parking his Bronco on Rockingham.

bobaugust

The blood drops indicate that when oj drove the bronco from his driveway to rockingham he walked in thsat gate to his house.even vanhatter testified that oj walked from thr bronco to his front door.So there was another path and he took it.

[martin II]

One of the most important facts about the gloves is that there were at least several pictures of Mr. SImpson wearing glvoes of that type. These pictures were taken when Simpson was working as a TV announcer. I think there were pictures of him wearing both black and brown gloves of that type. So he could get his hands in size extra large gloves of that type. Those pictures are more important than the sales slip. Just one of the many coincidences we have to believe if we are to think that Mr. Simpson was innocent. I think the police found a pair of black gloves like the murder gloves; but his brown pair seem to have disappeared - unless we assume that that pair were the gloves used in the murder.

wrong

Rubin when shown the pictures stated that he could not tell the color of the gloves.

[weezer]

anyone read/heard/seen ANYTHING about aris selling the leftover gloves to ANY retailer?

anyone read/heard/seen ANYTHING about someone (photographer, installer, etc) standing on the fence where the bent wire was?

[martin II]

Martin,

The gloves were pretty worn and beat up, correct? Did the DA's ever indicate what the wear and tear was from?

no they didn:t

i see no reason why oj would have kep some gloves with a hole in the poalm when he had other gloves to select from. since bloomingdales was proberly not the only store selling that glove after their christmas sale that glove was available to everyone all over the country at discounters.

[martin II]

One of the most important facts about the gloves is that there were at least several pictures of Mr. SImpson wearing glvoes of that type. These pictures were taken when Simpson was working as a TV announcer. I think there were pictures of him wearing both black and brown gloves of that type. So he could get his hands in size extra large gloves of that type. Those pictures are more important than the sales slip. Just one of the many coincidences we have to believe if we are to think that Mr. Simpson was innocent. I think the police found a pair of black gloves like the murder gloves; but his brown pair seem to have disappeared - unless we assume that that pair were the gloves used in the murder.

Simpson was right handed how could he pull her hair back to pull the one hair found on the right glove if he had the knife in his right hand.

[Kate Sachel]

I don't think any of Ms. NBS's hairs were found on the left hand glove.

I believe you may have missed the point of my pondering.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

The forcibly removed hair of Ms. NBS found on the right handed Rockingham glove does not fit the scenario of Ms. NBS being killed by a right handed murderer, since the theory is that the murderer pulled her head back and cut her throat, nor did the gloves the prosecution claimed were the murder weapons fit Simpson's hands.

I believe it is your opinion that the gloves did not fit OJ's hands. He certainly didn't have a problem snapping them off of his hands once the demonstration had concluded; interesting given the supposed struggle he had putting them on.

Kate

[martin II]

There was no evidence found that oj or anyone else walked on the sallingers property. or that anyone pushed through the heavy growth on their side of the fence or that anyone pushed through the heavy growth on ojs side of the fence or stood on top of the fence to jump to katos wall. without this proof it is just plain fishing to say someone did.imo

[martin II]

wILLIAM.
As you know oj was never able to get his hands fully into the gloves. He was only able to get his fingers part of the way into the gloves.So it is no surprise that he was able to easily pull them off as they were never fully on. if he did just flip them off. imo

[martin II]

I am having difficulty understanding a posters position that if the attacker was right handed he would have been face to face with Nicole. How does a attacker pull nicoles hair back and put his foot on her back as is claimed and then cut her neck with a right hand from behind if he is face to face with her?

[William Anthony]

I believe you may have missed the point of my pondering.

Kate

Perhaps, I have. Please explain?

[William Anthony]

I believe it is your opinion that the gloves did not fit OJ's hands. He certainly didn't have a problem snapping them off of his hands once the demonstration had concluded; interesting given the supposed struggle he had putting them on.

Kate

I think it is the majority opinion that the gloves did not fit. I think that things that do not fit come off more quickly than when they are attempted to be forced on.

[William Anthony]

Wrong, there is no evidence that contradicts Park’s testimony that the first person he saw that night was a white male come from behind the house down the pathway with a flashlight. None of Simpson’s attorneys ever disputed that part of Park’s testimony. Just because you created a fantasy that you want to believe raises doubts to you does not mean your doubts are credible.

bobaugust

It seems that quite a few understood that Park was mistaken and, hence, the need to change his testimony. I did not create a fantasy but simply reviewed all the testimony, some of which you ignore or call minor irrelevant discrepancies to support your conclusion. However, if they were minor irrelevant discrepancies the lawyers would not have tried to change or have Park change his testimony.:)

[William Anthony]

On cross examination Baker reaffirmed that Park wasn’t paying any attention to Kaelin when he finished his telephone call and that Park never saw what Kaelin did until he saw him walk “up” the driveway to the gate control box.

bobaugust

Contrary to your assertion, Mr. Baker trapped Park in his testimony and ridiculed him by making fun of the preposterous assertion that, after a two and half year period, he remembered looking at the dashboard for a minute. He trapped Park, because Park said in response to Petro's question that he saw Kato walk up the driveway but Baker made him admit that he did not see Kato walk in any direction.:) Park said in response to Mr. Baker's question was that the next time he saw Kato, Kato was at the gate box.

[William Anthony]

I have always said that the fact that Nicole’s blood had virtually little or no degradation means it could not have come from Nicole’s degraded autopsy blood reference sample. That fact conclusively proved the defense sock blood planting theory false that Nicole’s blood was planted on Simpson’s sock with blood from her reference sample.

Petrocelli simplified that fact by telling the jury that Nicole’s blood on the sock could not have been planted since there was no other sock blood planting.

bobaugust

I took umbrage with Petro's claim, which you quoted, that it was conclusively proven that the blood on the socks could not have been planted.

[William Anthony]

I don’t believe I’m being rude, I’m only pointing out the facts that you can’t seem to understand as well as how ridiculous your claim is that since Kaelin was not asked if he did what you fantasize he did you seem to think that is evidence that he actually did what you fantasized he did. I SEE, YOU DO NOT THINK IT IS RUDE TO CALL SOMEONE'S INFERENCES RIDICULOUS WHEN THEY POINT OUT THAT YOU HAVE MADE AN IDENTICAL STATEMENT ABOUT LANG. I SIMPLY POINT OUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT KATO DID NOT STOP AT OR NEAR THE ASHFORD PATHWAY AFTER MAKING HIS FIRST CURSORY SEARCH, BECAUSE (LIKE YOU SAID OF LANG) kATO WAS NOT ASKED AND YOU RESPOND TO THAT IN THE MANNER YOU HAVE.

Kaelin WAS asked what he did when he came out from behind the garage on his first investigation and he clearly testified that he saw the limo was still there so he went to the gate control box and opened the gate. He even pointed out on the prosecution exhibit how he went “up” the driveway to the gate control box. And Park corroborated that part of Kaelin’s testimony when Park pointed out on the same exhibit where he saw Kaelin come from and go “up” the driveway to the gate control box. WE ALL SEE THAT PARK'S TESTIMONY WAS MOLDED/CHANGED BY THE TIME HE TESTIFIED IN THE SOCIO POLITICAL PRODUCTION, AS THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME PARK EVER TESTIFIED TO SEEING KATO DOING ANYTHING OTHER THAN STANDING BEFORE PROCEEDING TO GO TO THE GATE CONTROL BOX.:)

Kaelin never said he went back to the Ashford pathway and stand there for a minute to two minutes before he opened the gate. That’s only a fantasy that you have imagined and any inference you make from that fantasy has no credibility. If you find that insulting, rude or disrespectful then so be it. YES, I FIND THAT INSULTING, RUDE AND DISREPECTFUL, SINCE NO ONE RESPONDED IN THE SAME WAY TO YOUR INCORRECT CLAIM ABOUT LANG. THE FACT REMAINS THAT KATO WAS NOT ASKED THOSE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AND JUDGING FROM ALL THE TESTIMONY A REASONABLE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN THAT IS THE TRUTH AS TO WHAT kATO DID, I.E. WALKED BACK UP THE DRIVEWAY TO APPROXIMATELY THE ASHFORD PATHWAY WHERE HE STOOD FOR ANOTHER MINUTE BEFORE PROCEEDING TO OPEN THE GATE.

bobaugust

I see that you have not addressed the fact that in Park's prior testimony, he stated he went to the intercom but in the socio political production he sat in the car and looked at the dashboard. Park was obviously not an adept liar, or, should I say, adept human error and mistake maker. :)

[tv]

The forcibly removed hair of Ms. NBS found on the right handed Rockingham glove does not fit the scenario of Ms. NBS being killed by a right handed murderer, since the theory is that the murderer pulled her head back and cut her throat, nor did the gloves the prosecution claimed were the murder weapons fit Simpson's hands.

Do you have a link to testimony that the killer could have been left handed? I've looked but am unable to find it.

[weezer]

". . .Athletic, easygoing and so earnest that Simpson defense lawyers secretly nicknamed him ``Abe'' - as in ``Honest Abe'' - Park exudes the incredulous air of an ordinary guy thrust into extraordinary circumstances. . ."

[William Anthony]

Do you have a link to testimony that the killer could have been left handed? I've looked but am unable to find it.

If you would please be so kind as to point out to me where I said the killer could be left handed? I think that would be the respectful thing to do. However, the inference that the killer could have been left handed is drawn from the theory of how Ms. NBS was murdered and the evidence.

[William Anthony]

I wonder if that was the name they gave him, Abe, as being sarcastic or did they adorn him with that nickname before his testimony in the socio political production.

[tv]

If you would please be so kind as to point out to me where I said the killer could be left handed? I think that would be the respectful thing to do. However, the inference that the killer could have been left handed is drawn from the theory of how Ms. NBS was murdered and the evidence.

That was the inference I got from your post #9702.

[William Anthony]

That was the inference I got from your post #9702.

From this?

The forcibly removed hair of Ms. NBS found on the right handed Rockingham glove does not fit the scenario of Ms. NBS being killed by a right handed murderer, since the theory is that the murderer pulled her head back and cut her throat, nor did the gloves the prosecution claimed were the murder weapons fit Simpson's hands.

I agree that there is a reasonable inference to be drawn from that post, which supports my position that there is reasonable doubt. I have not said that the evidence "conclusively" proves anything. I do not care to regurgitate the opinions of others, unless I agree with them, but I do look at the evidence and draw my own inferences. :)

[martin II]

A poster posted this opinion but i agree that it is not accurate or possible.

The nature of the wounds suggested that if the assailant were using the right hand, the attacker would have been face to face with Ms. Simpson. If using the left hand, the attack would have come from behind. . ."
__________________

[martin II]

That was the inference I got from your post #9702.

The problem is if the killer was right handed and pulled nicoles hair back and cut her with a knife in his right hand then i assume her hair was pulled by the killers left hand and there was no hair on the left glove.that i know of.

[tv]

From this?



I agree that there is a reasonable inference to be drawn from that post, which supports my position that there is reasonable doubt. I have not said that the evidence "conclusively" proves anything. I do not care to regurgitate the opinions of others, unless I agree with them, but I do look at the evidence and draw my own inferences. :)

I was looking for trial testimony by anyone that states that the killer could have been left handed. Thank you for saying that this is your theory only.

[tv]

The problem is if the killer was right handed and pulled nicoles hair back and cut her with a knife in his right hand then i assume her hair was pulled by the killers left hand and there was no hair on the left glove.that i know of.

Do you know if there was any testimony that the killer could have been left handed?

[William Anthony]

I was looking for trial testimony by anyone that states that the killer could have been left handed. Thank you for saying that this is your theory only.

Do you agree that the prosecution's theory was that Simpson pulled Ms. NBS's head back by pulling her hair?


Do you agree that it was the prosecution's theory that when or while Simpson pulled Ms. NBS's hair back he cut her throat?


Do you agree that the prosecution's theory was that there was little or no blood on Simpson or his clothing due to the fact that he was standing behind the victims at the time their throats were cut.

Please excuse the compound questions as I am trying to save time and feel free to answer each and every part of the questions or to ignore them, if you like.

[martin II]

Do you know if there was any testimony that the killer could have been left handed?

i never said the killer was left handed but i am looking for hair on the left glove that many have said the killer used to pull her hair back to cut her neck.

[tv]

Do you agree that the prosecution's theory was that Simpson pulled Ms. NBS's head back by pulling her hair?


Do you agree that it was the prosecution's theory that when or while Simpson pulled Ms. NBS's hair back he cut her throat?


Do you agree that the prosecution's theory was that there was little or no blood on Simpson or his clothing due to the fact that he was standing behind the victims at the time their throats were cut.

Please excuse the compound questions as I am trying to save time and feel free to answer each and every part of the questions or to ignore them, if you like.

I agree to all of those questions.

[William Anthony]

I agree to all of those questions.

Do you agree that a forcibly removed hair would probably appear on the glove of the hand that the person used to pull the person's head back by the hair?

[tv]

Do you agree that a forcibly removed hair would probably appear on the glove of the hand that the person used to pull the person's head back by the hair? Not necessarily. It could have been transferred at any time from one glove to the other or the killer could have come into contact with it from some other area of the crime scene or even from Nicole's clothing. The possibilities are endless.

[William Anthony]

'DR. LAKSHMANAN: That will support my opinion in the manner that when the head is hyperextended and a right-handed person inflicts this injury, at least a person who used his right hand to inflict this injury, the upward angle will fit the scenario which I just opined.

MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you said a right-handed person and then you talked about a person using his right hand. How do you distinguish those two concepts?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Because some people may be strong in both the hands, and some people are, so there could be equal dexterity in both extremities.

MR. KELBERG: Equal dexterity in both extremities?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: "Extremities" meaning in this case the hand?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.


MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, I don't think I asked you on stab wound no. 3 about relative positions. Would your answers be the same as to relative positions of Nicole Brown Simpson and the perpetrator in a right-handed or left-handed nature of the knife being held as they were for stab wound 1 and 2?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: All right. Now, stab wound no. 4, excuse me, if that had--stab wound had in fact hit in any fashion, either the jugular or the carotid, would that stab wound be a fatal stab wound?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And if it hit both, a fatal stab wound?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: And if it neither, a non-fatal stab wound?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Would it still be a stab wound which would produce significant bleeding if it struck neither the carotid or the jugular?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes.

MR. KELBERG: Would your--I'm sorry, did you want to add something?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: No.



MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you want to demonstrate, if you would, using me? What are the alternatives, right-handed and left-handed?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Right-handed could be in this manner (demonstrating).

MR. KELBERG: Let's turn so the jury can see.

DR. LAKSHMANAN: In this manner here (demonstrating).

MR. KELBERG: For the record, Dr. Lakshmanan and I are face-to-face. With his right hand, he's taken the ruler, and the ruler appears to be perpendicular to the side of my body where the stab wound would be located.

MR. KELBERG: Is that correct, doctor?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yeah. This is a straight penetration. But as I told you, you could have dynamics in this and it may not necessarily be that the plunge took place in this manner because the body of the victim could be turning this way and it could be just a straight plunge this way too (indicating).

MR. KELBERG: All right. How about a left-handed situation?

DR. LAKSHMANAN: Left-handed situation, it would have to be--the perpetrator would have to be more on the left side like this, in this manner, being the back of the victim, or the perpetrator could also be on the side, on his side facing the--I mean the victim could be on--the victim's side could be facing the perpetrator's knife in this manner, but little more, the victim being turning so that he could have back to front, left to right direction (demonstrating)."

[William Anthony]

Not necessarily. It could have been transferred at any time from one glove to the other or the killer could have come into contact with it from some other area of the crime scene or even from Nicole's clothing. The possibilities are endless.

The question was about one forcibly removed hair found on the right handed glove and not about possibilities but probabilities. I agree about the possibilities and when reasonable inferences can be drawn, one indicating guilt and one indicating innocence, the criminal jury was required to accept the one pointing to innocence by the jury verdict.

Would you agree that no hairs found on the left hand glove would indicate that the left hand glove probably did not come into contact with Ms. NBS's hair?

[weezer]

Nicole had long hair -- I think the reasonable inference would be that when orenthal reached around her neck, the hair that was pulled from her head was caught by the knife/hand.

[tv]

The question was about one forcibly removed hair found on the right handed glove and not about possibilities but probabilities. I agree about the possibilities and when reasonable inferences can be drawn, one indicating guilt and one indicating innocence, the criminal jury was required to accept the one pointing to innocence by the jury verdict.

Would you agree that no hairs found on the left hand glove would indicate that the left hand glove probably did not come into contact with Ms. NBS's hair?

No, I don't.

[William Anthony]

I think I understand. It is not reasonable to believe that the glove covering the hand that pulled the hair would have hair on it, whereas, the one that did pull the hair would have none on it and that one forcibly removed hair with blood only on the root of the hair would have been removed when the killer reached around to cut her throat but no blood got on the hair? I think these are stretches to make the evidence fit.:)

[tv]

I think I understand. It is not reasonable to believe that the glove covering the hand that pulled the hair would have hair on it, whereas, the one that did pull the hair would have none on it and that one forcibly removed hair with blood only on the root of the hair would have been removed when the killer reached around to cut her throat but no blood got on the hair? I think these are stretches to make the evidence fit.:)

See my post #9720. You can have hair with a root on it just by combing.

[William Anthony]

I was looking for trial testimony by anyone that states that the killer could have been left handed. Thank you for saying that this is your theory only.

Did you see the trial testimony about the left handed killer or, if you will, killer using the left hand?

[William Anthony]

See my post #9720. You can have hair with a root on it just by combing.

So, you think the killer was combing Ms. NBS's hair with his/her right hand in a glove or that the one hair from combing got on the right hand glove and none on the left? Post #9720 is mine.

[weezer]

I think I understand. It is not reasonable to believe that the glove covering the hand that pulled the hair would have hair on it, whereas, the one that did pull the hair would have none on it and that one forcibly removed hair with blood only on the root of the hair would have been removed when the killer reached around to cut her throat but no blood got on the hair? I think these are stretches to make the evidence fit.:)

testimony was that Ron was killed first; testimony was that the glove was found by Ron. What makes anyone believe that the glove was on orenthal's hand when he pulled Nicole's head back in order to cut her throat? Reasonable inference would be that orenthal lost the glove in the struggle with Ron. orenthal used his left un-gloved hand to pull Nicole's head back. Nicole's hair on the rockingham glove was caught in the knife hand.

[tv]

So, you think the killer was combing Ms. NBS's hair with his/her right hand in a glove or that the one hair from combing got on the right hand glove and none on the left? Post #9720 is mine.

Correction: #9740. No, I don't think the killer combed Nicole's hair.